Find Nearby Plumbers In Bristol, Connecticut

This single review describes a severely problematic experience with multiple critical failures across all dimensions. The contractor doubled the quoted price mid-job without prior agreement, failed to complete the work properly (toilet became loose within a week due to plastic bolts that snapped), refused to guarantee his work, and the customer ultimately required a second plumber to redo the job entirely. While the review is detailed and credible, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as one customer's experience—even a negative one—does not provide sufficient statistical basis for a trustworthy contractor assessment.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews to calculate reliably.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from February 2019 (5+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices.
• SEVERE QUALITY ISSUES: Review documents defective workmanship (plastic bolts that snapped), incomplete installation, and need for complete rework by another contractor.
• PRICING VIOLATION: Contractor doubled price mid-job ($200 to $400) without prior customer agreement, suggesting potential bait-and-switch tactics.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL: Contractor explicitly refused to guarantee his work, which is a major red flag for professional standards.

This assessment cannot be considered reliable for contractor evaluation purposes due to insufficient review volume (n=1). A single negative review, while detailed and credible, does not provide adequate statistical basis for a WW Score. At minimum 3 reviews are required; 5+ reviews are strongly recommended for meaningful confidence.

This single review provides limited evidence across three dimensions. The reviewer explicitly mentions 'great' customer service (professionalism), successful diagnosis and completion of recommended work (project completion), and technical problem-solving ability (experience). However, with only one review and no mention of pricing, transparency, or timeline adherence, the data is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The review is positive but lacks specificity on key performance indicators.

• Insufficient data: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• No pricing information provided — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension.
• Generic praise ('great customer service') without specific examples of responsiveness or communication details.
• No timeline or punctuality information mentioned.
• Single positive review may not represent full contractor performance range.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1). At least 3 reviews are required to establish baseline reliability.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly unreliable. That review is strongly negative, explicitly citing unprofessional behavior including complaining about personal problems during the job and charging what the reviewer describes as outrageous and unreasonable prices. Professionalism and pricing both score very low based on these direct complaints. Project completion and experience are entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2015 — data is over 9 years old and may not reflect current contractor behavior or quality.
• No positive reviews present to balance assessment; entire dataset is a single 1-star review.
• Project completion and experience dimensions have zero data and are excluded from any scoring.

This score report is based on a single review from 2015 and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's current performance or overall quality.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review explicitly mentions professionalism (punctuality, cleanliness, attitude) and experience (knowledgeability), but provides no information about pricing or project completion. No WW Score can be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is from 2011 (13+ years old) — recency is severely limited
• No data on pricing or project completion dimensions
• Generic praise language with no specific project details

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review, minimum 3 required) and extreme age of the single review (2011).

This single review from March 2019 documents severe failures across all dimensions. The contractor installed fixtures incorrectly, failed to communicate for weeks, blamed the customer for ordering errors, demanded additional payment for corrections, and displayed defensive behavior when issues were raised. While the review provides explicit evidence of poor professionalism, incomplete project delivery, unfair pricing practices, and questionable workmanship, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated from a single review. This represents one customer's experience and lacks the minimum data volume needed for confident scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from March 2019 (5+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot establish patterns or trends from one data point. Contractor may have improved or this may be an outlier.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; at least three reviews are required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.

This single review from June 2016 (over 8 years old) describes severe failures across all dimensions: poor phone communication and booking process, unprofessional plumber behavior with upselling tactics, bogus diagnosis, and incomplete work leaving leaky pipes unfixed. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review. The extreme age of this review (2016) also limits its relevance to current operations.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review is from June 2016 — over 8 years old. Does not reflect current contractor performance.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot establish patterns or trends from one data point. Contractor may have improved significantly since 2016.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score. A single review from 2016 is insufficient to assess current contractor quality. Minimum 3 recent reviews (within past 12 months) are required for meaningful scoring.