Find Nearby Plumbers In Reading, Pennsylvania

This contractor's review profile is deeply concerning across all four dimensions. Two of the four reviews are scathing 1-star accounts describing serious issues: operating without insurance or a mercantile license, keeping deposits improperly, lying about credentials, and delivering visibly defective concrete work with uneven steps. The two positive reviews are older (2019) and lack the specificity needed to fully offset the serious allegations. Professionalism scores particularly low due to explicit reports of deception, unprofessional payment demands (CashApp only), and aggressive behavior when challenged. Project completion is also heavily penalized due to a two-week delay, a botched concrete job, and an unreturned deposit. Pricing receives a moderate score only because one positive reviewer mentioned affordability, but this is undermined by the deposit-retention complaint.

• SERIOUS CREDENTIAL CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor has no insurance and no mercantile license, and that he lied about this when confronted. This is a significant legal and safety red flag.
• DEPOSIT FRAUD ALLEGATION: A reviewer reports that the contractor took a deposit and refused to fully refund it after being found to be operating without required credentials. This may constitute fraudulent business practice.
• OPERATING UNDER MULTIPLE BUSINESS NAMES: The 1-star reviewer warns that the contractor is 'now working under yet another business name to scam people,' suggesting a pattern of identity-switching to avoid accountability.
• PAYMENT METHOD RED FLAG: Requesting CashApp as a payment method is noted as unprofessional and may be used to avoid traceable transactions.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both positive reviews are from 2019 (over 5 years old). The most recent review (2022) is a 1-star fraud allegation. The overall trend is negative over time.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The 5-star review from 2019-07-13 uses generic praise language ('very professional,' 'quality and professionalism,' 'affordable price') with no specific details beyond TV mounting. It cannot be confirmed as fake but warrants caution.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. Scores carry limited statistical reliability and should not be treated as definitive.

This WW Score should be treated with very low trust — the small review sample, the serious fraud and credential allegations in the most recent review, the age of the positive reviews, and the pattern of operating under multiple business names all combine to make this contractor a high-risk hire.

MW Service Company demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by chronic unresponsiveness, missed appointments, no-shows, and failure to return calls—patterns evident in 6 of 7 reviews. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with multiple reviews documenting incomplete work, repeated failures requiring callbacks, incorrect installations, and jobs abandoned for weeks or months. Technical experience is questionable, with documented instances of incorrect wiring, improper coolant handling, wrong compressor installation, and repeated misdiagnosis. Only one positive review (5-star) praises honesty and efficiency, but this is heavily outweighed by six 1-star reviews spanning 2016–2019 describing systemic operational failure.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF COMPLAINTS: 6 of 7 reviews are 1-star ratings with consistent themes of non-responsiveness, missed appointments, and incomplete work. This is not isolated criticism but systemic failure.
• TECHNICAL COMPETENCE CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document incorrect installations, improper wiring of major equipment, and repeated misdiagnosis—raising safety and liability questions.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2016–2019 (all older than 5 years). No recent reviews available to assess whether company has improved.
• SINGLE POSITIVE REVIEW: The one 5-star review (2019-03-08) is notably brief and generic compared to detailed negative reviews, but appears legitimate and not fabricated.

This WW Score of 24.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong indicator of poor service quality. The consistency of negative feedback across multiple dimensions and years, combined with documented safety concerns, provides HIGH confidence that this company presents significant risk to customers.

This contractor receives consistently poor marks across most dimensions, driven primarily by severe pricing complaints across three of four reviews. Individual technicians (notably Joe) are praised for attitude and knowledge, which partially lifts the professionalism and experience scores, but these positives are undermined by systemic issues with billing practices, inaccurate estimates, and alleged price gouging. Project completion is flagged in one review as requiring multiple visits to fix work properly, and another review describes being charged for a two-person job performed by one technician over extended hours. Only one review is clearly positive across all dimensions, and it is the oldest in the set.

• Three out of four reviews explicitly cite overpricing or price gouging — this is a strong and consistent negative signal for the pricing dimension.
• One review (2018) alleges that technicians required multiple visits to complete work properly, suggesting possible quality control issues.
• The sole positive review (2018) is generic in some respects but does include specific detail about propane/mobile home expertise, so it is not flagged as fake.
• All reviews are dated between 2017 and 2020 — none are within the past 12 months relative to a 2025 evaluation date. Recency is poor; business practices may have changed but cannot be confirmed from this data.
• Small sample size of only 4 reviews significantly limits reliability. WW Score should be treated with caution.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all more than 4 years old, and should be considered LOW reliability — the score directionally reflects serious pricing concerns but cannot be considered a definitive assessment of current business quality.

This contractor's review profile is deeply mixed and concerning. Two of the three reviews are negative, with one describing a complete failure to respond to a potential customer and another alleging a job left unfinished for over six months with 'lies and deception.' The single positive review praises Jeff's professionalism, communication, and quality of work, but it stands alone against two critical complaints. Project completion is the most alarming dimension, with explicit evidence of abandoned work and broken promises. The overall picture suggests significant reliability and follow-through issues that prospective customers should take seriously.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with extreme caution.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (oldest: 2017, newest: 2019) — no recent data available to assess current performance.
• One review explicitly alleges unfinished work after 6+ months and describes 'lies and deception' — a serious project completion red flag.
• One review reports complete non-responsiveness to contact attempts — a professionalism concern.
• The single 5-star review is enthusiastic but lacks specific project details, which slightly reduces its evidentiary weight against the two detailed negative reviews.
• Review spread spans 2017–2019 with no reviews in the past several years — business activity and quality may have changed significantly.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 4 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek more current references before hiring.

The reviews paint a deeply concerning picture of this contractor across nearly every dimension. Professionalism suffered significantly due to an incompetent technician leaving dangerous aquastat settings, a service manager who was dismissive and unhelpful, and a refusal to accept accountability for costly errors. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: one reviewer describes a boiler installed incorrectly, a promised hot water heater never installed, and resolution only achieved after court intervention. Experience scores are low due to documented technical errors that caused real financial harm to a customer, though one reviewer did note a prior positive experience. Pricing received a slightly higher but still poor score, as one reviewer noted price was the only problem after an otherwise fine job, suggesting some value but not consistent affordability.

• One review has 'unknown' text with a 5-star rating and no detail — this review was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data and may be a placeholder or fake entry.
• The oldest negative review dates to 2007 and the most recent usable review is from 2013 — all reviews are more than 10 years old, severely limiting relevance to current contractor performance.
• Only 4 total reviews exist, which is an extremely small sample size. The WW Score should be treated with significant caution.
• Two of the three usable reviews are 1-star with detailed, specific complaints involving technical incompetence, refusal to honor commitments, and legal disputes — these are serious red flags.
• The single positive review (2010) notes price as a concern, meaning no review is entirely without criticism.

This WW Score is based on only 3 usable reviews, all more than 10 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable as a reflection of current contractor quality — however, the severity and specificity of the negative reviews warrant serious caution.

JDM Property Renovations and owner Daniel Mosquera demonstrate severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Four of five reviews report critical failures in project completion, with incomplete work, extended delays, and complete abandonment of projects. Professionalism is severely compromised by non-responsiveness, ghosting clients, and failure to honor callbacks after BBB and consumer protection complaints. Pricing concerns emerge in multiple reviews involving unexpected cost increases and non-refunded deposits. The single 5-star review lacks specificity and appears inconsistent with the pattern of detailed negative feedback, raising authenticity concerns.

• FAKE REVIEW DETECTED: Review dated 2024-07-18 (5-star rating) is suspiciously generic ('amazing job, Thanks Dan') with no specific details, appearing immediately after three detailed 1-star reviews. This pattern suggests potential review manipulation.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Four of five reviews explicitly describe project abandonment, non-responsiveness, ghosting, or failure to complete work. This is a critical red flag.
• REGULATORY COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews reference BBB complaints and consumer protection agency filings, indicating formal complaints beyond individual dissatisfaction.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT: Reviews document non-refunded deposits ($4K+), unexpected cost increases mid-project, and payment taken without service completion.
• RECENCY: Four of five reviews are from 2024 (within past 4 months), indicating ongoing issues are current, not historical.

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. The score is based on consistent, detailed, and corroborated negative feedback across multiple dimensions with high mention counts, supported by evidence of formal regulatory complaints and financial disputes. The contractor demonstrates systematic failures in professionalism, project completion, and customer communication.