Find Nearby Plumbers In Spokane, Washington

Only one review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The single reviewer praised fast responsiveness — a return call within 30 minutes and same-day arrival before noon — supporting a modest professionalism score. The technician resolved an ongoing electro pilot issue with the water heater, suggesting adequate technical competence, though no detail is given about workmanship quality beyond the problem being resolved. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored. All scores are conservative given the single-review basis.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Pricing dimension has zero data and is excluded from all calculations.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated with very low confidence.
• No review dates older than 12 months detected, but a single data point from 2023 is insufficient to establish any trend.

This report is based on a single review and should not be used to make any meaningful hiring or trust decisions — far more reviews are needed before the WW Score can be considered reliable.

Only one review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer explicitly praised the technicians as knowledgeable and helpful, and noted that other companies had failed to locate the leak where this contractor succeeded, indicating strong technical skill and problem-solving ability. The job appears to have been completed successfully with the leak found and resolved. Professionalism is supported by descriptions of the crew being thorough and diligent. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• Review is from October 2022, which is over 12 months old — recency weighting is reduced.
• Single review with no corroborating reviews — all dimension scores carry very low confidence and should not be treated as representative.

This score report is based on a single review from over a year ago and should be considered highly preliminary — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall performance can be drawn until significantly more reviews are analyzed.

The single review available is a detailed 1-star account describing severe failures across all four dimensions. The reviewer explicitly states that work had to be redone repeatedly and was rejected by an inspector, indicating critically poor workmanship and project completion. Professionalism was described as extremely poor, with the contractor complaining about others, failing to respond to messages, and allegedly stealing tools upon departure. The reviewer also explicitly stated the contractor was not worth the low rate paid, indicating very poor value for money. While the scores reflect the severity of the complaints, all four dimensions carry only LIMITED confidence due to being based on a single review.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from April 2019, which is more than 5 years old. Current performance may differ significantly.
• Allegation of theft of tools by the business owner (Casey) is a serious legal and ethical concern that should be weighed heavily by prospective customers.
• Claim that inspector rejected nearly all work suggests potential licensing, code compliance, or competency issues.
• No corroborating reviews exist to confirm or contradict these claims — treat with appropriate caution in both directions.

This score is based on a single review from 2019 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of overall contractor quality — however, the specific and detailed nature of the complaints (inspector rejections, tool theft, non-responsiveness) lends the individual review itself a degree of credibility that warrants serious caution.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. This single review documents severe failures in professionalism (no-show, no communication, unanswered calls) and project completion (job left undone, no follow-through). However, a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews to establish meaningful patterns.

• Only 1 review available — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• Review is from December 2021 (over 2 years old) — recency is poor
• No data on pricing or experience dimensions
• Single negative review cannot establish contractor pattern without corroboration

This score cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment of the contractor's overall performance; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a valid WW Score.

Only one review was analyzed, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review explicitly mentions a failure in responsiveness/communication (no callback), which directly impacts the professionalism dimension. However, with only 1 mention and no data on pricing, project completion, or experience, no meaningful overall score can be derived.

• Insufficient review volume — only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review is from August 2023 (over 1 year old) — recency is limited.
• Only professionalism dimension has data; three dimensions lack any mention.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data volume. A single negative review about responsiveness does not provide adequate evidence to assess overall contractor quality.

Only a single review is available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The one review is positive, noting that the technician (Dillon) was quick, professional, clean, courteous, and transparent — all of which speak to professionalism. The mention of transparency in the job was interpreted as a mild signal of fair pricing practices, though no specific pricing details were provided. Project completion is inferred from the reviewer stating the plumbing issue was fixed, but no detail about scope, timeline, or follow-through is given. Experience and workmanship quality were not explicitly discussed, so that dimension returns null.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Single 5-star review with generally positive but non-specific language — insufficient data to detect or rule out fake review patterns.
• Pricing score is based on a single indirect mention of 'transparency' only — no actual pricing figures or comparisons were provided; treat with caution.
• Experience dimension has no data — workmanship quality was not explicitly addressed in the review.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable; at least 3–5 reviews are needed before any dimension score or overall WW Score can be meaningfully trusted.