Find Nearby Plumbers In New Orleans, Louisiana

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. One detailed 2021 review praises professionalism, timely installation, and fair pricing for a complete A/C unit replacement. However, a more recent 2021 review documents serious failures in diagnostic competence, with a technician failing to identify a refrigerant leak, charging $393 for incomplete service, then delivering a berating attitude on callback. A third 2024 review mentions only basic service continuity without detail. The stark contradiction between positive and negative experiences, combined with documented technical negligence and poor customer communication, drives the score down significantly. With only 3 reviews and conflicting evidence, confidence remains limited.

• CRITICAL: One review (2021-11-02) documents potential diagnostic fraud or gross negligence—technician failed to identify a leak, charged $393 for freon-only service, then blamed customer on callback. Second opinion revealed two leaks the original tech missed.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contradiction between the detailed positive 2021 review and the detailed negative 2021 review from the same year suggests either highly variable service quality or inconsistent technician competence.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2021 (3+ years old); only one review from 2024. Limited recent data to assess current performance.
• SMALL SAMPLE: Only 3 reviews total limits statistical reliability. Score should be treated as preliminary.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (3 reviews), significant internal contradiction, and documented service failures in one review that raise serious questions about technical competence and customer communication. The 2024 review provides minimal detail. Additional recent reviews are needed before making a confident business decision.

This contractor's review profile is deeply mixed and spans over a decade, making reliable assessment difficult. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by two damning reviews: one describing the owner telling a potential customer to 'fuck off,' and another detailing broken commitments, excuses, and disappearing without completing work or returning calls. Two positive reviews praise responsiveness, respectful attitude, and care — but these are outweighed by the severity of the negative incidents. Project completion is a significant concern, with one reviewer explicitly describing abandoned work, unmet timelines, and a contractor who took partial payment and vanished. Pricing and experience received modest positive mentions in older reviews, but the negative reviewer explicitly called the quality of work 'marginal,' which tempers those scores considerably.

• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are older than 5 years (most recent: November 2019, oldest: 2012). No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor took partial final payment and disappeared without completing the punch list or installing crown molding, and stopped returning calls and emails.
• EXTREME CONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer reports the owner responded to a service inquiry by telling them to 'fuck off.' This is a severe professionalism incident regardless of other positive reviews.
• QUALITY CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly described the quality of work as 'marginal,' directly contradicting positive quality claims in other reviews.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 5 reviews total across 7+ years. This is an insufficient sample to draw reliable conclusions about consistent contractor behavior.
• SPAN OF REVIEWS: Reviews range from 2012 to 2019. Older positive reviews (2012, 2016) may not reflect current business practices or quality.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample (5 reviews), a date range spanning 7+ years with no recent data, and sharply contradictory accounts — including one report of abandoned work with partial payment taken and one report of extreme verbal misconduct — which cannot be reconciled with the positive reviews present.

The reviews paint a mixed but largely concerning picture of this contractor. Professionalism is the most damaged dimension: one review describes a no-show with no proactive communication, and a detailed 2011 review describes a plumber arriving unprepared, making three trips for a simple job, and leaving without an invoice — all explicitly labeled unprofessional by the reviewer. Project completion is similarly hurt by the no-show incident and the multi-trip single-job scenario, though the work was ultimately finished in two of the three substantive reviews. Experience scores modestly: the one detailed review notes the quality of work itself was acceptable, and a long-term customer of 20 years speaks positively, but the lack of preparedness and needing multiple return trips undermines confidence in skill level. Pricing received the most positive treatment, with one reviewer explicitly calling $93.22 reasonable and another noting smooth pricing over a 20-year relationship.

• One review contains only the word 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• All reviews with usable data are between 8 and 14 years old (2010–2016). None fall within the past 12 months. This score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current service quality.
• The sample size is very small (4 usable reviews), making all scores statistically unreliable. Treat this report with significant caution.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the two positive reviews (2010, 2012) are extremely brief and lack specific detail, limiting their evidentiary value.

This WW Score should be treated as LOW reliability due to a very small review sample, all reviews being over 8 years old, and two of the positive reviews lacking sufficient detail to confirm quality claims.

This contractor shows severe deficiencies in project completion and professionalism. The most recent and detailed review (Dec 2022) documents critical failures: incomplete work, unresponsive communication, defective plumbing requiring a third party to fix, and a flooded bathroom from faulty installation. Two older reviews (2020, 2017) praise pricing and knowledge, but these are significantly outweighed by the catastrophic failure documented in the 2022 review. The contractor's inability to follow through on contracted work and complete non-responsiveness to customer contact attempts are disqualifying issues. With only 3 reviews total and significant recency concerns (2 reviews are 5+ years old), confidence in this score is limited but the pattern of failure is clear.

• CRITICAL: Most recent review (Dec 2022) documents severe project failure with $1,800 loss to customer, incomplete work, and total non-responsiveness. This is the most reliable data point.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Two of three reviews are from 2017 and 2020 (5+ years old). Only 1 recent review available. Older positive reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 3 total reviews limits statistical reliability. Score should be treated as preliminary.
• PATTERN CONCERN: The 2022 review describes both poor workmanship (leaking pipes that required a carpenter to fix) and abandonment of contract, suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incident.

This score should be treated with caution due to very limited review volume (n=3), but the detailed 2022 failure documentation is credible and serious enough to warrant strong concern about contractor reliability.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 3 reviews, making any score highly tentative. The single positive review describes a responsive emergency repair on a weekend that restored service to an entire trailer park, suggesting capability in large-scale urgent jobs. However, two negative reviews describe technicians arriving unprepared, failing to complete repairs, and leaving customers worse off — including one case where a $300 diagnostic visit yielded no temporary fix that a competing plumber provided for $49. Project completion is a significant concern, with two out of three reviews explicitly describing abandoned or incomplete work. Pricing perception is negative, with one reviewer feeling overcharged for minimal effort.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.
• Two of the three reviews are older than 12 months (one from 2021, one from 2018); only one review is recent (2024). Recency weighting heavily favors the single positive review, which may not reflect consistent performance.
• The 2018 and 2021 negative reviews describe a pattern of technicians arriving unprepared and leaving without completing work — this is a recurring operational concern.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews appear genuine with specific details and varied ratings.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 6 years and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or consistency.

The overwhelming majority of reviews across all dimensions are deeply negative, painting a consistent picture of a contractor with serious systemic failures. Professionalism is the most heavily cited dimension and is catastrophically poor, with recurring complaints about rude office staff, no-shows, broken appointments, unanswered calls, and outright hostile behavior from ownership toward customers. Project completion is equally alarming, with numerous reviews describing abandoned jobs, work left in worse condition than found, refusal to return to fix damage caused by their own technicians, and deliberate misreporting to home warranty companies to avoid completing covered work. Experience scores are low due to multiple accounts of incorrect repairs, broken parts during service, failure to diagnose obvious issues, and work that had to be redone by other plumbers. Pricing scores are marginally higher but still poor, driven by credible allegations of fraudulent upcharging, inflated out-of-scope claims to warranty companies, and charges for work not performed. The handful of positive reviews exist but are vastly outnumbered and several are flagged as potentially inauthentic.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Multiple reviewers explicitly allege that positive reviews were written by office staff (Lauren R. and Autumn), with one reviewer noting the office manager shares the same last initial as the owner. This is a credible and specific allegation that undermines the authenticity of some 5-star reviews.
• RECENCY WARNING: The review set spans from 1996 to 2024. Reviews from 1996–2012 (approximately 8 reviews) are extremely dated and may not reflect current operations. However, the negative pattern is consistent across all time periods including recent 2021–2024 reviews, which actually reinforces the low scores rather than mitigating them.
• PATTERN OF WARRANTY FRAUD: A statistically significant number of reviews (at least 8) independently allege that this company deliberately misreports diagnoses to home warranty companies (e.g., claiming pest infestation, rocking toilets, or non-covered causes) to deny coverage and then upsell out-of-pocket repairs. This is a serious and recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• OWNER CONDUCT: At least one review describes the owner (Dave) personally calling a customer 'ignorant' and hanging up on them, and another describes the owner's daughter (Lauren) as the office manager who lies to customers. Named individuals appear across multiple independent reviews, adding credibility to these accounts.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: At least 6 reviews describe jobs that were explicitly left unfinished or in worse condition, with the company refusing to return. This is a critical project completion failure pattern.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews (e.g., 'DID A GREAT JOB', 'unknown', 'WORK WAS DONE INCORRECTLY' rated 5 stars) are either too vague to be useful or internally inconsistent, reducing their evidentiary value.
• ONE REVIEW (Rating 5.0, 2021-06-10) describes being charged $120 in what the reviewer calls fraud, yet is rated 5 stars — this is internally contradictory and was treated as unreliable data.

This WW Score of 28.1 is based on a large volume of reviews (44 total) spanning nearly three decades, with strong consistency in negative feedback across all four dimensions in recent years, making this score highly reliable as an indicator of poor contractor performance.