Find Nearby Plumbers In Des Moines, Iowa

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. Review 1 (2014) praises friendliness, service quality, and reasonable pricing, while Review 2 (2013) reports significant issues with project completion (initial work failed inspection) and professionalism (poor reliability, missed appointments). The reviews are contradictory and both are over 10 years old, limiting their relevance to current performance.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are from 2013–2014 (10+ years old) — do not reflect current business practices or quality
• Conflicting narratives: one 5-star praise vs. one 2-star complaint — suggests high variability or inconsistency
• Review 2 explicitly documents project failure (failed inspection) and poor follow-through (cancellations, difficulty scheduling callbacks) — serious red flags for reliability

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required) and extreme age of all reviews (10+ years). Any score calculated would be statistically unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews speak positively about Matt's responsiveness and speed of arrival, with one reviewer explicitly praising fair pricing and another noting punctuality and professionalism. Project completion is supported by both reviews describing jobs finished quickly and thoroughly. Experience is inferred from references to knowing what he is doing and successfully clearing a sewer main blockage under a basement slab. However, with only 2 reviews total, all scores are conservative and carry very limited confidence.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• One review (2020-09-23) is over 4 years old and carries significantly reduced recency weight compared to the 2024 review.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings; while not inherently suspicious, the small sample size makes it impossible to assess whether this reflects a genuine pattern of quality.

This score profile should be treated as highly preliminary and not relied upon for decision-making, as it is based on only 2 reviews spanning a 4-year period with all dimensions rated at LIMITED confidence.

Both available reviews are negative and date from 2018–2019, making them over five years old with no recent data to balance the picture. Professionalism scores extremely low because both reviewers describe dismissive or unresponsive behavior — one felt actively discouraged based on perceived financial status, and the other was promised a written quote that never arrived. Project completion is nearly zero for the data available, as the one relevant review describes a contractor who committed to a follow-up action and failed to deliver entirely. Pricing received a marginally higher score only because one reviewer was given a ballpark range, though it was offered without any assessment of actual project scope, which itself reflects poor practice. No workmanship or technical skill data exists in either review, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are from 2018–2019, meaning all data is more than 5 years old. Current business quality is entirely unknown.
• No positive reviews present — this may reflect selection bias in the dataset provided, or may indicate a genuine pattern of poor customer service.
• Review 1 describes a possible pattern of selective client engagement based on perceived wealth, which is a significant professionalism concern.
• Review 2 describes a broken promise of follow-through (quote never sent), a direct project completion and professionalism failure.
• No data exists for workmanship, technical skill, or job quality — the Experience dimension is completely unscored.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 5 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of current contractor quality — no meaningful conclusions can be drawn without more recent and numerous reviews.

Both reviews are strongly negative and describe serious failures across every dimension. Professionalism is rated near zero due to allegations of ignoring callbacks for weeks or months, dismissing legitimate concerns, and predatory behavior toward elderly and vulnerable customers. Pricing is flagged as deeply unfair, with one reviewer alleging $6,000 was taken for work that was never properly completed, and another paying $1,000 for a botched door installation requiring full replacement. Project completion scores are critically low, as both jobs were left in worse condition than before, with structural issues ignored or worsened. Workmanship quality is described as severely deficient, including wrong door sizes, crooked hinges, unrepaired rotting subfloors, and a cracked shower drain left unaddressed.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews allege predatory targeting of senior citizens and elderly individuals, which is a serious ethical and legal concern.
• Review 1 (2023-08-26) alleges $6,000 was charged for work that was never properly completed, with structural damage left unresolved.
• Review 2 (2019-09-26) alleges the contractor demanded an upfront deposit, went weeks without contact, installed wrong-sized doors with crooked hinges, and stopped returning calls after payment.
• Review 2 mentions a separate contractor independently identified this contractor's prior defective work, suggesting a pattern of poor workmanship beyond these two reviews.
• Review 2 references a neighbor-level reputation for ripping off senior citizens, suggesting broader community awareness of misconduct.
• One reviewer stated they were filing a small claims lawsuit; another implied potential legal or karmic recourse — both reviews carry strong fraud and negligence allegations.
• The two reviews span 2019 to 2023, indicating persistent issues over multiple years rather than an isolated incident.
• No positive reviews were provided for analysis — all available data is negative. This may reflect selection bias or may accurately represent the contractor's track record on this platform.

This score is based on only 2 reviews and should be treated as highly preliminary; however, the severity and specificity of both complaints — including allegations of fraud, elder exploitation, structural negligence, and persistent non-responsiveness — paint a consistently alarming picture that warrants serious caution.

Both reviews speak positively about professionalism and expertise. The first review highlights creative problem-solving on a plumbing adaptation job and expresses satisfaction with the completed work. The second review praises the owner's 45+ years of experience, courteous demeanor, and business professionalism, and also notes 24/7 availability and live phone answering. However, with only two reviews — one of which is from 2019 — the dataset is far too small to produce a reliable WW Score, and no pricing information was mentioned in either review.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• One review (2019-01-08) is over 4 years old and carries significantly reduced recency weight.
• The 2019 review reads somewhat like a professional endorsement or referral rather than a typical customer experience review — it may reflect a business relationship rather than a standard service transaction, which could introduce bias.
• No pricing or value-for-money information was mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated due to an insufficient number of reviews (only 2 provided), significant recency concerns with one review dating to 2019, and a complete absence of pricing data.

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 extremely negative, citing severe professionalism failures (no-shows, poor communication, dismissive treatment) and project completion issues (missed appointments, incomplete follow-through). However, with only 2 data points and both from 5+ years ago, confidence in any aggregate score is critically limited.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from 2017 and 2019 (5+ years old) — no recent data available
• Both reviews are 1-star with severe complaints — no positive data to balance assessment
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions — cannot evaluate value or fairness
• Experience dimension has zero mentions — cannot assess technical skill or workmanship quality

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor performance due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required), extreme age of data (5+ years), and complete absence of recent feedback or positive counterbalance.