Find Nearby Plumbers In Bowie, Maryland

Lopresti Plumbing shows severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. While one 2018 review praised their promptness and professionalism, three detailed negative reviews from 2015–2016 document critical failures: incomplete repairs, property damage (water flooding, drywall damage, melted fixtures), failure to follow up on callbacks, lack of responsiveness to owner contact, and poor workmanship (inability to shut off water, improper fixture installation). The company's failure to return calls, provide apologies, or remedy damage caused by their own errors is particularly damaging. The single positive review is substantially outweighed by consistent patterns of poor project completion and unprofessional conduct.

• Significant recency bias: Three negative reviews are from 2015–2016 (8–9 years old); one positive review from 2018 (6 years old). No recent reviews provided. Current business practices may differ, but historical pattern is severe.
• Three reviews document specific, detailed failures (property damage, non-responsive callbacks, incomplete work). These are not generic complaints and carry substantial credibility.
• One positive review (2018) is generic in praise ('excellent in service') with no specific detail, while negative reviews are highly specific and documented. This asymmetry suggests the positive review may be less reliable.
• Pattern of non-responsiveness and failure to honor callbacks appears in multiple reviews, suggesting systemic issue rather than isolated incident.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews) and age of data (oldest reviews are 8–9 years old), but the consistency and specificity of negative feedback across three independent reviews suggests genuine historical problems with this contractor. Current reliability cannot be assessed without recent reviews.

This contractor's review profile is overwhelmingly negative, with 5 out of 7 reviews rating the company 1 star. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension and is severely damaged by repeated accounts of unanswered calls, ignored voicemails, no-shows, and dismissive owner behavior. Project completion is similarly poor, with multiple reviewers describing abandoned work, broken fixtures left unrepaired, parts never ordered, and technicians failing to appear for scheduled appointments. Pricing received a single negative mention regarding unexplained upcharges, which warrants caution but carries limited confidence. The two positive reviews do suggest that when work is actually completed, the quality can be acceptable, but these represent a small minority and are insufficient to offset the dominant pattern of failure.

• Five of seven reviews are 1-star and describe nearly identical failure patterns: no phone answer, no callback, no-show appointments, and owner/staff ignoring follow-up. This consistency across different reviewers and dates suggests a systemic operational problem rather than isolated incidents.
• The two 5-star reviews are notably brief and generic compared to the detailed negative reviews. The positive review from 2021-06-15 uses repetitive phrasing ('very very', 'super kind', 'up and beyond' twice) and reads as potentially coached or incentivized, though it cannot be confirmed as fake.
• Recency note: The most recent review (2023-07-01) is negative and describes the same core issues seen in reviews from 2021 and 2022, indicating no apparent improvement over time. The two positive reviews are both from 2021 and are now over two years old.
• One review explicitly states the receptionist admitted to ignoring calls on purpose, which is an extreme professionalism red flag if accurate.
• One review mentions upcharging, which combined with the home warranty context across multiple reviews suggests a possible pattern of exploiting warranty customers.

This WW Score is based on a small but internally consistent set of reviews spanning approximately two years, and the score of 22.1 should be treated as a reliable signal of serious operational deficiencies, though the small total review count (7) means individual experiences could vary.

EJ Lewis Plumbing demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by no-shows, unresponsiveness, poor communication, unprofessional behavior (including discriminatory remarks), and disorganization. Project completion is the weakest area, with multiple instances of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, failed inspections due to missed permits, and broken promises. Pricing concerns include check alteration fraud and lack of transparency. Technical experience is undermined by code violations, incomplete work, and unprepared workers. The single 3-star review from 2010 acknowledging management change does not offset the overwhelming pattern of failure across seven 1-star reviews spanning 2011–2017.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document serious legal violations including unlicensed operation, check fraud, and discriminatory conduct. This is not a quality issue but a compliance and ethical crisis.
• CRITICAL: Pattern of no-shows, broken appointments, and non-responsiveness documented in at least 4 reviews.
• CRITICAL: Project completion failures including incomplete work (bathroom pipes untouched), failed inspections, and abandoned jobs after payment.
• CRITICAL: Unlicensed operation explicitly stated in Review 1 (2017); invalid contracts due to missing license number.
• CRITICAL: Check alteration fraud documented in Review 1 (2017).
• CRITICAL: Discriminatory behavior (homophobic remarks) documented in Review 1 (2017).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most damaging reviews are from 2011–2017 (7 years old or older). One 2014 review and one 2017 review are more recent. The single positive review is from 2010 and references management change, but subsequent reviews show problems persisted.
• The 2010 review (3-star) acknowledges new management but is contradicted by worse reviews in 2014 and 2017, suggesting any improvements were temporary or incomplete.

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 8 reviews with consistent, explicit evidence of severe failures across all dimensions, including documented fraud, unlicensed operation, and discriminatory conduct. This contractor should be avoided.

The reviews paint a deeply negative picture of this contractor across nearly every measurable dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by two detailed complaints describing non-responsiveness, failure to return calls and emails, rude staff, and misleading website information. Project completion is critically low, as one reviewer explicitly describes being charged an assessment fee with a promise it would apply toward work, only to be abandoned with no follow-through, and another describes an emergency situation left unresolved for over 12 hours. Pricing received a very low score due to the explicit allegation of a $130 assessment fee that was never honored toward the promised work, which one reviewer labeled a scam. The single 5-star review ('Very good') provides no detail and cannot meaningfully offset the two substantive negative reviews.

• The 5-star review ('Very good') contains no specifics, no detail, and no context — it provides almost no usable data and may be a low-effort or fake review.
• Two of the three reviews are older than 1 year (2014 and 2020), with the most recent negative review from April 2021. All reviews are more than 3 years old; recency is a concern.
• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with significant caution.
• One reviewer explicitly used the word 'SCAM' in reference to the assessment fee practice, which is a serious red flag for potential deceptive business conduct.
• Misleading website content (claiming residential services while allegedly not offering them) was flagged by a reviewer and represents a transparency concern.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are over 3 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable as a current representation of this contractor's performance — however, the two detailed negative reviews are credible and specific, and the pattern of non-responsiveness and fee disputes is a serious concern.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews praise professionalism (punctuality, responsiveness, attitude) and one mentions reasonable pricing. However, no reviews explicitly address project completion quality, timeliness of job delivery, or technical skill/workmanship. The sample size is too small and lacks coverage of critical dimensions to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• No explicit mentions of project completion or experience/skill level in any review
• One review is from 2022 (>1 year old); only one recent review from 2024
• Generic praise language without specific technical details limits confidence in scoring

This analysis cannot produce a valid WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews). Any score derived from only 2 reviews would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of all dimension scores. That said, the review is specific and credible — it references a repeat engagement over two years, a technically challenging behind-the-drywall leak diagnosis, timely scheduling, professional execution, and reasonable pricing. All four dimensions received positive mentions, and the specificity of the review (repeat customer, technical detail, named contractor) reduces fake review concern. Scores are kept conservative across all dimensions due to the extremely limited sample size.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as LOW CONFIDENCE estimates only.
• No fake review patterns detected — review contains specific details (repeat customer, named technician, technical job description) suggesting authenticity.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be used as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — at least 3 reviews are required for a meaningful WW Score.