Find Nearby Plumbers In Warwick, Rhode Island

This contractor's review record is overwhelmingly negative across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by repeated no-call/no-show incidents, rude office staff, broken promises by the owner, and technicians who slammed doors and refused to provide basic contact information. Project completion is perhaps the most damning dimension: multiple reviewers describe incorrectly installed boilers, furnaces, and water heaters that were never properly remedied, abandoned work, messes left behind, and warranty obligations ignored or denied. Experience scores are critically low due to consistent reports of misdiagnosis, incorrect installations confirmed by the contractor's own technicians, and systems that caused property damage including flooding and carbon monoxide risk from reversed venting. Pricing scores reflect overcharging, hidden fees added after job completion, misrepresented part costs, and a service contract whose terms were later denied. Only one positive review exists in the dataset, describing a single prompt and courteous furnace repair in 2012, which is insufficient to meaningfully offset the volume and severity of negative experiences.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews date from 2013–2017, with only one review from 2019. No reviews from the past 12 months are present in this dataset. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• SINGLE POSITIVE REVIEW: Only 1 out of 15 reviews is positive (5 stars, dated 2012). This is the oldest review in the dataset and involves a technician (JR) who was later reportedly fired for embezzlement. Its reliability as a positive signal is questionable.
• PATTERN OF SYSTEMIC FAILURE: Multiple independent reviewers describe nearly identical experiences — incorrect installations, no-call/no-show appointments, owner promises not kept, and refusal to honor warranty work. This consistency across unrelated reviewers strongly suggests systemic operational failures rather than isolated incidents.
• BBB NON-RESPONSE: One reviewer explicitly states the company did not respond to a BBB complaint, suggesting a pattern of avoiding accountability through formal channels.
• SAFETY CONCERN FLAGGED: At least one review describes a boiler vent installed backwards, forcing fumes inside the home. This represents a potential carbon monoxide hazard and is a serious workmanship and safety failure.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe the owner (Peter) as making promises he does not keep, denying responsibility for his own technicians' work, and in one case calling from a blocked number and refusing to give his full name.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews are varied in length, detail, writing style, and specific incident descriptions. No evidence of coordinated fake positive reviews was found.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's documented performance history, though the absence of recent reviews means current operational status cannot be confirmed.

Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and technical skill. Review 1 (July 2024) explicitly praises responsiveness, communication, and problem-solving ability. Review 2 (April 2023) highlights professional conduct, speed, and quality workmanship, plus fair pricing. However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. All dimensions are based on LIMITED evidence (1–2 mentions each), and the data is insufficient to produce a trustworthy composite score.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for WW Score calculation.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or specifics about pricing details (Review 2 mentions 'best price' but provides no comparative context).
• Review 2 contains minor spelling errors ('there' instead of 'their'), which is consistent with authentic customer writing but does not indicate fakeness.
• One review is from July 2024 (recent); one is from April 2023 (older than 12 months). Recency is mixed.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). All dimension scores are based on LIMITED confidence. Do not rely on this report for contractor selection; collect at least 3–5 additional reviews before making a decision.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. While both reviews are positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience favorably, the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about contractor performance.

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — consider requesting more diverse feedback to validate quality claims.
• Review dates span 12 months (Sept 2023 to Aug 2024), providing some recency diversity.
• Limited specificity in pricing discussion (only 1 mention); insufficient data to assess pricing dimension reliably.

This analysis cannot produce a valid WW Score due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 2 were provided. Do not rely on any aggregate score until additional reviews are collected.

The single review available is a 1-star account describing deeply negative experiences across all four scored dimensions. The contractor provided inaccurate technical information about the job (claiming the vent needed cutting when it was adjustable, and that the correct water heater size was unavailable), suggesting poor technical knowledge and possible dishonesty. His pricing was described as 'outrageous,' and the customer dismissed him before any work was completed, meaning no project was delivered. The reviewer's tone indicates a significant breakdown in trust and communication, reflecting very poorly on professionalism. Because only one review exists, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, but all available signals are strongly negative.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2013, making it over 10 years old. Recency weighting is extremely low and this score should not be treated as reflective of current contractor performance.
• The contractor allegedly provided false or misleading technical claims to inflate the perceived complexity and cost of a standard water heater replacement — this is a serious integrity concern if accurate.
• No positive reviews exist to balance this account. The score is based entirely on a single negative data point.

This score is based on a single review from 2013 and should be considered highly unreliable — it reflects one customer's experience over a decade ago and cannot be used to draw meaningful conclusions about the contractor's current quality or practices.

This single review from 2018 provides positive feedback across all four dimensions, citing 25+ years of customer satisfaction, fair pricing, excellent workmanship, reliability, and strong communication. However, with only one review and no recent data (6+ years old), the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated. The review lacks specific project details and contains generalized praise, which limits confidence in any scoring.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews
• Review is significantly outdated (October 2018, 6+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality
• Single review is highly generic with no specific project examples or measurable details
• Cannot establish confidence in any dimension with only 1 mention per category

This analysis is unreliable for decision-making. A minimum of 3 recent reviews is required to calculate a trustworthy WW Score.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review mentions professionalism (described as 'professional and efficient') and project completion (water heater replaced, baseboard problem fixed), but provides no information on pricing or detailed experience/workmanship. The review is also from 2013 (over 10 years old) and contains generic praise without specific details, limiting its reliability.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed; minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from May 2013 (11+ years old); does not reflect current service quality
• Generic praise language ('BEST company I've ever dealt with') without specific details or examples
• No pricing information mentioned; cannot assess value or fairness
• No specific technical details about workmanship quality provided

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review) and extreme age of the single data point; at least 3 recent reviews are needed for meaningful assessment.