Find Nearby Plumbers In Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania

GPS Plumbing (Mike) and Carter Plumbing (Luke) both receive overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers consistently highlight punctuality, clear communication, friendly demeanor, and responsiveness including after-hours and emergency availability. Pricing is praised extensively, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting estimates came in significantly below competitors, no hidden charges, and in at least one case no charge at all when a job could not be completed. Project completion scores are very strong, with numerous accounts of jobs finished on time, callbacks honored without extra charge, and above-and-beyond follow-through such as hauling away old equipment and fixing unrelated issues at no cost. Experience and workmanship quality are well-documented across a wide range of complex jobs including full re-plumbing, well conversions, gas line work, and emergency pipe repairs, with reviewers frequently noting technical knowledge and problem-solving skill.

• All 70 reviews are 5-star ratings with zero negative or mixed reviews — this is statistically unusual and warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific job details, named technicians, and varied scenarios that reduce the likelihood of mass fabrication.
• Reviews span two distinct contractors operating under different business names (GPS Plumbing / Mike, and Carter Plumbing / Luke) — these appear to be separate businesses whose reviews have been aggregated together. Scores reflect the combined pool and may not accurately represent either business individually.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 12 months, with many dating back to 2018–2021 and a few as far back as 2012. Only approximately 7 reviews are from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025), which limits recency confidence.
• The absence of any negative feedback across 70 reviews, even minor complaints, may suggest selective review collection or platform curation rather than a fully representative sample.
• One review (2020-09-16) describes a positive experience but explicitly states the reviewer did NOT end up hiring Luke due to a third-party contractor issue — this is a recommendation based on communication only, not completed work, and was treated with reduced weight for project completion scoring.

The WW Score of 89.4 is supported by a large volume of detailed, specific reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with moderate caution due to the all-5-star rating pattern, the mixing of two separate contractor businesses in one dataset, and the limited number of recent reviews from the past 12 months.

Tom Thomas Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is a clear strength, with 38 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, courtesy, and responsiveness—including same-day emergency service and follow-up calls. Project completion is consistently reliable, with 28 reviews confirming jobs finished on time and completely, though a few older reviews (2014, 2012) mention communication lapses. Experience and technical knowledge are well-documented across 18 reviews, with customers highlighting problem-solving ability, thorough explanations, and quality workmanship. Pricing receives solid marks from 9 reviews citing fair and reasonable costs with no hidden fees. However, three 1-star reviews (2023, 2014, 2012) reveal serious responsiveness failures and occasional attitude issues that significantly offset the predominantly positive feedback.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2010–2016 (10+ years old). Only 1 recent review from November 2023, which is highly negative and describes months of non-responsiveness and lack of professionalism. This suggests a possible decline in service quality or operational changes.
• CRITICAL NEGATIVE OUTLIER: The November 2023 review (1-star) directly contradicts the historical pattern and describes unacceptable communication failure (3+ months on waiting list, no follow-up). This is the most recent data point and should be weighted heavily.
• GENERIC/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 6 reviews contain only 'unknown' text or single-word responses ('Great!', 'the leak is fixed'). These provide no substantive evidence and are excluded from scoring.
• PATTERN OF COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Three 1-star reviews (2023, 2014, 2012) all cite communication/responsiveness issues or attitude problems, suggesting this may be a recurring weakness despite strong historical professionalism scores.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews from 2013–2015 use nearly identical phrasing ('very professional,' 'on time,' 'fair price,' 'will use again'). While not conclusive, the consistency is notable. However, specificity in many reviews (Delta shower diverter, tankless heater details, galvanized pipe replacement) suggests authenticity.
• SAMPLE BIAS: The overwhelming majority of reviews (56 of 61) are 5-star ratings. Only 4 are 1-star and 1 is 2-star. This extreme skew, combined with age and the recent negative review, suggests the dataset may not reflect current service quality.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with CAUTION. While historical data (2008–2016) is overwhelmingly positive and supports a high score, the most recent review (November 2023) reveals critical failures in responsiveness and professionalism that directly contradict the historical pattern. The 10+ year gap between most reviews and today means this score may not reflect current operational reality. Prospective customers should prioritize the 2023 review as the most relevant data point and verify current responsiveness before hiring.

SJ Kowalski demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional field service, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, punctuality, and courteous behavior. However, the company shows significant inconsistency in project completion and follow-through: while most jobs are completed successfully, one review documents months of abandoned communication and failed callbacks on estimates, severely damaging trust. Pricing appears fair when quoted, but the small sample size limits confidence. The 2016 review citing rude phone staff suggests internal communication issues that may persist. Recent reviews (2018-2023) are more positive, but the pattern of broken promises on estimates is a material concern.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of six reviews are older than 5 years (2016, 2018, 2019). Only two reviews from past 12 months. Older reviews may not reflect current operations.
• CRITICAL ISSUE: One 1-star review (2018) documents systematic failure to follow up on estimates over months, with customer explicitly stating they switched to competitor. This directly contradicts the 'professional' narrative in other reviews and suggests inconsistent project completion practices.
• COMMUNICATION INCONSISTENCY: 2016 review cites rude phone staff; 2018 review praises responsiveness. Unclear if this reflects staff turnover or selective experience.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total limits statistical reliability. Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions.

This score should be treated with caution. While field technicians appear skilled and professional, the documented failure to complete estimate callbacks and follow-through on one major project, combined with only 6 total reviews and most data older than 3 years, suggests the WW Score may not reliably predict current performance. The company shows capability but inconsistent execution on non-emergency work.

EZ Flow demonstrates inconsistent service quality with significant professionalism concerns. While positive reviews highlight quick response times, reasonable pricing, and effective problem-solving, two detailed negative reviews document serious professionalism failures including profanity, rudeness, poor cleanup, and overcharging. Project completion is generally reliable when work is attempted, but one review indicates incomplete service with refusal to finish the job. The contractor shows technical competence but professionalism issues substantially undermine overall trustworthiness.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 4-9 years old (2015-2020). Only one review from 2020; no recent data from past 12 months limits current reliability assessment.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: Extreme split between 5-star and 1-star reviews with no middle ground suggests either highly variable service quality or inconsistent customer expectations.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: Two detailed negative reviews document profanity, rudeness, poor cleanup, and overcharging—serious concerns that outweigh generic positive praise.
• POSITIVE REVIEW VAGUENESS: Several 5-star reviews lack specific detail ('amazing,' 'wonderful,' 'great guy') compared to detailed negative reviews, which raises slight concern about review authenticity balance.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data and extreme polarization; the documented professionalism failures in detailed negative reviews are credible concerns that warrant serious consideration despite positive ratings.

Petroski Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across reviews. Several customers praise courteous, responsive, and professional service, including prompt callbacks and quality installations. However, one highly detailed negative review from 2017 describes serious professionalism failures including rudeness, cursing in front of a child, showing up on the wrong date, and a sewer repair job that took two weeks instead of two days and ultimately failed — requiring a second contractor to fix. This single review significantly drags down scores for professionalism, project completion, and experience. Pricing feedback is sparse but generally positive, with one reviewer noting fair pricing. The two reviews marked 'unknown' with no text content were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.

• Two reviews contain only the text 'unknown' and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable information.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only one review (April 2023) falls within the past 12 months, significantly limiting recency confidence.
• The detailed 1-star review from 2017 describes a pattern of behavior (bait-and-switch attitude, poor workmanship, failed repair, bad reputation with city inspectors) that is specific and credible — it was weighted heavily in scoring.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief or generic ('Ryan and Joe did a great job', 'Very well') with no supporting detail, reducing their evidentiary value.
• The review pool is small (9 total, 7 usable), which limits the reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small and mostly outdated review pool, two uninformative reviews, and a significant credible negative review that is partially offset by brief, low-detail positive reviews.

Ken Rex's review record is deeply mixed, with serious negative incidents dragging down what would otherwise be a moderately positive profile. The most damaging reviews describe alleged insurance fraud solicitation, abandoned jobs after deposits were taken, and a customer left without heat after a faulty furnace installation — all of which severely impact professionalism and project completion scores. On the positive side, a meaningful number of older reviews describe friendly, knowledgeable technicians, timely service, and reasonable pricing. However, the most recent substantive review (2023) is the most alarming, and the pattern of no-shows, poor follow-through, and communication failures across multiple negative reviews is consistent enough to be credible. The weight of serious misconduct allegations prevents this contractor from scoring in a trustworthy range.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALERT: One reviewer (2023) explicitly alleges that the owner solicited insurance fraud, chased down an insurance agent to obtain a check, and then failed to fix the installed furnace or return overpaid funds. This is the most recent detailed review and carries significant weight.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONED WORK: At least two reviews (2018, 2015) describe jobs being left incomplete or customers being abandoned mid-project without communication, suggesting a recurring business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Six reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with 5-star ratings and no review text. These provide no usable data and are flagged as potentially artificial or placeholder entries used to inflate ratings. They were excluded from scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2012–2016, making them 8–12 years old. The two most recent substantive reviews (2023, 2020) are both 1-star with serious complaints. Recent trend is strongly negative.
• SCHEDULING AND RELIABILITY ISSUES: Multiple independent reviewers cite no-shows, last-minute cancellations, and failure to return calls — indicating a systemic reliability problem rather than one-off incidents.
• DEPOSIT RISK: The 2018 review describes a deposit being taken, work never started, and significant financial harm to the customer. Combined with the 2023 insurance allegation, there is a pattern of financial concern around this contractor.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to a sufficient number of substantive reviews, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the presence of serious misconduct allegations in the most recent reviews, a strong recency-negative trend, and six uninformative 'unknown' reviews that suggest possible rating manipulation.