Find Nearby Plumbers In Cedar Rapids, Iowa

The overwhelming majority of reviews paint a deeply negative picture of this contractor, particularly around the owner Joe's conduct. Professionalism is the most heavily criticized dimension, with multiple reviewers independently describing Joe as rude, accusatory, combative over billing disputes, and engaging in unprofessional behavior such as discussing politics on the clock and aggressively pursuing payment through legal channels. Pricing is also a serious concern, with reviewers citing a 100% markup on parts, charges exceeding quotes by thousands of dollars, double service call billing, and a $185 unexplained surcharge on a referred repair. Project completion received a slightly higher score only because some basic plumbing tasks were technically finished, but issues such as wavy flooring, unresolved callbacks over more than a year, and incomplete follow-through drag the score down significantly. Experience scores marginally better as a few reviews acknowledge that basic plumbing work was competent, but carpentry quality was explicitly poor and at least one reviewer questioned whether the plumber held proper licensing.

• Two 5-star reviews (2012 and 2022) are extremely brief and generic with no specific details, which raises concern about their authenticity relative to the detailed negative reviews.
• The 2012 review is over 10 years old and should be given minimal weight in any current assessment.
• Five of seven reviews are 1-star, and four of those contain highly specific, detailed accounts of misconduct — this pattern is consistent with genuine negative experiences rather than coordinated attacks.
• The owner Joe is named directly and consistently across multiple independent negative reviews spanning 2017–2023, suggesting a persistent pattern of behavior rather than isolated incidents.
• Most negative reviews are older than 12 months (pre-2024), but the most recent review (December 2023) continues the same negative pattern, indicating no improvement over time.

This WW Score is based on 7 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions; while confidence in individual dimension scores is HIGH due to mention counts, the small total review pool and the stark contrast between detailed negative reviews and vague positive ones means this score should be treated as a strong warning signal rather than a definitive final verdict.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. While one 2019 review describes satisfactory work and attentive communication, three earlier reviews (2014–2016) document critical failures: poor workmanship (sagging drips, pock marks, premature chipping), unprofessional conduct (derogatory texts, retaliatory inspector reports), payment disputes, and abandoned contracted work. The pattern of legal action and documented misconduct, combined with quality issues that failed within one year, indicates systemic problems. The single positive review cannot offset the weight of documented failures and legal consequences.

• CRITICAL: Multiple documented legal disputes. One review explicitly references court case records and damages awarded against the contractor.
• CRITICAL: Documented unprofessional behavior including derogatory/taunting text messages and retaliatory reporting to building inspector.
• CRITICAL: Quality failure — bathtub refinish deteriorated (chipping and cracking) within one year of completion.
• CRITICAL: Payment dispute and breach of contract — contractor refused to perform agreed work over payment timing disagreement.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are from 2014–2016 (8–10 years old). Only one recent review (2019) exists, which is now 5+ years old. No reviews from past 12 months.
• PATTERN ALERT: Three one-star reviews with serious allegations vs. one four-star review. The positive review predates the documented legal issues and may not reflect current or typical service quality.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient recent data and the presence of documented legal disputes that fundamentally undermine confidence in the contractor's reliability; however, the pattern of documented failures, legal action, and quality deterioration suggests significant risk regardless of the single positive review.

With only 3 reviews available, this analysis lacks sufficient volume to produce a reliable WW Score. All three reviews are positive (5-star ratings), mentioning professionalism, responsiveness, and quality work. However, the sample size is too small to establish confidence in any dimension. Two of the three reviews are significantly dated (2017 and 2019), with only one from 2024, limiting recency relevance. The reviews contain generic praise language without specific technical details about plumbing work quality.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 5 reviews for reliable scoring
• RECENCY CONCERN: 2 of 3 reviews are older than 5 years (2017, 2019); only 1 review from past 12 months
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Reviews lack specific technical details about plumbing work; language is broadly positive but not substantive
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 1 review mentions pricing; insufficient to assess price-friendliness dimension
• SAMPLE BIAS: All 3 reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback; no negative reviews to balance assessment

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews, minimum 5 required). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish trustworthy performance metrics.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are older than 5 years (2016 and 2019), limiting recency relevance. Professionalism is supported by mentions of communication, punctuality, and quick response. Pricing is mentioned positively in both reviews as affordable and reasonably priced. Project completion is implied through successful resolution of work, though no explicit mention of timeliness or follow-through. Experience/workmanship is not explicitly discussed in either review. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews provided; minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are significantly older than 12 months (2016 and 2019). No recent performance data available.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Both reviews use enthusiastic language but lack specific technical details about workmanship quality or problem-solving approach.
• EXPERIENCE DIMENSION ABSENT: No review mentions skill level, technical knowledge, or quality of workmanship explicitly.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and age of reviews (5+ years old). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. While both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience, the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions. No pricing information was mentioned in either review.

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review dates are significantly outdated: most recent review is from December 2021 (3+ years old), and oldest is from January 2019 (5+ years old). No recent data available.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise language ('awesome team', 'never let me down', 'highly recommended'). Pattern suggests potential selection bias or fake review risk, though language is not identical.
• No pricing dimension data available across all reviews.

This score cannot be calculated and should not be used for decision-making. The sample size of 2 reviews is insufficient, reviews are outdated (3-5 years old), and there is no pricing information. At least 5-10 recent reviews are needed to produce a reliable WW Score.

Both reviews are strongly negative and describe serious misconduct. The first review alleges deliberate sabotage — turning off tenant heat and demanding payment to restore it — which is an extreme professionalism and ethics violation. The second review describes sustained verbal abuse, physically forcing entry into a customer's home to remove installed plumbing, and a pattern of defective workmanship across multiple fixtures including improperly installed toilets, faulty faucets, and a leaking shower head. Across both reviews, every dimension that can be assessed is rated near the bottom of the scale. With only two reviews available, a formal WW Score cannot be reliably calculated, but the qualitative signal is unambiguously severe.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews were provided. A minimum of 3 is required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Review 1 alleges deliberate disabling of heating systems to extort payment from a building owner — potentially illegal conduct.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Review 2 alleges the contractor physically forced entry into a customer's home and removed installed plumbing as retaliation for a delayed payment — potentially criminal conduct.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: Review 2 documents multiple installation failures across toilets, faucets, and shower heads, all requiring correction by a second plumber.
• RECENCY NOTE: Both reviews are from 2019–2021. No recent reviews were provided. Current performance cannot be assessed.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE 1-STAR: While this could indicate a fake review pattern in some contexts, here both reviews contain highly specific, detailed, and distinct accounts of separate incidents, reducing the likelihood of fabrication. The negative signal is treated as credible.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable as a statistical measure, though the qualitative content of both reviews raises serious and specific concerns about this contractor's conduct, ethics, and workmanship quality.