Find Nearby Plumbers In Baltimore, Maryland

Stilwell Plumbing demonstrates critically poor performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by chronic no-shows, missed appointment windows, failure to communicate, and unprofessional behavior including hanging up on customers and lying about availability. Project completion is consistently problematic with abandoned work, incomplete repairs that fail within days, and multiple callbacks required to address the same issues. Pricing practices are unethical, featuring hidden diagnostic fees, unnecessary upsells of cheap parts, and refusal to honor stated warranties without additional charges. Technical competence is questionable, with misdiagnosis of problems, failure to arrive with necessary parts despite advance notice, and refusal to complete work outside narrow specialties despite accepting the job.

• CRITICAL: All 10 reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly severe complaints. This is not a fake review pattern but rather a genuine pattern of systemic failure.
• Multiple reviews explicitly state the company was assigned through home warranty (AHS/American Home Shield), suggesting customers had no choice in contractor selection.
• Recurring pattern: customers explicitly communicated problem details in advance; technicians arrived unprepared or without necessary parts.
• Ethical concerns flagged in multiple reviews: charging diagnostic fees for warranty work, using cheaper parts without customer consent, refusing to honor guarantees, and allegedly stealing old parts for scrap.
• Communication failures are pervasive: no-shows without notice, failure to return calls, lying about attempted contact, and hanging up on customers.
• All reviews are older than 1 year (2015-2020), with most from 2015-2019. No recent reviews available to assess if company has improved.
• One review explicitly states customer placed company on 'do not call list' 9 years prior due to poor service, then gave them another chance during emergency—company failed again.

This WW Score of 14.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 10 detailed reviews with unanimous negative findings across all dimensions, providing exceptionally strong evidence of systemic contractor failure. The score reflects genuine customer harm, not sampling error or isolated incidents.

All three reviews are strongly negative, painting a consistent picture of a contractor with serious issues across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily documented concern, with all three reviewers citing pushy upselling, poor communication, unresponsive management, and dismissive attitudes toward customer concerns. Pricing is flagged in all three reviews as excessive or non-transparent, including a $450 charge for incomplete 45-minute work and a $3,300 water heater quote that was never formally delivered. Project completion is poor, with at least one reviewer explicitly stating the job was not fixed and another never receiving a promised estimate. Technical experience appears questionable, with one tech misidentifying the age of a unit and another failing to resolve the issue at all.

• All 3 reviews are 1-star ratings — while this could reflect genuine poor service, the sample size is very small (only 3 reviews total) and limits statistical reliability.
• No positive reviews were provided for analysis. It is unknown whether this represents the full review pool or a filtered subset. If filtered, this score would be artificially deflated.
• Review from 2023-05-09 is over 12 months old and receives slightly reduced recency weight, though the pattern of complaints is consistent with more recent reviews.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, named individuals, dollar amounts, and distinct scenarios, suggesting authenticity.
• Management responsiveness is explicitly called out as a failure point in two separate reviews, suggesting a systemic organizational issue rather than isolated technician behavior.

With only 3 reviews analyzed, this WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability and should be interpreted as an early warning signal rather than a definitive assessment — however, the consistency and specificity of complaints across all three reviews lends credibility to the low scores assigned.

This contractor has received uniformly catastrophic reviews across all dimensions. Every single review (7/7) explicitly documents severe failures in professionalism, including no-shows, unresponsiveness, and dishonesty. Project completion is virtually non-existent—customers report abandoned work, failed repairs, and refusal to honor commitments despite receiving deposits. Pricing practices are predatory, with customers charged upfront for services never rendered and refund requests ignored. Technical competence is severely questioned, with documented errors including breaking equipment and ordering wrong parts. The consistency and specificity of complaints across independent reviews—spanning 20 months—indicates systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: All 7 reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive reviews to balance assessment. This is not a fake review pattern but rather genuine unanimous customer dissatisfaction.
• Multiple reviews reference the same individual 'Marvin' or 'Marvin Madison' as owner/operator, suggesting concentrated accountability.
• Customers report escalation to legal action, BBB complaints, and Attorney General complaints—indicating pattern of non-compliance beyond individual disputes.
• Consistent pattern across all reviews: upfront payment accepted, then no-show/non-completion/non-communication. This suggests deliberate business model rather than operational incompetence.
• Most recent review is from July 2024 (within past 6 months), indicating ongoing issues with no improvement trajectory.
• One review explicitly states 'Any positive reviews must have been written by his trifling self'—suggesting awareness of potential fake positive reviews, though none are present in this dataset.

This WW Score of 1.5 is exceptionally reliable (HIGH confidence) due to 7 independent reviews with consistent, specific, and corroborated complaints across all four dimensions. The uniformity of negative experience and recency of complaints (latest from July 2024) indicate this score accurately reflects current business performance. This contractor should be considered high-risk.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Pricing is the most consistently documented problem, with all four reviews explicitly citing egregious overcharging, fraudulent quotes (e.g., $5,000 drain clearing resolved for $100 by competitors), and refusal to honor stated guarantees. Project completion failures are evident in multiple reviews: caulking work that failed and caused water damage, repairs that failed within days, and incomplete drain clearing. Professionalism is compromised by late arrivals and apparent business closure with disconnected phone lines. The company appears to have operated primarily through deceptive sales tactics rather than legitimate workmanship.

• CRITICAL: All four reviews are uniformly negative (1-star ratings) with no positive mentions whatsoever. This extreme uniformity warrants caution in interpretation.
• CRITICAL: All reviews are older than 7 years (2015–2017). The most recent review is from October 2017. Current business status is unknown; company may no longer be operational.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews explicitly describe fraudulent behavior and deceptive sales practices (unsolicited $5,000 quotes for simple $100 repairs, pressure for credit card authorization). This suggests potential scam operation rather than legitimate contractor.
• CRITICAL: One review explicitly states the company's phone number no longer works and they 'appear to be out of business,' suggesting the business may have ceased operations years ago.
• Pattern of identical complaint structure across reviews (overquote → customer gets second opinion → competitor solves problem cheaply) suggests either systematic fraud or consistent incompetence.

This score cannot be reliably used for current decision-making because all reviews predate 2018 and the company appears to be defunct. However, the historical data strongly suggests this was a fraudulent or severely incompetent operation. Do not engage with this contractor.

With only 4 reviews available, this dataset is insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation. Professionalism is supported by 3 mentions highlighting respectfulness, honesty, and accommodating service. Project completion is mentioned in all 4 reviews with consistent positive outcomes (quick resolution, problem fixed). Experience is mentioned in only 2 reviews with positive technical assessment. Pricing data is entirely absent from all reviews, preventing evaluation of value and fairness. The review dates span 2019–2023, with 3 reviews older than 1 year.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 reviews met but confidence remains limited due to small dataset
• RECENCY CONCERN: 75% of reviews (3 of 4) are older than 1 year (2019–2020); only 1 review from 2023
• MISSING PRICING DATA: No reviews mention pricing, value, quotes, or affordability; cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Reviews 2 and 3 contain vague language ('great job,' 'did a good job,' 'quick and hassle free') with minimal specific detail; Review 2 contains awkward phrasing ('took some money,' 'Great swing on the job') suggesting possible translation or authenticity concerns
• LIMITED DETAIL: Most reviews lack specifics about what work was performed, how problems were diagnosed, or what made service exceptional beyond general satisfaction

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (4 reviews) and missing critical data dimensions (pricing). The professionalism and project completion scores are based on limited mentions and should be treated as preliminary indicators only. Recency bias is significant with 75% of data older than 1 year. Do not rely on this assessment for major contractor decisions without additional recent reviews.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across multiple critical dimensions. Project completion is catastrophically poor, with abandoned work, incomplete installations, systems failing within 12 months, and multiple safety hazards including fire risk from improper electrical hookups and water damage from incorrect condensation pan installation. Experience and technical knowledge are critically lacking, evidenced by oversized equipment selection, incorrect installation procedures, improper use of materials, and warranty-voiding workmanship. Professionalism is severely compromised by poor communication, unreliability in scheduling, unresponsiveness to customer concerns, and refusal to address damage caused during work. No positive evidence exists for any dimension.

• CRITICAL SAFETY HAZARD: Review from 2017 documents indoor unit connected to inadequate circuit with visible sparks and risk of house fire; outdoor unit installed so incorrectly it voids warranty and will collect water/rust. Reviewer plans to report to licensing body.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Multiple reviews document incomplete work, disappeared mid-project, and failure to follow through on callbacks.
• SYSTEMATIC INSTALLATION FAILURES: Detailed review documents 12+ distinct installation defects across 5 systems including gaping duct connections, improper refrigeration line sealing, incorrect condensation systems, wrong materials, and oversized equipment causing cycling problems.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Documented evidence of installations that nullify manufacturer warranties.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: Contractor fell through ceiling and refused to pay for repairs; cut holes in finished floors and refused repairs; left hazardous debris on finished hardwood.
• All four reviews are 1-star ratings with specific, detailed complaints rather than generic criticism. Reviews span 2016-2021, indicating persistent pattern of poor performance over multiple years.

This score should be treated as highly reliable. All four reviews provide extensive, specific documentation of failures across professionalism, completion, and experience dimensions. The pattern is consistent across multiple years and multiple projects, with corroborating details (photos, videos, licensing complaints, court action planned) that indicate substantive rather than isolated problems. This contractor presents documented safety hazards and should be avoided.