Find Nearby Plumbers In Gaithersburg, Maryland

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided, and it is a severely negative account from 2007 (17+ years old). The review documents serious failures across professionalism (late arrival, unprepared, unresponsive to court), project completion (damaged work, incomplete repairs, required legal action), and experience (caused damage, lacked proper tools and parts). However, a single review—especially one this old—cannot establish a reliable WW Score. No pricing information was mentioned.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review is from April 2007 (17+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices or qualifications.
• CREDIBILITY CONCERN: Reviewer claims contractor is not actually licensed/bonded/insured despite contractor's stated credentials. This is a serious allegation but unverified.
• LEGAL ACTION: Review documents Small Claims Court judgment against contractor. This is a significant red flag if accurate.

This score cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment. Only one review exists, it is nearly two decades old, and no WW Score can be calculated from fewer than 3 reviews. If this contractor is still in business, current reviews are needed to assess present-day performance.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions reasonable pricing, proactive problem-solving (experience), and completion of work, but provides no explicit detail on professionalism dimensions such as punctuality, communication, or attitude. The review uses generic praise language ('bee's knees', 'cat's meow') with minimal specificity, which limits confidence in the assessment.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably (minimum 3 reviews required)
• Review contains suspiciously generic praise language ('bee's knees', 'cat's meow') with no specific details about work performed or contractor behavior
• No explicit mention of professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, responsiveness, attitude)
• Review date is from October 2023 — over 1 year old

This assessment is unreliable due to insufficient review volume (1 review) and lack of specific, verifiable details in the single review provided.

This single review describes serious misconduct by the contractor. The customer cancelled the job the same evening a deposit was given, yet the contractor processed a $2,500 check two months later without authorization and subsequently became unresponsive to calls and refund requests. Professionalism scores near zero due to dishonesty, broken promises, and complete failure to communicate. Pricing/financial trustworthiness scores critically low due to what appears to be unauthorized retention of funds. Project completion scores zero as no work was ever performed and the contractor failed to honor the cancellation agreement. No workmanship or experience data is available since the job never began.

• CRITICAL: Alleged financial misconduct — contractor reportedly processed a $2,500 deposit check two months after the customer cancelled and requested a stop on the payment.
• CRITICAL: Contractor became unresponsive after the disputed charge, which may indicate intentional avoidance rather than an accident.
• WARNING: Only 1 review is available. This is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score, but the severity of the allegation warrants extreme caution.
• WARNING: Review is from March 2022, making it over 1 year old. No recent reviews are available to assess whether behavior has changed.
• NOTE: No fake review patterns detected — the review is highly specific with named dollar amounts, dates, and a detailed sequence of events, lending it credibility.

This score is based on a single review and cannot be considered statistically reliable, however the specific and serious nature of the allegation — unauthorized check processing and refund avoidance — represents a significant red flag that prospective customers should weigh heavily.

This single review provides limited evidence across all four dimensions. The reviewer explicitly mentions same-day responsiveness (professionalism), fair rates (pricing), completed work on carpet removal and toilet repair (project completion), and broad skill range across multiple trades (experience). However, with only one review and no comparative context, all scores carry LIMITED confidence. The review is detailed and specific rather than generic, which supports authenticity, but a single data point cannot reliably establish contractor performance.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per Step 4 guidelines (minimum 3 reviews required).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from September 2020 — over 3 years old. No recent performance data available.
• SINGLE REVIEW BIAS: All dimension scores rest on one customer's experience. No corroboration or pattern validation possible.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 review was provided. Any score derived from this data would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Only a single review is available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer noted prompt arrival, on-time service, and a reasonable quote, supporting modest scores in professionalism, pricing, and project completion. The jobs were described as completed quickly and satisfactorily. However, no specific detail was provided about technical skill or workmanship quality, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored. All scores are conservative given the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated 2022-02-28, making it over 2 years old. Recency weighting is a concern as this may not reflect current service quality.
• Single review with generic positive language and no granular detail — scores should be treated with very low confidence.

This score is based on a single review from over two years ago and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality or consistency.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review explicitly mentions professionalism (helpful, transparent, thorough communication), project completion (job completed, customer satisfied enough to request additional work), and experience (quality workmanship implied by customer satisfaction). Pricing was not discussed in this review. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from November 2023 (over 1 year old) — recency is limited
• No pricing information provided in review
• Cannot assess patterns of fake reviews with single data point

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1). At least 3 reviews are required for meaningful statistical confidence.