Find Nearby Plumbers In Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania

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.

Yenason Mechanical receives a critically low WW Score of 28.4, driven by severe and consistent failures in professionalism and project completion. Eight reviews explicitly document pervasive communication breakdowns, including unreturned phone calls, emails, and text messages spanning weeks to months. Multiple customers report abandoned projects, delayed callbacks, and lack of follow-through on service commitments and warranties. Two positive reviews from 2012 and 2015 acknowledge good initial service and competitive pricing, but these are vastly outweighed by seven recent negative reviews (2016–2022) describing systemic operational failures. The company's own staff acknowledged 'communication issues,' yet no corrective action is evident across the review timeline.

• FAKE REVIEW ALERT: Reviews dated 2022-01-25 at 14:51:58 and 14:28:20 are identical word-for-word duplicates. This suggests either a system error or intentional manipulation and reduces confidence in review authenticity.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 9 reviews are from 2016 or later, with 5 from 2016–2022. The two positive reviews are from 2012 and 2015 (7–12 years old). Recent reviews overwhelmingly negative.
• PATTERN OF SYSTEMIC FAILURE: Multiple independent reviewers report identical issues (unreturned calls, poor follow-up, abandoned projects) across a 6-year span, suggesting chronic operational dysfunction rather than isolated incidents.
• REPUTATIONAL CORROBORATION: One reviewer explicitly states that multiple competing HVAC installers were 'not surprised' by the negative experience, indicating industry-wide awareness of Yenason's poor practices.
• CONTRACTUAL BREACH: Multiple reviews reference signed service contracts and warranties that were not honored, raising potential legal liability.

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong negative indicator. The score is based on 9 reviews with consistent, detailed, and corroborated evidence of systemic failures across professionalism and project completion. The two positive reviews are significantly older and do not offset the overwhelming recent pattern of documented misconduct.

All four reviews are negative and paint a consistent picture of serious failures across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is critically low, with multiple reviewers citing no-shows, failure to return calls or emails, dismissive attitudes, and outright disrespect from staff. Project completion is also severely deficient, with documented instances of missed appointments, incomplete work (no caulking applied after installation), unresolved flaws in delivered materials, and missing flooring pieces with no follow-through. Pricing was flagged in one review as 'double the price of other places' with no justification offered, further undermining value perception. Workmanship quality was called into question through a flawed countertop that was delivered and installed despite visible defects, requiring the manufacturer (Cambria) to intervene directly on the customer's behalf.

• All 4 reviews are 1-star ratings — this is a strong negative signal and consistent across multiple reviewers.
• No positive reviews were provided for analysis. The WW Score reflects only the available data and should not be interpreted as a complete picture if positive reviews exist elsewhere.
• Review dates span from 2020 to 2024, suggesting these are not isolated incidents but a pattern of poor service over multiple years.
• The most recent review (June 2024) indicates ongoing unresolved issues, suggesting problems have not been corrected over time.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, unique phrasing, and distinct scenarios, indicating authentic customer experiences.
• Small sample size (4 reviews) limits statistical reliability, but the unanimous negative sentiment across all dimensions reduces ambiguity.

This WW Score is based on a small but consistently negative and detail-rich set of reviews spanning four years; while the low sample size limits full statistical confidence, the unanimous and specific nature of the complaints makes the score directionally reliable as a warning signal.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, all from 2019–2020 with uniformly severe complaints. All three reviews explicitly document repeated no-shows, missed appointments, broken commitments, and failure to complete work. Professionalism is severely compromised by poor communication, unresponsiveness, and lack of follow-through. Project completion is critically deficient with multiple abandoned service requests and false reporting. No pricing information is mentioned in any review, and no technical skill assessment is possible given the service was never delivered.

• CRITICAL: All 3 reviews are 1-star ratings with identical core complaint pattern — repeated no-shows and appointment failures. This suggests systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• All reviews are from 2019–2020 (3–5 years old). No recent reviews available to assess whether company has improved.
• Review 3 alleges falsified reporting to warranty company — potential fraud concern.
• Insufficient review volume (n=3) to produce reliable WW Score. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for confidence.
• No positive reviews present to balance assessment.

This score cannot be trusted as a reliable measure due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and complete absence of recent data. However, the pattern of complaints is severe and consistent enough to warrant extreme caution; all available evidence points to serious operational and reliability failures.

Both reviews speak highly of Jerry at D&S Plumbing across multiple dimensions. Professionalism stands out strongly — both reviewers explicitly noted that Jerry showed up on time and followed through after other plumbers failed to do so. The first review specifically mentions fair pricing and a guarantee on work, lending some support to the pricing dimension. Project completion is well-supported, with both reviewers confirming the work was finished successfully, including a notably complex steam heating repair. Experience is also positively referenced, particularly in the first review which describes a complicated basement steam pipe job that other plumbers declined to attempt.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback; while the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions.
• The most recent review is dated August 2022, which is over 2 years old at time of analysis. No recent reviews are available to confirm current service quality.
• The second review (June 2020) is over 4 years old and should be treated with reduced recency weight.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are more than 2 years old, making it insufficient to reliably assess current contractor performance — treat all dimension scores as directional indicators only.

Both reviews are severely negative and describe a contractor who accepted upfront payments and either abandoned work entirely or made minimal effort before stopping. In the first review, the customer paid a deposit for a kitchen remodel in December 2020 and received almost no work over nearly four months, with the contractor repeatedly failing to show up as promised. The second review describes a deck job where no work was started at all — no permits pulled, no materials purchased — and the contractor refused to return the deposit after cancellation. Project completion scores at 0 because neither job was completed or meaningfully started. Professionalism and pricing scores are near-zero due to explicit reports of dishonesty, broken commitments, and refusal to refund money for undelivered services.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: Both reviews independently describe the contractor (Steve Harris) accepting upfront payments and failing to perform contracted work — a pattern consistent with fraud or predatory business practices.
• LEGAL FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states they are pursuing the matter in court due to refusal to return money for unstarted work.
• LICENSING FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor is not licensed to perform work in Wilkes-Barre or Hanover, PA.
• PLATFORM REMOVAL FLAG: One reviewer states the contractor was dropped from Porch.com for dishonesty and poor business practices.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews were provided. Per scoring rules, a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews. The WW Score cannot be calculated.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2018 to 2021. Neither review falls within the past 12 months relative to a current evaluation, which limits recency weighting. However, the pattern of behavior appears consistent across both time periods.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and cannot produce a reliable WW Score, but the available evidence strongly and consistently indicates a high-risk contractor with documented patterns of payment collection without service delivery, broken commitments, potential unlicensed work, and refusal to issue refunds.