Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 17402, York, Pennsylvania

Both reviews paint a concerning picture of this contractor's reliability and technical competence. Project completion is the most critically impacted dimension, with both reviewers describing unfinished or improperly completed work, one waiting 8 months without resolution and the other having to perform plumbing work themselves after hiring this company. Workmanship quality is also a notable concern, with the second reviewer specifically criticizing the improper use of shark bite fittings where soldering was required, and noting a significant skill disparity between the two workers. Professionalism receives a mixed score — punctuality and courtesy were noted positively in the second review's early experience, but these positives are heavily offset by the pattern of incomplete work and poor follow-through across both reviews. Pricing received one mention as initially reasonable, but the second reviewer ultimately questioned the value given the substandard work and dual-person billing rate.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are older than 1 year (dated 2017 and 2021) — scores may not reflect current performance.
• The second review is a multi-stage update from the same reviewer, which may skew dimension mention counts; it has been treated as a single review source.
• Recurring pattern of incomplete work and improper use of shark bite fittings suggests a systemic quality control issue rather than isolated incidents.

This score carries very low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, both of which are over 1 year old, making it impossible to assess current contractor performance with any meaningful confidence.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. While this single review is highly positive across all dimensions (praising punctuality, responsiveness, fair pricing, problem-solving, and technical skill), a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single data point. The review explicitly mentions emergency availability (9pm response), transparent pricing, and superior workmanship (solving 3 problems instead of 1), but confidence in any aggregate score remains limited.

• Only 1 review provided — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Cannot calculate WW Score with fewer than 3 reviews per methodology

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.

This single review paints a severely negative picture of the contractor's professionalism, describing extreme difficulty making contact — requiring 10 phone calls and 2 weeks to receive a callback — followed by a rude refusal to take on the job. Project completion scores near zero as the contractor never engaged with the work at all, abandoning the customer before any job could begin. No information was provided regarding pricing or technical experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The reviewer explicitly characterizes the business as prioritizing greed over craftsmanship and customer service, reinforcing the low professionalism score. Overall, the single data point is deeply negative but insufficient on its own to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2022-02-12, which is more than 1 year old. Recency weighting is reduced accordingly.
• Pricing and Experience dimensions have zero mentions and cannot be scored — two of four dimensions are entirely absent from this dataset.
• With only one review, there is no way to assess whether this experience is representative of the contractor's typical performance.

This score report is based on a single, dated review and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn until substantially more reviews are analyzed.