Find Nearby Plumbers In Davenport, Iowa

This contractor's reviews present a deeply mixed picture dominated by serious pricing and completion concerns. Professionalism scores moderately — technicians like Jamie and Dallas were praised for responsiveness, attitude, and communication, but the company's billing practices and refusal to provide itemized invoices reflect poorly on overall professional conduct. Pricing is the weakest dimension: three of five reviews explicitly call out excessive or unfair charges, including a $1,250 plumbing job for 3 hours of actual work and a $1,700 water heater install described as nearly triple the market rate. Project completion is also problematic — one reviewer paid $523 for a drain unclog that failed within two days, and the company refused to honor a callback, forcing the customer to hire a competitor. Experience is mixed: individual technicians showed competence and problem-solving ability, but the drain job failure and excessive parts-retrieval time suggest inconsistency in workmanship quality.

• Three of five reviews are from 2020, making them over 4 years old. Only two reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). Recency weighting is limited.
• No suspected fake reviews detected — reviews contain specific details, timestamps, dollar amounts, and security system logs, suggesting authenticity.
• One review documents a serious consumer concern: refusal to provide an itemized bill, which may indicate a systemic billing transparency issue rather than an isolated incident.
• One review documents a failed service (drain unclog) with no warranty or callback honored — a significant project completion failure.
• Pricing complaints span multiple years (2020 and 2024), suggesting overcharging may be a persistent pattern rather than a one-time issue.
• Only 5 total reviews analyzed — WW Score should be treated as directional only. More reviews are needed for a reliable assessment.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 4 years, with 3 reviews being over 4 years old, making it a low-reliability signal that should be treated as directional rather than definitive — prospective customers should seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Every single review across this dataset describes a near-identical pattern: Tom Neels collects a large upfront payment (ranging from $275 to $1,000), provides excuses for not showing up, becomes unreachable, and ultimately fails to complete or even begin the contracted work. Professionalism is catastrophically low — reviewers consistently report blocked phone numbers, full voicemail boxes, and complete communication blackouts after payment is received. Project completion is effectively zero across all reviewed jobs, with one reviewer confirming through the county that Tom Neels does not hold a valid license and never obtained required permits. Pricing is flagged not as unaffordable but as fraudulent — money taken was never returned and no work was delivered in exchange. The one area with slightly more limited data, experience, still scores near zero given that the minimal work observed (e.g., a 5-minute concrete cut) was followed by total abandonment.

• FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: All 6 reviews describe an identical scheme — large upfront payment demanded for 'materials,' followed by no-shows, escalating excuses, and eventual blocking of the customer's contact information. This is consistent with deliberate fraud, not mere incompetence.
• UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR: One reviewer explicitly states they verified with the county that Tom Neels does not hold a valid plumbing license and never pulled required permits, despite claiming otherwise to the customer.
• HISTORICAL CONTEXT WARNING: One reviewer alleges that positive reviews on this profile are from when the previous owner (Tom's father) ran the business, and that Tom Neels took over after his father's death. Any older positive reviews should be treated as potentially irrelevant to current operations.
• REVIEW DATE RANGE: Reviews span from 2019 to 2023, indicating this pattern of behavior has persisted for at least four years with no apparent correction.
• NO POSITIVE REVIEWS PRESENT: There are zero positive or neutral reviews in this dataset. The score reflects unanimous negative experiences across all reviewers.
• FINANCIAL HARM DOCUMENTED: Reviewers report losing between $275 and $1,000 each. At least one case involved a commercial contract where the no-show caused cascading financial harm to multiple parties and delayed a business opening.

This WW Score is highly reliable given that all 6 reviews are detailed, specific, independently written, and describe consistent firsthand financial harm — the score of approximately 2.8 out of 100 should be treated as a serious warning against engaging this contractor under any circumstances.

This business is NOT a contractor/plumber — it is a hardware/equipment rental store. The reviews provided are fundamentally mismatched to the WW Score framework, which is designed to evaluate construction trades professionals. Of the 5 reviews, only 3 contain usable data relevant to service quality. Professionalism scores are severely depressed by documented poor communication (20-minute hold with no resolution), dismissive staff attitude, and aggressive upselling tactics. Pricing concerns center on undisclosed rental fees and deposit disputes. No reviews address project completion or technical expertise in a trades context. The business model (retail/rental) does not align with contractor evaluation criteria.

• CRITICAL: This business is a hardware/equipment rental store, NOT a contractor or plumber. WW Score is designed for trades professionals (plumbers, electricians, contractors). This analysis is not applicable.
• Review from 2017 (7+ years old) — recency is severely compromised; only 1 review from past 5 years.
• Only 3 of 5 reviews contain substantive service feedback; 2 reviews lack actionable detail.
• Negative reviews cite specific failures (hold time, upselling, fee disputes); positive reviews are generic ('kind and helpful,' 'best selection') with no specifics.
• No data on project completion, timelines, or technical workmanship — core contractor evaluation criteria.
• Business model mismatch makes WW Score calculation invalid and unreliable for this entity.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted because the business is a hardware/equipment rental store, not a contractor or plumber, and the review set is too small, too old, and misaligned with trades evaluation criteria.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, all from 2017–2022 (oldest is 6+ years old). While reviews consistently praise affordability, punctuality, and job completion, the sample size is too small and recency is poor to establish reliable confidence. Professionalism mentions are limited (2), and experience/skill level is never explicitly discussed. No negative feedback is present, but absence of complaints does not constitute evidence of quality.

• Only 3 reviews total — below minimum threshold for reliable scoring
• All reviews are 2+ years old; most recent is from January 2022 (2+ years ago). No recent data available.
• Suspiciously generic praise with minimal specifics (e.g., 'great work', 'reliable', 'affordable') across all reviews
• All reviews are 5-star with no substantive detail or specific project examples
• Experience/technical skill level never mentioned in any review
• Pattern suggests possible fake or template-based reviews, though cannot be definitively confirmed

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3), poor recency (all 2+ years old), and suspected generic/template-based review patterns. Any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Review 1 (2023) praises professionalism, experience, and project completion with strong confidence in the crew. Review 2 (2021, over 2 years old) reports serious professionalism failures (dismissive communication, rudeness from staff member Dawn) and incomplete follow-up on a callback, though initial work quality was adequate. The stark contradiction between reviews and the age of the negative review limit confidence in any overall score.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient sample size for reliable WW Score calculation
• Negative review is over 2 years old (April 2021); recency bias may apply
• Significant contradiction between reviews suggests inconsistent service quality or staff performance variability
• Review 2 explicitly names staff member (Dawn) in negative context — suggests specific personnel issue rather than systemic problem
• Review 1 lacks specificity on timeline and pricing; Review 2 provides detailed negative experience with clear dates and follow-up failures

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score with only 2 reviews; minimum 3 reviews required. The conflicting narratives (5-star vs. 1-star) and age disparity of the negative review further reduce confidence in any aggregate score.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. The reviews present sharply contradictory experiences: one highly positive account praising responsiveness, pricing, and workmanship quality; one highly negative account citing missed appointments, poor communication, and failure to honor scheduling commitments. With such limited and polarized data, no dimension has sufficient mention count (5+ required for HIGH confidence) to support a meaningful overall score.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW VOLUME: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• EXTREME POLARITY: Reviews are contradictory (5-star vs 1-star) with no middle ground, suggesting either highly inconsistent service or potential data quality issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2015-2016 (8-9 years old). No recent data available to assess current service standards.
• LIMITED MENTION COUNTS: All dimensions have 1-2 mentions only, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all scored dimensions.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and extreme age of data (2015-2016). Any scoring attempt would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.