Find Nearby Plumbers In Scranton, Pennsylvania

Insufficient data to calculate WW Score. The single review provided makes serious criminal allegations (theft, assault, incarceration) but contains no evaluable information about the four WW Score dimensions: professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience. The review does not describe any work performed, pricing, timeline, or quality of workmanship. This appears to be a personal character attack rather than a service review.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review contains criminal allegations but no service-related content relevant to WW Score dimensions
• Review does not evaluate any aspect of plumbing/contracting work, pricing, professionalism in service delivery, or technical skill
• Cannot assess legitimacy of allegations or whether they relate to work performance

This score cannot be calculated or trusted — there is insufficient review data and the single review provided does not contain evaluable information about contractor service quality.

This single review documents severe failures across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. The contractor failed to start work after collecting a $2,200 deposit, provided excuses repeatedly, became unresponsive to customer contact, did not appear for court proceedings, and left the customer with an outstanding $1,500 debt. No work was completed and no follow-through occurred. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as the scoring methodology requires a minimum of 3 reviews to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• SEVERE CONDUCT ISSUES: Review documents non-appearance in court, unresponsiveness, deposit non-refund, and potential fraud. This represents critical business conduct failure.
• LEGAL ACTION: Customer filed civil lawsuit and is pursuing lien. This indicates serious contractual breach.
• RECENCY: Review is from April 2017 (7+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess current business practices.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (1 review, minimum 3 required). The single review presents extremely negative evidence of contractor misconduct, but a single data point is insufficient to generate a trustworthy WW Score. Additional recent reviews are essential before any scoring can be considered valid.

This single detailed review paints a mixed but informative picture of ATMS. On professionalism, the crew was described as fun and personable, but serious concerns emerged around contract transparency, unresponsive communication when billing disputes arose, and a pattern of significant delays across multiple projects. Pricing received a low score due to an explicit account of budget ballooning from an estimated $15k to nearly $40k, with the reviewer suggesting the final cost was inflated based on their disclosed budget rather than fair market value for the work. Project completion was notably problematic — the major project ran months past its deadline, finishing work was left incomplete to the point the homeowner finished it themselves, and quality issues including untaped drywall seams, air bubbles under tape, and misaligned electrical boxes were discovered afterward. Experience scores moderately because ATMS demonstrated genuine skill in plumbing-specific tasks (tankless water heater, toilet reseating, gas capping, joist sistering) but fell short on finish carpentry, drywall, and electrical alignment work.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• The single review is highly detailed and credible, containing specific dollar amounts, dates, task lists, and named individuals — no fake review indicators detected.
• Significant pricing concern flagged: reviewer explicitly states the final cost nearly tripled the initial estimate and attributes the inflation to their disclosed budget ceiling.
• Project completion concern flagged: major project delayed by approximately 3 months, finishing work never completed by contractor, homeowner completed remaining work themselves.
• Quality concern flagged: untaped drywall seams, trapped air bubbles under tape, and multiple misaligned electrical outlet boxes documented post-completion.
• Communication concern flagged: billing dispute response was a blank email with the original contract attached — no substantive engagement from contractor leadership.
• Review is from June 2024, within the past 12 months — recency is strong and data is current.

This score is based on a single detailed review and should be treated as directional only — the WW Score cannot be formally calculated, and all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence until additional reviews are analyzed.

Only one review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The single reviewer praised same-day responsiveness, courteous behavior, and a knowledgeable technician, all of which positively inform professionalism and experience. Project completion appears strong given the job was finished in under an hour with no mention of issues. Pricing was not mentioned at all, leaving that dimension entirely unscored. Scores are kept conservative across all dimensions due to the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated 2017-08-31, making it over 7 years old. Recency weighting is very low — this review may not reflect current service quality.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• With only one review, fake review detection is not meaningful, but the review is generic in nature with no highly specific details (e.g., technician name, specific repair type), which warrants mild caution.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (1 review) and the significant age of the only available review (2017), meaning no meaningful conclusions about current contractor quality can be drawn.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a statistically meaningful WW Score. The single review does provide positive signals on professionalism (responsiveness, professional attitude), fair pricing, and technical judgment (knowing their limitations), but with only one data point, confidence in any aggregate score is severely limited.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Project completion dimension has no explicit mention in the available review
• All dimension scores based on LIMITED confidence due to insufficient sample size

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score with only 1 review; a minimum of 3 independent reviews is required to generate trustworthy scoring.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions pricing positively ('Great Price'), project completion (washer/dryer installed and working), and quality of work, but provides no explicit detail on professionalism dimensions such as punctuality, communication, or responsiveness.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2022 (over 2 years old) — recency is a concern
• Generic praise language ('Great service', 'Highly recommended') with minimal specific detail
• No explicit mention of professionalism factors (punctuality, communication, attitude)

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.