Find Nearby Plumbers In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

This contractor shows severe and consistent deficiencies across professionalism and project completion. Two reviews (2020, 2022) describe abandonment of work, deposit theft, and unresponsiveness—critical failures. A third review (2019) documents billing integrity issues and overcharging. Two older positive reviews (2015, 2019) praise workmanship and fair pricing, but they are substantially outweighed by recent evidence of fraud and non-completion. The contractor appears to operate under multiple names (Nhan Le, Les) and demonstrates a pattern of taking deposits and failing to deliver.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2020, 2022) allege deposit theft and job abandonment—potential fraud pattern
• CRITICAL: Contractor appears to operate under multiple names (Nhan Le vs. Les), raising identity/legitimacy concerns
• Recency issue: Two positive reviews are from 2015 and 2019; most recent reviews (2020, 2022) are highly negative
• Billing integrity complaint (2019) suggests pattern of overcharging and questionable practices
• One review mentions permits pulled under contractor's name with alleged false statements to township—legal/regulatory red flag

This score should be treated with HIGH caution and skepticism toward the contractor. While sample size is small (5 reviews), the pattern of recent abandonment, deposit theft, and unresponsiveness allegations is severe and consistent enough to warrant strong avoidance. The two positive reviews are significantly older and may not reflect current business practices.

This contractor receives a critically low WW Score of 32.1, driven by severe and consistent failures across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. Four of five reviews explicitly document unprofessional behavior including failure to complete promised work, unwarranted charges for services not rendered, aggressive communication tactics, and inappropriate workplace conduct. Pricing concerns are pervasive, with customers reporting inflated estimates, undisclosed charges, and allegations of fraudulent reporting to justify unnecessary work. Project completion is severely compromised, with multiple instances of incomplete work, broken callbacks, and lack of follow-through. Only two reviews mention technical experience positively, but these are heavily outweighed by the overwhelming negative evidence.

• CRITICAL: Four of five reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints about billing fraud, incomplete work, and unprofessional conduct. This is not a pattern of isolated incidents but systemic business practice issues.
• Multiple reviews allege financial misconduct: charging for work not performed, inflated estimates ($8,000 and $25,000 claims), and undisclosed charges ($390 pump-out called without authorization).
• Professionalism red flag: Review 1 documents inappropriate workplace conduct (political commentary, discriminatory remarks toward minorities and foreigners) and poor communication (talking over customers, ignoring callbacks).
• Project completion failures documented across multiple reviews: incomplete septic pumping, no follow-up invoices, broken promises to return and complete work, and failure to honor service callbacks.
• Review dates span 2017–2022, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents but ongoing patterns of behavior.
• Two positive reviews (2020, 2018) lack detail and specificity, but are substantially outweighed by four detailed negative reviews with explicit evidence of harm.

This WW Score of 32.1 should be trusted with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence. The score is based on five reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific allegations of fraud, incomplete work, and unprofessional conduct across a 5-year period. The overwhelming negative evidence (4 of 5 reviews at 1-star with explicit documentation of failures) strongly suggests systemic business practice problems rather than isolated customer dissatisfaction. This contractor presents significant financial and service delivery risk.

Two of the three reviews describe serious negative experiences including misdiagnosis of a plumbing problem, overcharging, and lack of follow-through after the work failed to resolve the issue. The single positive review praises responsiveness, communication, and fair pricing, but it is outnumbered and dated to 2019. Pricing is the most consistently flagged concern, with two reviewers explicitly describing charges they considered excessive or deceptive — one paying $600 for a job assessed as worth under $179, and another paying $266.56 for an incorrect diagnosis. Project completion is severely undermined by the misdiagnosis case, where the root cause was never identified and the contractor became unresponsive. Experience scores low due to the documented misdiagnosis and the use of the cheapest available parts without disclosure.

• Two of three reviews describe potential predatory pricing practices — one reviewer alleges the contractor asked if she lived alone before quoting a price, suggesting deliberate targeting of vulnerable customers.
• The sole positive review is from December 2019 and is the oldest review in the set; both negative reviews post-date it, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• All three reviews are older than 12 months relative to a current 2024/2025 date — the most recent is from August 2021. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• With only 3 reviews total, the dataset is at the minimum threshold for score calculation. Results should be treated as highly preliminary and not representative of long-term performance.
• The positive review uses enthusiastic, promotional-style language ('best plumber in the Medford area', 'Call DAN REHMANN') which, while not conclusive, warrants mild scrutiny for authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than 3 years, and should be treated as low-reliability — the score directionally reflects serious concerns but cannot be considered statistically representative of this contractor's overall performance.

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension across all three reviews and paints a deeply concerning picture: two separate reviewers describe the owner and his son as disrespectful, inconsiderate of neighbors, and dismissive when confronted — including an incident of using a neighbor's property without permission. Only one positive review exists, which praises the crew's experience, reasonable pricing, and ability to complete a complex sewer lateral job. Because two of the three reviews are strongly negative on conduct and attitude, the professionalism score is heavily penalized. Pricing, project completion, and experience each rest on a single positive review, making those scores LOW confidence and not sufficient to offset the professionalism concerns.

• Two of three reviews are 1-star and describe specific, credible incidents of disrespectful behavior by the owner and his son — this is a significant professionalism red flag.
• The single 5-star review is positive but somewhat generic in praise; it lacks granular detail about the finished work quality, though it does reference a specific job type (sewer lateral repair).
• Review volume is extremely low (3 reviews total). The WW Score cannot be considered reliable with this sample size.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (all dated 2020–2022), meaning there is no recent data to assess whether conduct or quality has improved.
• The negative reviews come from neighbors rather than direct clients, which is relevant context — but the behavior described (blocking streets for hours, refusing to move vehicles, taking property without asking) reflects directly on professionalism and business conduct.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are strongly negative on professionalism, and should be treated as highly unreliable — a much larger and more recent review sample is needed before drawing any confident conclusions about this contractor.

This review dataset cannot be scored using the WW Score methodology because it does not pertain to a contractor/plumber service business. The majority of reviews (approximately 40 of 57) are for a UPS Store location, covering retail customer service, shipping, printing, and notary services. The remaining reviews (approximately 17 of 57) are for Veteran Plumbing and Heating, a legitimate plumbing/HVAC contractor. The mixed dataset prevents reliable scoring of either business independently. Additionally, the UPS Store reviews contain significant quality issues including empty reviews, suspicious clustering of 5-star ratings on identical dates, and potential fake review patterns.

• CRITICAL: Dataset contains reviews for two completely different businesses—UPS Store (retail) and Veteran Plumbing and Heating (contractor). Cannot produce unified WW Score.
• UPS Store reviews show suspicious patterns: 8 reviews with identical 5.0 rating on 2025-05-10 and 2025-04-10, including 2 completely empty reviews. Suggests potential fake review injection.
• UPS Store reviews contain highly polarized sentiment (extreme 1-star and 5-star ratings with little middle ground), inconsistent employee names (Maya/Mya/Mye), and generic praise language.
• Veteran Plumbing reviews are legitimate and detailed but represent only ~30% of dataset. Scoring methodology requires focus on single business entity.
• If scoring Veteran Plumbing alone (17 reviews): HIGH confidence possible. If scoring UPS Store alone (40 reviews): LOW confidence due to fake review indicators.

This dataset cannot produce a reliable WW Score because it conflates two entirely different businesses. Separate analysis of each business is required. The UPS Store reviews show signs of manipulation and should be treated with skepticism. Veteran Plumbing reviews appear authentic and detailed but are insufficient in isolation for full WW Score calculation.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 4 reviews analyzed, all uniformly negative with no positive counterbalance. All reviews cite serious failures: incomplete work (water main concrete repair abandoned after 3+ months), failed clog removal requiring re-service, alleged unprofessional conduct, and incomplete diagnostics with no resolution. Pricing complaints appear in 3 reviews citing overcharges relative to competitors. No reviews mention positive professionalism, timely completion, or skilled workmanship.

• CRITICAL: All 4 reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly severe complaints — no positive reviews present to validate scoring
• Review #3 (2023-11-03) contains highly unusual language and alleged personal insults; credibility questionable but complaint pattern consistent with other reviews
• Review #4 (2021-07-07) is over 3 years old and outside typical recency window; included for completeness but represents older service period
• No evidence of fake reviews detected; complaints are specific and detailed across different service types (water main, clog removal, disposal/leak diagnosis)
• Sample size of 4 is below minimum threshold of 5+ reviews for reliable scoring; confidence in any dimension is inherently limited

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (4 reviews, minimum 5 required) and complete absence of positive feedback; however, the uniformly negative pattern across all dimensions suggests serious operational and quality issues that warrant extreme caution.