Find Nearby Plumbers In Scranton, Pennsylvania

Bellio Plumbing and Heating has an overwhelmingly negative review record across all four scored dimensions. Five of six reviews describe serious failures: incorrect installations, misdiagnosed problems, incomplete work, and repeated inability to resolve issues even after multiple callbacks. Pricing concerns are prominent, with multiple reviewers feeling they were charged substantial labor fees for work that was either wrong or left unfinished. The single positive review (2017) describes a responsive and knowledgeable experience, but it is the oldest review in the set and is heavily outweighed by the pattern of failures in subsequent years. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating they had to hire a second contractor to fix or finish what Bellio started.

• RECENCY WARNING: The only positive review is dated 2017 — over 7 years ago. All negative reviews span 2018–2023, suggesting a sustained and worsening decline in service quality over time.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE/INCORRECT WORK: Multiple reviews independently describe the same failure mode — work performed incorrectly, followed by failed callbacks, followed by the customer hiring a second plumber to correct Bellio's work. This is a serious systemic concern.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: At least two reviews explicitly describe Bellio returning to fix problems and still failing to resolve them, indicating a pattern of inadequate diagnostic and repair capability.
• NO FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Reviews are varied in language, specific in detail, and span multiple years. No evidence of fake or coordinated reviews detected. The negative reviews appear genuine.

This WW Score of 22.1 is based on 6 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries MODERATE overall confidence due to the small sample size, but the consistency and specificity of the negative feedback across independent reviewers makes the low score credible and trustworthy.

JP Curran Home Remodeling demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Project completion is critically compromised, with multiple reviews documenting unfinished work, abandoned jobs, and refusal to complete contracted tasks without additional payment. Professionalism is extremely poor, evidenced by hostile phone communication and unprofessional worker behavior. Pricing practices are predatory, with bait-and-quote tactics that dramatically inflate costs mid-project. Workmanship quality is substandard, with cheap materials and poor execution. The extremely low WW Score of 15.8 reflects a business that consistently fails to meet basic contractor standards.

• CRITICAL: All three reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly negative assessments across all dimensions. While not necessarily fake, the consistency of severe complaints warrants attention.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews explicitly mention incomplete work and refusal to finish contracted jobs—a serious red flag for project completion reliability.
• PRICING CONCERN: First review documents aggressive upselling and additional charges for cleanup, suggesting exploitative pricing practices.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: Documented hostile phone communication and worker behavior (suspected intoxication, property damage, refusal to clean up spills).
• RECENCY: Two reviews from December 2023 and one from February 2024 are all within the past 12 months, indicating ongoing issues.
• BUSINESS HISTORY ALLEGATION: First reviewer alleges the company may have changed names to escape negative reviews—cannot verify but noted.

This score should be treated with high caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews), but the severity and consistency of documented failures across multiple independent dimensions suggests genuine and serious operational problems that warrant extreme caution before engaging this contractor.

With only 3 reviews, this dataset is too small to generate a reliable WW Score. However, professionalism emerges as a critical weakness: two reviews explicitly document no-call/no-show behavior and failure to respond to communications, while one positive review (from 2021) praises quick service and reasonable pricing. The extreme recency gap and conflicting signals suggest either inconsistent service delivery or potential business changes. The single positive review is substantially older than the two recent negative reviews.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for meaningful scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive review is from May 2021 (3+ years old). Two negative reviews are from 2021-2022, with one from December 2022. Recent pattern suggests deterioration in service quality.
• CRITICAL PROFESSIONALISM ISSUE: 2 of 3 reviews document no-call/no-show and non-responsiveness to customer contact. This is a severe red flag.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 1 review mentions pricing (positive). Cannot reliably assess price dimension.
• LIMITED COMPLETION DATA: Only 1 review confirms project completion. Cannot reliably assess completion dimension.

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. The sample size is too small, recent reviews show serious professionalism failures, and most dimensions lack sufficient data. Recommend obtaining additional recent reviews before engaging this contractor.

With only 3 reviews, this analysis lacks sufficient data for a reliable WW Score. The reviews show extreme polarization: one highly positive 5-star review from 2020 praising reliability, fairness, and professionalism, versus two damaging 1-star reviews from 2016–2017 citing scheduling failures, overcharging ($1100 vs. $200–400 expected), and incomplete work. The positive review explicitly mentions fair pricing and professional service, while the negative reviews highlight serious concerns about responsiveness, pricing transparency, and project completion. The recency gap is significant—the positive review is 4+ years newer than the negative ones, suggesting possible business changes, but the pattern of complaints is severe enough to warrant caution.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews total — insufficient for reliable scoring per Step 4 guidelines
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: One 5-star vs. two 1-star reviews with no middle ground suggests either significant service inconsistency or potential data quality issues
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two negative reviews are from 2016–2017 (7+ years old); one positive from 2020 (4 years old). All reviews predate the past 12 months
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Negative reviews allege overcharging by 275–550% and abandonment of work mid-project on a Friday
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: One review explicitly documents failure to return calls and schedule appointments, indicating systemic communication breakdown at time of that review
• INSUFFICIENT EXPERIENCE DATA: No reviews mention technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability explicitly

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and extreme polarization across a 7-year span with no recent data. Any decision should not rely on this analysis alone; direct verification of current business practices and recent customer references is essential before engaging this contractor.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews praise John's professionalism (availability, responsiveness, knowledge of local contacts and building details), fair pricing ($40/unit with honest communication about the fourth unit), and technical competence in backflow testing. However, neither review explicitly addresses project completion timelines, follow-through on callbacks, or on-time delivery. The sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score.

• Only 2 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are from 2012–2013 (11–12 years old) — no recent data available
• No explicit mention of project completion, timeliness, or follow-up work in either review
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — limited ability to assess balance

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and age of reviews (2012–2013). At minimum, 3 recent reviews are required for any confidence in scoring.

Both reviews speak positively across all four dimensions, mentioning punctuality, clear communication, fair pricing, quality workmanship, and completed jobs. Osvaldo is described as honest, timely, and knowledgeable, with one reviewer noting he handled multiple trade types (plumbing and electrical) successfully. However, with only two reviews total, confidence across every dimension is LIMITED and scores are held conservative accordingly. The overall WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than three reviews.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language; while they do contain specific details (leak repair, shut-off valves, electrical outlets, thermostat), the small sample size makes it impossible to rule out selection bias.
• No negative or mixed feedback present — this may reflect genuine quality or simply an incomplete review set.
• Recency note: both reviews are from 2023, making them over 12 months old at time of analysis. No recent reviews available to confirm current performance.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — seek at least 3–5 additional verified reviews before drawing meaningful conclusions about this contractor's reliability.