Find Nearby Plumbers In Norfolk, Virginia

M&Holmes Contracting receives a critically low WW Score of 18.2, driven by overwhelmingly negative feedback across all dimensions. The company demonstrates severe deficiencies in project completion (12/100), with 35 reviews documenting abandoned jobs, no-shows, failure to follow through on promised work, and incomplete repairs requiring second opinions and out-of-pocket customer expenses. Professionalism scores only 22/100, with 28 reviews citing rude staff, poor communication, unresponsiveness to calls/voicemails, and unprofessional behavior. Pricing integrity is severely compromised (15/100) across 18 reviews, with customers reporting dishonest upselling, fabricated code requirements, inflated charges, and apparent targeting of warranty customers for additional fees. While experience shows slightly higher marks (28/100) on 16 mentions, this reflects occasional competent diagnostics overshadowed by systemic execution failures and ethical concerns.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of systematic fraud allegations. Multiple independent reviews (2019-2021) describe identical schemes: technicians deliberately misdiagnosing issues, fabricating code requirements, and charging excessive add-ons to warranty customers. This is not isolated complaint but documented pattern.
• CRITICAL: No-show and abandonment pattern. 12+ reviews explicitly document scheduled appointments with no call/no show, cancelled appointments, technicians refusing to return, or jobs left incomplete. This is core business failure.
• CRITICAL: Dishonest practices toward warranty customers. Reviews consistently describe company admitting they inflate charges because warranty companies 'don't pay much,' deliberately recommending unnecessary work, and targeting less-educated customers.
• CRITICAL: Unresponsive communication. 8+ reviews document inability to reach company via phone, voicemail boxes full, no callbacks for days/weeks, and staff providing false information about job status.
• CRITICAL: Quality control failure. Multiple reviews describe same technician (Tom) making identical errors (unconnected ductwork, misdiagnosis), suggesting systemic lack of oversight and accountability.
• CRITICAL: Hostile customer service. 6+ reviews describe rude, condescending, or abusive staff behavior, including owner allegedly telling customer 'fuck you' and hanging up.
• CRITICAL: Fake review detection - LIMITED. Only 2 positive reviews (4-star ratings) in 40 total reviews. Both are vague, generic praise without specific details. One (2021-06-27) appears to be damage control response after negative review. This 95% negative ratio with minimal positive detail is suspicious but reviews are substantive enough to be credible complaints.
• RECENCY: 32 of 40 reviews (80%) are from 2018-2021, with most concentrated in 2019-2021. No recent reviews provided, so current status unknown. Pattern is well-documented and consistent across 3-year period.
• CONTEXT: Company appears to operate primarily through home warranty referrals (American Home Shield, 2-10 Home Warranty). Reviews suggest warranty companies may be slow to delist despite pattern of complaints.

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 40 substantive reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, documenting a consistent 3-year pattern of systematic failures in project completion, professionalism, pricing integrity, and customer communication. The overwhelming consensus and specificity of complaints (with corroborating details across independent reviews) indicates this company has severe operational and ethical deficiencies. Consumers should avoid this contractor.

This contractor's review profile is dominated by severe, credible complaints across nearly every dimension. Five of eight reviews are 1-star and describe serious misconduct including taking upfront payment and abandoning projects, lying about permits and licensure, leaving bathrooms unfinished, missing appointments and responding with hostility, and alleged fraud. The three positive reviews praise communication, pricing, and responsiveness, but they are outnumbered and outweighed by the volume and severity of the negative accounts. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating work was never finished and money was never returned. Professionalism scores are similarly devastated by documented no-shows, blocked phone numbers, and aggressive text messages.

• FRAUD RISK: Multiple reviewers independently allege the contractor accepted upfront payment and then became unreachable — a strong pattern of financial misconduct.
• PERMIT FRAUD: At least two reviewers state the contractor claimed to have obtained permits but city inspectors confirmed no permits were filed — a serious legal and safety violation.
• UNLICENSED WORK: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor claimed to be licensed but was found not to be upon investigation.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The three 5-star reviews are notably generic in praise and lack the specific project detail present in the negative reviews. They may not be authentic, and their positive signals should be treated with caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews are from 2021. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, so current business behavior cannot be assessed.
• ONE REVIEWER offered a financial reward for identifying information on the contractor, suggesting the situation escalated beyond a simple dispute.
• OVERALL WARNING: The pattern of behavior described across multiple independent reviewers — upfront payment, abandoned work, ignored calls, false permit claims — represents a high-risk contractor profile.

This WW Score is based on 8 reviews with HIGH mention counts across most dimensions, but the score should be treated as a serious warning signal rather than a precise rating — the evidence of repeated misconduct is consistent, multi-dimensional, and credible.

These reviews are for a real estate agent (Gary Layne, Keller Williams), not a contractor or plumber, which significantly limits the applicability of the WW Score framework designed for trade contractors. Within the applicable dimensions, Gary receives strong marks for professionalism — multiple reviewers cite responsiveness, communication, punctuality, and a positive attitude. Project completion scores are tempered by one detailed 1-star review describing a property management failure where a home went unrented for two months due to listing errors and poor oversight, with no remediation offered. Experience scores are supported by several reviewers noting Gary's local market knowledge, investor background, and problem-solving ability. Pricing data is entirely absent from all reviews, making that dimension unscoreable.

• WRONG BUSINESS TYPE: These reviews are for a real estate agent/property manager, not a contractor or plumber. The WW Score framework is not designed for this business category and results should be interpreted with caution.
• RECENCY WARNING: Six of eight reviews are from 2018, one from 2019, and one from 2021. No reviews exist from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date). The contractor's current performance is unknown.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW CLUSTERING: Multiple 5-star reviews were posted within days of each other in October 2018 (Oct 4, Oct 12, Oct 15), which may indicate solicited or coordinated review activity. However, the negative review also falls in this cluster, which slightly reduces this concern.
• PRICING DIMENSION: No reviews mention pricing, quotes, or value for money. This dimension cannot be scored and is excluded from WW Score calculation.
• WW SCORE SUPPRESSED: Due to the business type mismatch (real estate vs. contractor/plumber), the WW Score has been set to null. Applying this score as a contractor rating would be misleading.

This score report has very limited reliability for contractor evaluation purposes — the subject is a real estate agent, not a contractor or plumber, all reviews are over three years old, and the pricing dimension is entirely unscored, making the WW framework only partially applicable.

This business appears to be a plumbing supply store (Express), not a contractor/plumber service. The reviews reveal a deeply polarized customer experience: two recent reviews (2024, 2022) describe the owner as rude, entitled, and dismissive, while three older reviews (2021, 2020, 2015) praise knowledgeable staff, good pricing, and helpful customer service. The professionalism dimension is severely compromised by explicit complaints about rudeness and poor attitude. Pricing is consistently praised as fair and competitive. Experience/knowledge is highlighted positively in multiple reviews. However, the recency of negative professionalism reviews and the absence of any mention of project completion (as this is a parts supplier, not a service contractor) make a reliable WW Score impossible to calculate.

• CRITICAL: This business appears to be a plumbing supply/parts retailer, NOT a contractor or plumber service. WW Score methodology is designed for service contractors, not retail suppliers. Reviews do not address service delivery, job completion, or on-site work.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two most recent reviews (2024, 2022) are highly negative regarding owner professionalism, while positive reviews are 2-9 years old. This suggests a significant deterioration in service quality or management.
• POLARIZED REVIEWS: Extreme divergence between 1-star and 4-5 star ratings with no middle ground suggests either inconsistent service or different customer expectations.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Multiple explicit mentions of owner rudeness, entitlement, and poor communication in recent reviews. This is a serious concern.
• INSUFFICIENT DIMENSION COVERAGE: Project completion dimension has zero mentions (not applicable to a parts supplier). Cannot calculate meaningful WW Score without this critical dimension.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated because the business is a plumbing supply retailer, not a service contractor, and the project completion dimension (35% weight) has no applicable data. Additionally, the stark recency divide between negative recent reviews and positive older reviews suggests the business may have experienced significant changes in management or service quality.

With only 3 reviews spanning nearly 15 years, meaningful scoring is severely limited. Professionalism received moderate mentions, with reviewers noting friendly and helpful staff, though one review flagged difficulty getting an appointment due to limited staffing. Pricing received a single positive mention, with one customer explicitly noting a better price than a competing big-box store. Project completion could not be scored as no review directly addressed job completion, follow-through, or timeliness of work performed by this contractor. Experience received limited mentions, with staff demonstrating product knowledge and the ability to source an in-stock solution quickly, but the sample is too small to draw reliable conclusions.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules.
• Reviews span from 2006 to 2021 — two of the three reviews are over 15 years old and carry very low recency weight.
• This appears to be a supplier/showroom (Noland) rather than a contractor or plumber — reviews describe purchasing fixtures and interacting with sales staff, not hiring a tradesperson to complete work. Scoring dimensions designed for contractors may not apply cleanly.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with minimal detail, which raises a mild concern about representativeness, though the low volume makes fake review detection inconclusive.
• Project Completion dimension returned NO DATA as no review described actual installation or trade work being performed.

This score should be treated as highly unreliable due to an extremely small and outdated review sample, and because the reviews appear to describe a plumbing supply showroom rather than a contractor performing trade work.

These three reviews cannot be reliably analyzed for a plumbing contractor WW Score. The reviews contain multiple red flags indicating they are not authentic customer feedback: repetitive generic praise with no specific project details, identical 4.0 ratings across all reviews, unnatural phrasing and grammar patterns, and content mixing locksmith services with plumbing services without coherent context. No actionable information about professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience can be extracted.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: All three reviews exhibit identical rating (4.0), similar generic praise structure, and unnatural language patterns consistent with automated or fabricated content
• CATEGORY CONFUSION: Reviews reference both locksmith and plumbing services inconsistently, suggesting reviews may not be authentic customer experiences
• NO SPECIFIC PROJECT DATA: Reviews contain no details about actual plumbing work, timelines, costs, or outcomes
• UNNATURAL LANGUAGE: Phrases like 'tenaciousness,' 'short-changing the buyer,' and 'You reign' are atypical of genuine customer reviews
• EXTREME AGE: All reviews are from October 2012 (12+ years old), making them unreliable for current assessment

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to suspected fake reviews, lack of specific plumbing project details, and extreme age of all reviews. No trustworthy assessment of this contractor's performance can be made from this dataset.