Find Nearby Plumbers In Meriden, Connecticut

The three reviews paint a largely negative picture of this contractor. Professionalism is a clear weak point, with one reviewer citing rude and dismissive phone customer service and another noting difficulty reaching the company at all, though the first reviewer acknowledged they do come through when contacted. Project completion is questionable, as one customer cancelled mid-scheduling and went elsewhere, suggesting a failure to secure the job. The one explicit mention of pricing and skill is damning — a reviewer directly stated the company charges a lot for work performed by someone who 'hardly knows plumbing,' dragging both the experience and pricing dimensions down significantly.

• Only 3 reviews available — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with very low reliability.
• All reviews are older than 1 year; the most recent is from April 2018 and the oldest from December 2013. No recent data exists to reflect current performance.
• The oldest review (2013) is over 10 years old and may not reflect the contractor's current capabilities or staff.
• No positive reviews with specific detail were found; the single partial positive (4-star) was vague and also noted a communication problem.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are more than 6 years old, making it a very low-reliability indicator of current contractor quality — treat with significant caution.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. The reviews are contradictory and polarized (1-star vs 5-star), making reliable scoring impossible. The negative review explicitly documents serious failures (sewage backup, warranty refusal, additional charges), while the positive review is generic and lacks specific detail. Both reviews are from 2016–2017 (7+ years old), severely limiting recency relevance. A WW Score cannot be calculated responsibly with fewer than 3 reviews and such extreme polarization.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: 1-star and 5-star reviews with no middle ground suggests either highly inconsistent service or potential review authenticity concerns.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from 2016–2017 (7+ years old). No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEW: The 5-star review uses vague language ('great,' 'nothing was too much,' 'no problems') with minimal specific detail, reducing credibility.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: The 1-star review documents critical failures (raw sewage backup, warranty denial, additional fees for remediation). If accurate, these are severe red flags.
• CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: Impossible to reconcile claims of 'great' service with documented sewage backup and warranty refusal without additional context or third-party verification.

This score is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. With only 2 reviews from 2016–2017 and extreme polarization, no defensible WW Score can be calculated. Additional recent reviews are essential before drawing any conclusions about this contractor's current performance.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. Both reviews are severely negative, citing poor communication, non-responsiveness, and failure to complete agreed-upon work. However, with only 2 data points and no positive counterbalance, any aggregate score would be unreliable and potentially skewed.

• CRITICAL: Insufficient review volume (n=2). WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Both reviews describe nearly identical patterns: estimate given, customer agrees, contractor becomes unresponsive and abandons job. This consistency suggests genuine complaints rather than fake reviews, but the small sample size prevents confident generalization.
• Review dates span approximately 1 year (July 2023 to June 2024), with the most recent review from June 2024.
• No data available on pricing, value, or technical experience/skill level. Scoring is limited to professionalism and project completion dimensions only.
• Both reviews explicitly mention poor communication and non-responsiveness as primary issues.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum required is 3). The available evidence strongly suggests serious issues with professionalism and project completion, but any numerical score derived from only 2 reviews would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both available reviews are strongly negative and paint a concerning picture of this contractor. The first review describes repeated no-shows across multiple scheduled appointments, directly indicating severe failures in professionalism, punctuality, and reliability. The second review alleges significant price gouging of a vulnerable elderly customer, with parts marked up 4–5 times over retail and labor charges that appear grossly inflated for the scope of work described. Project completion is scored marginally above zero only because the second review implies work was eventually performed, though under deeply questionable circumstances. No positive data exists across either review to offset these serious concerns.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• Both reviews are older than 12 months (2017 and 2019) — recency is poor and current contractor behavior may differ, but no recent data exists to confirm improvement.
• Review 2 contains a serious allegation of financial exploitation of an elderly customer, including specific dollar amounts and part markups of 4–5x retail. This is a significant red flag warranting caution.
• Review 1 describes four separate no-show incidents for a single job — a pattern of unreliability, not an isolated incident.
• No positive reviews are present to balance the dataset. All available data is negative.

This score is based on only 2 reviews, both negative and both over 12 months old, making it statistically insufficient for a reliable WW Score — however, the severity and specificity of the complaints strongly suggest meaningful risk in hiring this contractor.

Both reviews speak positively about Kevin's attitude and demeanor, with one reviewer explicitly contrasting his pleasant approach against a prior plumber who had an attitude problem, supporting a reasonable professionalism score. The second review describes Kevin completing multiple jobs — a faucet repair and a boiler mixer installation — and returning for follow-up work, indicating solid project follow-through. Workmanship is praised as 'excellent' and 'absolutely wonderful,' and the reviewer notes he cleans up after himself, suggesting good technical execution and professionalism. However, pricing is never mentioned in either review, so that dimension cannot be scored. With only two reviews total, all scores carry very limited confidence and should not be treated as reliable indicators of consistent performance.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• One review is dated 2022 (over 2 years old) and carries less recency weight than the 2024 review.
• No pricing or cost information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• Small sample size makes it impossible to detect fake review patterns or assess consistency of performance.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, which is below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score — treat all dimension scores as preliminary indicators only and seek additional reviews before making a hiring decision.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any reliable scoring impossible. That one review is a 1-star account describing a full-house replumb that resulted in nearly every line leaking and requiring redo by another plumber, covering sinks, tub, main line, and boiler. The reviewer explicitly calls out poor workmanship and a costly boiler install failure, driving Experience and Project Completion scores to near-zero. Pricing received a very low score as the reviewer implies the poor work resulted in significantly higher long-run costs. Professionalism could not be scored as it was not mentioned in the review.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All scored dimensions are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• No professionalism data available — punctuality, communication, and attitude were not mentioned.
• Review is dated October 2023 and is within the past 12 months, giving it full recency weight, but a single data point is still insufficient for a reliable overall assessment.

This score report is based on a single 1-star review and should not be treated as a reliable or representative assessment of this contractor — significantly more review data is required before any confidence can be placed in these scores.