Find Nearby Plumbers In Scranton, Pennsylvania

This contractor shows a deeply inconsistent track record across all dimensions. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by multiple reviews citing no-call-no-shows, failure to return calls, and dismissive communication — a pattern spanning 2018 through 2024, suggesting this is not an isolated issue. Project completion is similarly troubled, with at least two explicit cases of work left unfinished or jobs never started after payment or agreement, including one reviewer considering legal action. On the positive side, a handful of reviews do praise friendly workers, quick turnaround, and clean job sites, which prevents scores from bottoming out entirely. Pricing data is sparse but mildly positive, with one reviewer noting reasonable pricing and another accepting the cost as fair for expertise. The experience dimension shows genuine skill when the team does show up, including solving a problem a previous plumber could not, but this is undermined by the reliability failures that prevent that skill from being consistently delivered.

• PATTERN OF NON-RESPONSE: Multiple reviews across different years (2018, 2019, 2023) explicitly describe the company failing to call back after initial contact or after agreeing to a job. This is a systemic reliability issue, not an isolated incident.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / POSSIBLE ABANDONMENT: At least one reviewer (2018) states they paid for a job that was never completed and were considering legal action. A second reviewer (2024) describes post-installation quality defects suggesting incomplete or substandard finishing.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (2024 and 2023) are both negative, suggesting performance may have declined or not improved over time. Positive reviews are predominantly from 2018–2022.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One reviewer (2024) was not informed upfront that two workers would be billed, indicating a potential lack of pricing transparency.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating. No suspicious patterns of identical phrasing or coordinated generic praise were identified.

This WW Score is based on 10 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries MODERATE overall confidence; the score of 52.3 is considered a fair reflection of a contractor with genuine skill but serious and recurring reliability, communication, and project completion failures.

Rossi Rooter presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is a significant weak point: multiple reviews cite rudeness, dismissiveness, failure to show up on time, and unprofessional behavior in customers' homes, though a handful of positive reviews praise cooperative and courteous staff. Project completion is similarly troubled — there are documented cases of misdiagnosis leading to a $4,000 unnecessary recommendation, a job left incomplete (pump removed and left on the ground), a drain issue that was not resolved, and an alleged animal injury with no repair completed; positive reviews do describe fast and effective resolutions in simpler cases. On experience, the misdiagnosis of a grinding pump issue (a capacitor and relay problem misread as a full pump failure) is a serious technical red flag, though some reviewers credit technicians with quickly solving sewer clogs. Pricing receives a moderate score: one reviewer praised the $220 charge as competitive and fair, but the $4,000 misdiagnosis recommendation and a $225 charge for 20 minutes of inconclusive work pull the score down considerably.

• Most reviews are from 2017–2018 or earlier; only one review (2022) is within the past few years. The score should be treated with caution as it may not reflect current business practices.
• The 2015 review alleging animal cruelty (cat's leg amputated after technician visit) is an extreme and unverified claim. It has been factored into professionalism and project completion scores but noted separately due to its severity and inability to verify.
• The positive reviews (2017–2018) use somewhat generic praise language ('great job,' 'professional,' 'highly recommended') with limited specific detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight. However, they are not identical in phrasing and are not flagged as definitively fake.
• The 2022 negative review is the most recent and most detailed, describing a clear misdiagnosis with a documented financial outcome ($4,000 recommendation vs. $455 actual fix). This carries elevated weight due to recency and specificity.
• No reviews are from the past 12 months, making it impossible to assess the contractor's current performance level with any reliability.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review set of 8 reviews, a wide date range spanning 2012–2022 with no recent data, and a stark split between detailed negative experiences and generically positive ones — consumers should seek more current references before hiring.

JD Construction exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by widespread reports of no-shows, poor communication, rudeness, and unresponsiveness—with 28 mentions documenting these failures. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with 32 mentions revealing abandoned jobs, incomplete work, failure to honor callbacks, and extended delays far exceeding quoted timelines. Pricing concerns emerge in 12 mentions, including overcharging, hidden costs, and refusal to accept standard payment methods. While some customers report quality workmanship (18 mentions of experience), this is severely undermined by poor execution, material shortcuts, and premature deterioration of completed work. The company's pattern of taking deposits and failing to complete work, combined with unresponsiveness to customer complaints, suggests systemic operational and ethical failures.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 8) document taking substantial deposits or full payment and then abandoning projects or failing to complete work. This pattern suggests potential fraud or theft.
• CRITICAL: Consistent pattern of no-shows and missed appointments without communication across multiple reviews spanning 2015-2024.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document the company refusing to return deposits or refunds despite incomplete work, with customers forced to pursue legal action.
• RED FLAG: Several reviews mention the company insists on cash-only or checks made to individuals rather than the business, suggesting tax evasion and lack of legitimate business practices.
• RED FLAG: Significant quality control issues documented: driveways cracking within 1-3 years, improper grading causing drainage problems, inadequate material depth, poor workmanship on structural repairs.
• RED FLAG: Multiple reviews describe condescending, disrespectful, or aggressive communication from owners/supervisors toward customers and employees.
• RED FLAG: One review documents observed racial disparities in labor assignment and treatment of workers.
• PATTERN: Reviews from 2007-2024 show consistent issues, indicating long-standing systemic problems rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY: Recent reviews (2023-2024) continue to document severe failures (fraud allegations, non-responsive behavior, poor workmanship), indicating no improvement over time.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 45 reviews with substantial mention counts across all dimensions (28-32 mentions for primary dimensions), providing robust evidence of systematic failures in professionalism, project completion, and customer service. The consistency of negative patterns across nearly two decades of reviews, combined with documented legal disputes and fraud allegations, strongly validates the low score. This contractor presents significant risk to customers.

This contractor shows strong technical expertise and knowledge (85/100), with reviewers praising problem-solving ability and familiarity with quality products. However, professionalism is severely compromised by one highly detailed 1-star review documenting dishonesty, poor communication, defensive behavior, and alleged misrepresentation of work performed. The 2024 review praises punctuality and professionalism, but the 2019 review describes hostile tone, contradictory statements, and refusal to take responsibility. Pricing feedback is mixed: one review calls it reasonable for a master plumber, while another alleges a $3,500 charge for inadequate inspection work. Project completion is unclear due to conflicting accounts of whether work was actually performed.

• CRITICAL: Severe credibility conflict between reviews. The 2019 review contains extensive, specific allegations of dishonesty, including claims the contractor lied about work performed, changed his story multiple times, and refused accountability. This is not a simple service complaint but an accusation of fraud.
• RECENCY BIAS: The most recent review (2024) is highly positive, but the 2019 review is extremely negative and detailed. The 2014 review is 10 years old and may not reflect current operations.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONTRADICTION: Review 1 (2024) describes professional, on-time service. Review 2 (2019) describes unprofessional tone, defensive attitude, and hanging up on customer. These cannot both be accurate representations of the same business.
• INCOMPLETE DATA: Only 3 reviews total. Score reliability is inherently limited. The single negative review carries disproportionate weight due to its severity and specificity.
• UNRESOLVED DISPUTE: The 2019 review suggests legal action was threatened (magistrate). No resolution or follow-up is documented.

This score should be treated with significant caution. With only 3 reviews and a stark contradiction between a detailed fraud allegation (2019) and recent positive feedback (2024), the overall WW Score of 56.8 does not reliably represent contractor quality. The business may have changed, or one account may be inaccurate. Additional recent reviews are essential before making a hiring decision.

This contractor receives a critically low WW Score of 42.3, driven by severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most damaging factor, with 5 reviews explicitly documenting rudeness, defensive behavior, failure to show for appointments, lack of professional appearance, and hanging up on customers. Project completion is severely compromised, with evidence of incomplete repairs (leaking pipe fixed by technician leaked again within 24 hours), false claims of work completion, and no follow-through on callbacks. Experience and pricing show limited positive evidence, with one customer noting the technician's claimed years of experience contradicted by poor workmanship and questionable upselling tactics. The company demonstrates a pattern of unprofessional conduct that undermines customer trust.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (3 of 5) describe identical or near-identical patterns of unprofessional behavior, rudeness, and failure to complete work properly. This is not fake review inflation but rather consistent negative patterns.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2022 (over 2 years old), but the most recent review from February 2024 shows the same core issues (scheduling failures, unprofessionalism) persist, suggesting systemic problems rather than isolated incidents.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One review explicitly states a lien was placed against the business for non-payment or breach of contract (February 2024), indicating potential legal/financial issues.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURE: Documented case of repair failing within 24 hours, with technician becoming defensive rather than addressing the failure, suggesting poor technical competence and customer service.
• DISHONESTY FLAG: One review documents technician submitting false work completion claims when no service was actually rendered.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning indicator. The score is based on consistent, detailed, and specific negative evidence across multiple dimensions from 5 reviews spanning 2+ years, with recent corroboration that problems persist. The contractor demonstrates systemic failures in professionalism, project completion, and customer service that warrant serious caution.

RJ Walker receives sharply divided feedback across its review history. Positive reviews highlight helpful staff, fast and careful delivery, and accommodating service including assistance for a customer with a disability. However, negative reviews raise serious concerns about rigid and unreasonable return policies, early store closures contrary to posted hours, and a perceived indifference toward long-standing customers. The most recent review (2023) is positive, but the bulk of detailed feedback spans 2016–2020, limiting recency confidence. The refund dispute review in particular is highly detailed and credible, dragging down pricing and professionalism scores significantly.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• Review dates span 2016 to 2023; three of four reviews are older than 3 years, reducing recency relevance.
• The 1-star review from 2016 is highly detailed and specific, lending it strong credibility and significant negative weight.
• The 1-star review from 2018 describes staff leaving before posted closing hours, indicating a professionalism and reliability concern.
• No patterns of fake reviews detected; reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 7 years and should be considered preliminary — significantly more recent reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a reliable indicator of current service quality.