Find Nearby Plumbers In Newark, Ohio

Brady receives consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions from a small but coherent set of reviews. Professionalism is the most frequently and enthusiastically mentioned trait, with reviewers highlighting punctuality, clear communication, respectfulness, and a willingness to explain work to customers. Project completion scores are also high, with multiple reviewers noting same-day or next-day service and jobs finished thoroughly and to code. Experience is supported by specific mentions of technical knowledge, code compliance, and effective problem-solving on a water heater installation and a sprinkler leak. Pricing is noted positively in two reviews using the word 'affordable' and one generic mention, though limited detail prevents a higher score.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific, varied details that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Sample size is very small (5 reviews). Scores and the WW Score should be treated as directionally useful but not statistically robust.
• All reviews fall within a roughly 4-month window (April–July 2024), which limits long-term reliability assessment but does confirm recency.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, all positive and recent, with enough specific detail to be credible but too few in number to be considered a fully reliable representation of consistent contractor performance.

The contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and communication across 8 reviews. Project completion is highly rated with 9 mentions emphasizing timely job delivery, quality workmanship, and successful inspections. Technical experience is well-documented across 6 reviews highlighting knowledgeable problem-solving and skilled installation work. However, a critical pricing concern emerges from one explicit negative review detailing a mid-project estimate increase, which significantly impacts the pricing dimension. The overall WW Score of 82.3 reflects strong execution and professionalism tempered by pricing transparency issues.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 11 of 16 reviews are undated (no date provided), while 5 recent reviews are dated June-May 2025. This creates a recency bias concern and makes temporal trend analysis impossible.
• GENERIC PRAISE RISK: Multiple reviews use very brief, generic language ('Awesome job', 'Quality work!', 'Great communication') with minimal specific detail, which could indicate inflated or template-based reviews.
• PRICING RED FLAG: One explicit negative review (1-star, dated 2025-05-19) documents a bait-and-switch pricing scenario where the contractor requested additional money mid-project after an agreed estimate. This is a serious professionalism and pricing integrity issue that directly contradicts the overwhelmingly positive ratings.
• COMMUNICATION INCONSISTENCY: Another 1-star review (undated) reports the contractor misrepresented service area availability, suggesting potential communication or honesty issues despite other reviews praising responsiveness.
• CONFIDENCE LIMITATION: 69% of reviews lack dates, making it impossible to assess recency weighting per Rule 6. Confidence in overall score is reduced accordingly.

This score should be treated with caution due to undated reviews, generic praise patterns, and a documented pricing integrity incident that contradicts the 5-star majority. The contractor shows genuine strengths in professionalism and project completion, but the pricing concern and communication inconsistencies warrant verification before engagement.

Scott demonstrates strong technical competence and responsiveness across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for quick response times and quality workmanship. However, a severe 2020 incident involving substance abuse, verbal abuse, and property damage significantly impacts the professionalism score despite five positive reviews praising his politeness and courtesy. Project completion is solid with evidence of timely work and follow-through. The pricing dimension has no explicit mentions in any review. The 2020 incident is recent enough to be material and suggests serious behavioral/reliability concerns that contradict the overwhelmingly positive narrative from older reviews.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2020-05-14) describes severe misconduct including alleged substance abuse (meth and alcohol), verbal abuse, property damage causation, and unprofessional behavior. This directly contradicts the uniformly positive tone of other reviews and suggests either a significant change in business operations or potential reliability issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Five of seven reviews are from 2015-2019 (older than 5 years). Only two reviews are from 2024 and 2020. The most recent positive review is from May 2024, but the severe negative incident is from May 2020, creating temporal uncertainty about current business standards.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Five reviews (2015-2019) use nearly identical phrasing patterns ('quick/fast response', 'polite/courteous', 'highly recommend/exceptional'). While not conclusive, the consistency combined with the dramatic 2020 incident raises questions about review authenticity or selective reporting.
• BUSINESS TRANSITION: The 2020 review explicitly mentions 'since the son has taken over' suggesting a management change. This may explain the quality variance, but it creates ambiguity about which version of the business current customers should expect.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical competence appears solid, the severe 2020 incident involving substance abuse and verbal abuse is a material red flag that cannot be ignored despite positive reviews. The age of most positive reviews and the recency of the critical incident suggest the business may have experienced significant changes. Prospective customers should seek recent references and clarify current ownership/management before engaging.

David demonstrates strong professionalism across all four reviews, with consistent praise for communication, politeness, punctuality, and responsiveness (82.5/100). His technical expertise and workmanship are clearly evident in three reviews describing successful plumbing work (87.5/100). However, project completion is significantly weakened by one critical failure: a 2023 review where he failed to follow up on a hot water tank assessment, leaving the customer waiting two weeks with no communication before they moved to another contractor (65.0/100). No pricing information was mentioned in any review. The WW Score of 78.3 reflects strong fundamentals undermined by a serious follow-through failure.

• One review (2023-05-03) describes a significant project abandonment or failure to follow up, which directly contradicts the positive pattern in other reviews. This is a material concern for reliability.
• Three of four reviews are older than 12 months (2020, 2022, 2023), with only one recent review from 2024. Limited recent data limits confidence in current performance.
• No pricing or value-for-money feedback provided in any review, making that dimension impossible to assess.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While professionalism and experience scores are solid, the documented project completion failure in 2023 is a serious red flag that cannot be ignored, and the small sample size with limited recent data reduces overall confidence in predicting future performance.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with multiple reviews praising promptness, friendliness, and knowledge. However, project completion is a significant concern—two detailed reviews document incomplete work, broken promises, and difficulty obtaining follow-through on contracted repairs. Pricing appears fair based on limited mentions, though one customer disputed value relative to incomplete delivery. The stark contrast between highly positive recent reviews (2021) and serious completion failures (2022–2024) suggests inconsistent performance or deterioration over time.

• CRITICAL: Two severe project completion failures documented (2022 and 2024 reviews). The 2022 review details incomplete sewer line work, broken promises on video delivery, contradictory statements, and unresolved warranty claims. The 2024 review reports job never completed with minimal communication.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2021 (11 of 13 reviews). The two most recent reviews (2024 and 2023) contain serious complaints about incomplete work and poor follow-through, suggesting possible performance decline.
• OWNERSHIP/LIABILITY ISSUE: 2022 review indicates contractor claimed to have sold the company and transferred ownership, complicating warranty and accountability.
• PATTERN ALERT: Multiple positive reviews from July 2021 use similar generic phrasing ('great job,' 'very professional') with minimal detail, though this may reflect platform review style rather than fabrication.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by consistent positive feedback, the project completion dimension is undermined by two detailed, credible complaints about incomplete work spanning 2022–2024, which directly contradicts the overwhelmingly positive 2021 reviews. The WW Score reflects a contractor with strong initial reputation but documented serious failures in delivery and accountability.

James Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with consistent praise for friendliness, responsiveness, and punctuality across 8 reviews. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and transparent, though one 2021 review alleges significant overcharging ($6000 vs $3000 competitor quote). Project completion is reliable for routine work, but a detailed 2018 complaint describes sloppy workmanship, missing tools, and incomplete installations on a major job, suggesting inconsistency on complex projects. Technical skill appears competent for standard plumbing but the 2018 review raises concerns about quality control on premium work. The score reflects strong fundamentals undermined by one serious quality incident.

• One review (2018-09-15) contains extremely detailed, specific complaints about workmanship quality, tool theft, and owner defensiveness on a major project—this is a credible negative outlier, not a fake review.
• One review (2015-05-29) contains only a period (.) with a 5-star rating—this appears to be a placeholder or incomplete submission and was excluded from scoring.
• One review (2004-05-12) is 20 years old and uses all-caps formatting; while not fake, it carries minimal weight due to extreme age.
• Review dates show significant clustering: 4 reviews from 2020-2024 (recent), 3 from 2015-2017 (older), 1 from 2018 (negative), 1 from 2004 (very old). Recent reviews are uniformly positive; older reviews include the major quality complaint.
• The 2021 one-star review alleging $6000 overcharge is brief and lacks detail, making it harder to verify, but aligns with the 2018 complaint pattern of potential pricing/value issues on larger jobs.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While recent reviews (2020–2024) are consistently positive and support a higher rating, a detailed 2018 complaint about sloppy workmanship and the 2021 overcharge allegation suggest quality and pricing inconsistency on complex or premium projects. The company appears reliable for routine plumbing but may have execution gaps on larger jobs. Prospective customers should request references for work similar in scope to their project.