Find Nearby Plumbers In Lynchburg, Virginia

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe a deeply problematic contractor. Professionalism is the most-cited dimension and is catastrophically low, with dozens of reviewers documenting verbal abuse, harassment via text and phone, condescension, misogyny, no-shows, and threatening behavior toward customers including elderly and disabled individuals. Project completion is nearly as damning, with repeated accounts of abandoned jobs, flooded homes, unfinished bathrooms left for months, and work that had to be redone by other contractors. Experience scores are similarly poor, with multiple reviewers describing unlicensed work, code violations, incorrect installations, and botched repairs that worsened the original problem. Pricing receives a marginally higher score only because a small number of positive reviewers noted reasonable rates, but this is heavily offset by numerous accounts of overbilling, hidden charges, demands for more money mid-job, and charging for hours not worked. The handful of positive reviews (roughly 18 out of 72) are insufficient to meaningfully offset the volume and severity of negative experiences documented across more than a decade.

• UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly state that Stan Selig is not licensed to perform plumbing work in Vermont. The Better Business Bureau is also cited as having an alert on file for this business regarding lack of licensure. This is a critical safety and legal concern.
• PATTERN OF HARASSMENT: Numerous reviewers across multiple years describe being harassed via repeated phone calls and text messages after declining services or raising complaints. This pattern is consistent and spans from 2012 to 2025.
• SUSPECTED FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific detail (e.g., 'Outstanding!!', 'Very helpful and friendly', 'Stan is fast and efficient. Also a funny guy!'). Some positive reviews reference different named workers (Robert, Peter, Clayton, Nick, Brian) rather than Stan, raising questions about whether they pertain to the same business or operator. These reviews appear inconsistent with the dominant pattern and may not reflect the primary operator's work.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Had a kitchen sink plumbing issue, that called for a quick response' appears twice with identical text — once dated 2023-06-10 (rated 5 stars) and once dated 2022-10-02 (rated 1 star). The 1-star version is treated as the authentic sentiment given its narrative conclusion. This duplication is suspicious.
• ABANDONED WORK AND CODE VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviewers describe work left incomplete, installations not up to code, sewer vents left open into living spaces, and gas installations done incorrectly — some discovered years later during home inspections.
• ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR TOWARD VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS: At least two reviews describe Stan targeting or mistreating elderly or disabled customers, including a 93-year-old woman and a senior amputee. One review also describes sexually harassing text messages.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2012 through May 2025, indicating this is not an isolated historical pattern. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) continue to document the same behaviors, suggesting no improvement over time.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Five reviews contained no text and only a star rating (all 1-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence — the score of 18.9 is a reliable reflection of a contractor with severe, consistent, and well-documented deficiencies across all four dimensions, compounded by credible reports of unlicensed operation and predatory behavior.

All three reviews are uniformly negative with 1-star ratings. The primary issues cited are severe professionalism failures (yelling, threats, insults, aggressive behavior, littering, harassment) mentioned across all reviews, poor workmanship quality (failed inspection, improperly studded windows and doors, loose unfastened studs), and pricing concerns (overcharging, inflated labor hours). One review explicitly documents incomplete/failed project work. The extremely small sample size (3 reviews) and their uniformly extreme negativity prevent reliable WW Score calculation, but the pattern of complaints is consistent and specific.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for statistically reliable WW Score calculation per Step 4 rules
• All three reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive reviews to balance assessment
• Reviews span 2022–2023 (oldest review is 2+ years old); recency is limited
• While reviews are not identical in phrasing, they are uniformly negative with consistent themes (owner/staff rudeness, poor workmanship, overcharging), which is credible but limits confidence due to small sample
• One review (littering incident) is tangentially related to company operations rather than direct service experience, though it does speak to employee conduct and company culture

This assessment cannot be considered reliable for decision-making. With only 3 reviews, all 1-star, the data is too sparse and skewed to produce a trustworthy WW Score. Additional reviews (minimum 8–10) from diverse customers and time periods are required before any confident scoring can be offered.

Both available reviews are 1-star and describe serious failures across multiple dimensions. Project completion is critically poor: work was left unfinished, connections were installed backwards, and a second contractor had to be hired to correct the errors. Experience scores are near-zero, with the contractor demonstrating uncertainty about basic gas line safety procedures and incorrect installation of both a kitchen faucet and outdoor spigot. Professionalism scores are also very low, as the contractor failed to deliver on paid work and left the customer in a worse position than before. Pricing data is entirely absent from both reviews, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated within 2 days of each other (2021-04-24 and 2021-04-25), which may suggest a coordinated posting pattern; however, the level of specific detail in Review 1 lends it credibility.
• Review 2 is brief and somewhat generic, but its claims are consistent with the detailed account in Review 1 — no fake review flag raised, but confidence remains LIMITED.
• All reviews are from April 2021, making them over 3 years old. Recency weighting is low — contractor performance may have changed since these reviews were posted.
• Contractor claimed '22 years of experience' but demonstrated inability to identify the correct gas shutoff line, a fundamental plumbing safety skill — a significant red flag for technical competency.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both from 2021, and should be treated as highly preliminary and insufficient to draw reliable conclusions about this contractor's current performance.

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient for a reliable WW Score, but the picture painted is deeply mixed. The positive review is vague and lacks specific detail, offering little substantive evidence of quality. The negative review is highly detailed and damning, describing failed roof repair work that made the problem worse, a piss-poor attitude, a lack of basic equipment (no ladder), extreme delays in returning, and an ultimate inability to resolve the issue. The negative review heavily outweighs the positive in terms of specificity and credibility, dragging all dimensions down significantly.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The 5-star review is extremely vague ('fix it up real nice and good and dandy') with no specific details about the work, contractor behavior, or pricing. This raises concerns about its authenticity or usefulness as evidence.
• The 1-star review is highly detailed and credible, describing specific failures across professionalism, project completion, experience, and value — it carries significantly more evidentiary weight.
• The two reviews are approximately 3 years apart (2020 vs 2023), making recency comparison difficult and limiting trend analysis.
• The negative review explicitly states the reviewer created a business page solely to leave this warning, suggesting strong motivation to alert potential customers.

This score report should be treated as highly unreliable due to the critically low review count of 2; no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn from this data alone.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is positive, mentioning availability, punctuality, communication, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. However, with only one data point, no dimension reaches the minimum threshold of 3 mentions needed for MODERATE confidence, and the overall pattern cannot be validated.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• All dimensions based on single mention — extremely limited confidence in any individual score.
• Cannot calculate composite WW Score with fewer than 3 total reviews.

This analysis cannot be trusted for decision-making. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to establish any meaningful pattern or confidence in contractor performance.

This single review paints a positive picture across all four dimensions. The contractor demonstrated strong professionalism by answering promptly, arriving early, explaining the problem clearly, and leaving contact information. Pricing transparency was noted via an accurate upfront estimate. Project completion was evidenced by the repair being finished promptly and the work area cleaned. Experience is inferred conservatively from the accurate diagnosis and successful repair, though no deep technical detail was provided. All scores are held conservative due to the extremely limited sample size of one review from 2013.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The sole review is dated October 2013, making it over 10 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• With only one review, fake review detection cannot be meaningfully performed, but the review does contain specific, credible details which reduce (but do not eliminate) suspicion.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — it is based on a single review that is over a decade old, providing insufficient and outdated evidence to draw any reliable conclusions about this contractor's current performance.