Find Nearby Plumbers In Youngstown, Ohio

With only 3 reviews, the dataset is extremely small and conclusions must be treated with caution. Professionalism is mixed: one reviewer praised fast response and helpfulness, one noted a very professional furnace installation, but a third described a manager who was unprofessional and a worker who was unable to diagnose the problem. Project completion is similarly divided — the shower leak was resolved quickly and the furnace installation was completed satisfactorily, but the Christmas Eve furnace call resulted in an unresolved job, a disputed diagnosis, and the technician leaving without fixing the issue. Experience scores low due to the detailed negative account of a worker unable to identify or fix a furnace problem in over four hours, with a second company resolving it in ten minutes — a significant red flag for technical competence. Pricing data was entirely absent across all three reviews, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• VERY SMALL SAMPLE: Only 3 reviews total. No statistically reliable conclusions can be drawn.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE REVIEW: One reviewer filed a BBB complaint alleging fraud, misdiagnosis, and unskilled labor. This is a high-severity flag that significantly impacts experience and project completion scores.
• DISPUTED DIAGNOSIS: The negative reviewer claims a second company fixed the furnace in 10 minutes with no parts needed, directly contradicting Custom Comfort's assessment of a cracked heat exchanger requiring full replacement. This suggests either incompetence or dishonest upselling.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review is from July 2024. The other two reviews are from late 2022, making them over 2 years old. The dataset lacks recent volume to confirm current performance trends.
• NO PRICING DATA: The pricing dimension could not be scored at all due to zero mentions across all reviews.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — the presence of one detailed, serious fraud allegation alongside only two positive reviews makes it impossible to draw confident conclusions about this contractor's overall quality.

Resolve Services presents a deeply divided picture across its reviews. A small number of positive reviews highlight Tyler's responsiveness, quick diagnosis, and fair pricing in isolated incidents, but these are heavily outweighed by multiple detailed negative reviews describing chronic no-shows, failure to complete work, unresponsive communication, and at least one small claims court judgment against the company. Professionalism and project completion scores are severely dragged down by repeated, specific accounts of missed appointments, unanswered calls, and abandoned jobs. The most recent review (May 2024) suggests the business may no longer be operational, which further undermines confidence in any positive signals from earlier reviews. Pricing received a moderate score only because the few positive reviewers explicitly praised it, but this dimension is based on limited data relative to the serious failures documented elsewhere.

• The most recent review (May 2024) states the business does not answer calls and may be closed — this is a critical operational red flag.
• Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2021, 2022) describe the same pattern: missed appointments, no-call no-shows, and unresponsive communication — indicating a systemic and persistent problem rather than isolated incidents.
• One reviewer reports taking the company to small claims court and winning a judgment that was never paid, indicating potential financial unreliability or business instability.
• The three positive reviews (2023) are outnumbered by four detailed negative reviews and one closure-suggesting review; the positive reviews may reflect isolated good experiences with a specific technician (Tyler) rather than consistent business performance.
• Recency note: The only 2024 review is a 1-star suggesting the business is non-operational. The positive reviews are from 2023 and earlier. The overall trend is negative and worsening over time.

This WW Score is based on 8 reviews with usable data and carries moderate overall confidence; however, the score should be treated with serious caution given the consistent pattern of project abandonment, communication failures, a small claims court loss, and a 2024 indicator that the business may no longer be active.

Timlin Plumbing shows severe deficiencies across professionalism and project completion. Multiple reviews document communication failures, missed appointments, discriminatory service refusal, and failure to honor commitments. Pricing practices are deceptive, with customers charged significantly more than quoted estimates and unclear billing methodologies. One older positive review (2022) praising speed and knowledge is heavily outweighed by three recent negative reviews (2024, 2019) documenting systemic operational failures. The company's willingness to refuse service based on phone number origin and company liability structure raises additional concerns about business practices.

• CRITICAL: Two 5-star reviews (2022) use suspiciously generic, enthusiastic language with minimal specific detail ('Bravo Timlin Bravo!', 'LIFE LONG CUSTOMERS HERE!!') — potential fake reviews or outdated testimonials that do not reflect current operations
• PATTERN: Three recent reviews (2024, 2024, 2019) document consistent failures in communication, scheduling, and follow-through — suggests systemic operational problems, not isolated incidents
• DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE: Owner refused service based on customer's California phone number and company liability structure — raises serious ethical and legal concerns
• PRICING DECEPTION: Customer was quoted $99 + $89 but charged $321.50 with contradictory explanations of billing methodology — indicates either dishonest pricing or severe lack of transparency
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (June-July 2024) are overwhelmingly negative, while positive reviews are from 2022 and earlier — suggests deterioration in service quality or business practices over time

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews) and significant recency disparity, but the consistency of recent negative findings across multiple dimensions and the presence of potential fake older reviews suggest the low score accurately reflects current operational problems. The WW Score of 38.2 is conservative and reliable for decision-making purposes.

Ted Serjak's WW Score is severely depressed by consistent patterns of poor professionalism and project completion failures across multiple reviews spanning a decade. Three of four reviews explicitly document missed appointments, lack of communication, failure to follow up, and broken promises—with one customer experiencing a 3-hour delay that resulted in property damage costing $500. While one positive review from 2023 praises fairness and reliability, it provides no specific details and is outweighed by detailed negative accounts. The single mention of technical competence (repair done correctly) is insufficient to offset systemic operational failures. Pricing concerns appear in two reviews, with one customer charged $250 for 20 minutes of work.

• CRITICAL: Three of four reviews (75%) are 1-star ratings documenting serious service failures. Pattern is consistent across 10+ years (2013–2023), suggesting systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 5–10 years old (2013, 2016, 2018), but the 2023 positive review lacks specificity and detail compared to detailed negative accounts. Cannot determine if business practices have improved.
• CREDIBILITY ISSUE: One 1-star review (2018) mentions customer conducted independent research and found multiple other victims with similar complaints. This suggests pattern of unreliability beyond single dissatisfied customer.
• LEGAL THREAT: 2018 review documents contractor threatened legal action against customer, raising professionalism and ethics concerns.
• INCOMPLETE DATA: Positive 2023 review is generic and provides no specific examples of work performed, communication quality, or timeline adherence—making it difficult to assess whether recent performance has improved.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to small sample size (4 reviews), but the consistency and specificity of negative accounts across a decade, combined with documented pattern of complaints, suggests genuine operational and professionalism issues. The single positive review lacks sufficient detail to meaningfully counterbalance three detailed negative experiences.

Chaz Plumbing LLC demonstrates severe deficiencies across professionalism and project completion. Seven reviews explicitly document failures in communication, responsiveness, and follow-through: missed appointments without notice, ignored calls and emails, and refusal to return to complete work. Two positive reviews from late 2023 praise fair pricing and technical knowledge, but these are heavily outweighed by six recent negative reviews (2024 and late 2023) documenting incomplete repairs, defective installations, and abandonment of jobs. The contractor's pattern of non-responsiveness and unfinished work is consistent and well-documented across multiple independent accounts.

• CRITICAL: Six of eight reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed complaints of non-responsiveness, abandoned work, and false claims to warranty companies. This is not a pattern of isolated complaints but systematic failure.
• Two positive reviews (5-star, late 2023) appear genuine with specific details (water heater installation, sink replacement) but are vastly outnumbered by recent negative reviews.
• Multiple reviews document the same contractor (Chaz Geyer) making false statements to home warranty companies and refusing to return service fees—potential fraud indicators.
• Recent reviews (2024) show escalating severity: incomplete repairs, defective parts, and complete communication breakdown.
• No fake review pattern detected; negative reviews contain specific dates, details, and consistent themes of non-responsiveness.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on eight reviews with consistent, detailed documentation of failures across multiple dimensions, particularly professionalism and project completion. The recent timing (majority from 2024) and specificity of complaints (dates, warranty interactions, defective parts) provide strong evidence of current operational problems.

Two of the three reviews describe serious failures across nearly every dimension, including installation of wrong-sized equipment, fire hazards, suspected gas leaks, missing components, and outright dishonesty. The single positive review (Review 2) praises professionalism, pricing, and follow-through, but it stands alone against two detailed and severe negative accounts. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with Review 1 describing a dangerously undersized and uncharged AC unit and damaged ductwork, and Review 3 describing missing filters, a suspected gas leak, and unresolved safety concerns. Experience scores are similarly low given allegations of improper installation techniques and safety code violations. The one positive review prevents scores from bottoming out entirely but cannot offset the weight of two highly specific, credible negative accounts.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated with caution due to very small sample size.
• Review 1 (2024) describes a potentially dangerous installation: wrong AC unit size (1.5 ton installed instead of 3 ton), uncharged refrigerant, damaged ductwork, and an AC fire — these are serious safety and fraud allegations.
• Review 3 (2015) describes a suspected gas leak that was not properly investigated, missing furnace filters, and employee dishonesty — additional serious safety concerns.
• Review 2 is the sole positive review and is notably generic in some praise ('very polite, professional and honest'), though it does include specific details (two installs, chimney sleeve, same-day response) that reduce fake review suspicion.
• Review 1 and Review 3 are highly specific and independently describe patterns of dishonesty and substandard workmanship, lending them significant credibility.
• Review 3 is dated 2015 and falls well outside the 12-month recency window; however, Review 1 is from May 2024 and describes similar patterns, suggesting the issues may be ongoing.
• The positive review (2022) is also outside the 12-month recency window, meaning no recent positive data exists to counterbalance the 2024 negative review.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered LOW reliability; however, the two negative reviews are detailed, specific, and describe serious safety and integrity failures that cannot be dismissed, and the pattern across a 2015 and 2024 review suggests persistent problems rather than isolated incidents.