Find Nearby Plumbers In Taunton, Massachusetts

The review set for Dave Becker is small (4 reviews) and deeply divided, making any score inherently uncertain. Two positive reviews praise his professionalism, communication, punctuality, and fair pricing, while two strongly negative reviews describe him as unreliable, unresponsive, and producing poor-quality work that had to be entirely redone. The negative reviews also flag overcharging and use of cheap materials, directly contradicting the positive reviewer's assessment of fair pricing. Because the negative reviews describe serious, concrete failures — including work that required complete rework on a new construction project — conservative scoring is applied across all dimensions. The most recent review (2021) is negative, which carries additional weight under recency rules.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score has very low statistical reliability and should be treated with caution.
• Reviews are sharply polarized (two 5-star, two 1-star) with no middle-ground feedback, which may indicate selective review submission rather than a representative sample.
• The most recent review (February 2021) is a 1-star complaint about unreliability and non-responsiveness, which is weighted more heavily under recency rules.
• Two reviews are from 2016 and 2018 — more than 5 years old — and may not reflect current service quality.
• One negative review explicitly states all work had to be redone by another plumber, a serious workmanship red flag that significantly impacts experience and project completion scores.
• Pricing signals are contradictory: one reviewer praises fair pricing while another explicitly states he charged the highest prices for the cheapest work — both claims are treated as credible given the lack of additional data.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 5+ years, with extreme polarization and a recent negative review — it should be considered highly unreliable and insufficient to make a confident hiring decision.

Design Tech receives a critically low WW Score of 28.3, driven by severe failures across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. Multiple reviews document unresolved technical issues, missed appointments without communication, unresponsive callbacks, and aggressive pricing practices. One customer reported a malfunction that persisted after paid service with no follow-up for nearly a year; another described a no-show appointment followed by unacceptable rescheduling delays and ignored callback promises. Pricing complaints indicate rates perceived as exploitative ($400/hour for basic plumbing). Only one positive review exists, citing 18 years of service, but it provides no specific evidence of quality and is substantially outweighed by detailed negative accounts.

• Review dates span 2015–2021; most negative reviews are from 2021, suggesting ongoing or recent problems rather than historical issues
• One positive review (2020) is generic and lacks specifics; contrasts sharply with detailed negative reviews that cite dates, amounts, and specific failures
• No mention of technical skill or workmanship quality in any review; experience dimension cannot be scored
• Pattern of non-responsiveness and broken promises appears in multiple independent reviews, suggesting systemic communication failure rather than isolated incidents

This score is moderately reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal; the low score is supported by multiple detailed, dated accounts of service failures and pricing concerns, though the small sample size (4 reviews) and age of some reviews (2015) introduce some uncertainty about current operations.

All three reviews are negative and paint a consistently poor picture of this contractor across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by accounts of hostile customer service staff, broken callback promises, and a no-show technician who left a customer with an open hole in their yard ahead of a snowstorm. Project completion fares only marginally better — one reviewer praised emergency response work, but routine maintenance follow-through was described as completely absent, and another reviewer alleged a fraudulent inspection report that missed an entire septic tank. On pricing and experience, the single fraud allegation regarding an unnecessary full system replacement is a serious red flag that drives both scores to the floor. The only positive signal in the entire dataset is a narrow acknowledgment that emergency technicians can be effective, which prevents scores from hitting absolute zero.

• All three reviews are 1–2 star ratings with no positive counterbalance; the dataset is entirely negative and may not represent the full customer base.
• Review dates range from 2014 to 2017 — all reviews are more than 7 years old. Current service quality may differ significantly and these scores should be treated with caution due to age.
• One reviewer explicitly alleges fraudulent or grossly negligent inspection practices (missing a second septic tank entirely and recommending an unnecessary full system replacement). This is a serious competence and integrity flag.
• The billing and collections complaint in Review 1 names specific employees and describes a pattern of internal dysfunction that may indicate systemic organizational problems beyond individual incidents.
• With only 3 reviews total, the dataset is at the minimum threshold for score calculation. Results should be treated as low-reliability indicators only.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are over 7 years old and uniformly negative, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current service quality without more recent and voluminous review data.

This contractor's review profile is dominated by serious and repeated complaints about grossly inflated pricing, which is the single most consistent theme across the entire review set spanning nearly a decade. Multiple reviewers describe being charged hundreds of dollars for 15–30 minutes of work with no itemized receipts, and several explicitly warn others to avoid him. Professionalism is also heavily damaged by reviews citing rude behavior, failure to return calls, suspected impairment on the job, and one deeply alarming report of a non-plumbing-related incident involving photographing women without consent. Project completion is mixed — some jobs were finished adequately, but at least two reviews describe work that was left incomplete or caused additional damage with no remediation offered. A small number of positive reviews acknowledge timely arrival and completed work, but these are far outweighed by the volume and severity of negative accounts.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2024-06-09 and the review dated 2023-08-23 are nearly word-for-word identical, describing the same incident involving a mother with a leaky faucet charged $611–$700. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted as one unique incident for scoring purposes.
• THREE BLANK REVIEWS with only star ratings (5-star: 2020, 2022, 2023; 1-star: 2020) were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable textual evidence.
• NON-TRADE INCIDENT FLAG: One review (2025-05-21) describes the contractor allegedly photographing women in a workplace without consent. This is not a plumbing-related complaint but is a serious character and conduct concern that negatively impacts the professionalism score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent substantive negative reviews are from 2024 and 2025, indicating that problems with pricing and conduct are ongoing and not historical only.
• PRICING PATTERN: The overwhelming consistency of overcharging complaints across 8+ years and multiple independent reviewers strongly suggests a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• POSSIBLE FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star blank reviews with no text and one brief positive review lack specificity. The positive reviews are significantly outnumbered and less detailed than the negative ones, raising questions about their authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews with usable content spanning 2014–2025, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to sufficient mention counts; the score of 18.7 is considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's performance and should be treated as a serious warning to prospective customers.

This contractor's reviews paint a consistently negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily evidenced dimension and is severely poor — multiple reviewers explicitly describe the owner as rude, dismissive, and unprofessional, including hanging up on a customer and walking off a job mid-service. Pricing concerns are significant, with reviewers citing a $395 diagnostic fee and charges substantially higher than competitors, with no transparency or explanation offered. Project completion is also problematic, with one reviewer discovering incomplete work (an improperly seated well cap with missing hardware) months after the job, and the contractor refusing to return to address it. The limited experience data available suggests poor problem-solving and workmanship follow-through rather than technical incompetence per se, but the pattern of abandoned or incomplete work is damaging.

• Three of the five reviews are from 2017–2018, making them over 6 years old. Only one review is from the past 12 months (July 2024). Recency is very limited and the score may not reflect current performance.
• The most recent review (July 2024, 3-star) notes the contractor returned and offered a lower price to resolve a dispute, which may indicate some willingness to correct issues, but provides minimal detail to meaningfully offset the pattern of negative reviews.
• No positive reviews were present in this dataset. While this does not automatically indicate fake review suppression, it does mean there is zero positive evidence to balance the score — all scoring is based entirely on negative experiences.
• The $395 flat-rate charge appears in two separate reviews from different years (2017 and 2018), suggesting a consistent pricing practice that multiple customers found excessive and non-transparent.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small review sample of only 5 reviews, the majority of which are more than 5 years old, and the absence of any positive data points to provide balance — treat this score as a directional warning rather than a definitive assessment.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. The three reviews provided are not about a contractor or plumber's service delivery. Review 1 discusses a supply house manager (Jim Seabaugh) who helped resolve a warranty issue but does not evaluate the actual plumbing contractor's work. Review 2 is about a supply store's customer service in locating a part. Review 3 is a detailed critique of a plumbing supply store's inventory, selection, and counter service — not a contractor's professionalism, pricing, project completion, or workmanship. None of the four required dimensions can be scored based on actual contractor performance data.

• CRITICAL: These reviews are about a plumbing supply store, not a plumbing contractor or service provider. They do not evaluate contractor performance on actual jobs.
• Review 1 mentions a 'gypsy plumber' who was MIA and a supply house manager who helped, but provides no evaluation of the actual plumber's work quality, pricing, or project completion.
• Review 2 is purely about supply store customer service (locating a part quickly), not contractor services.
• Review 3 is an extensive critique of supply store inventory, selection, and staff performance — not contractor workmanship or service delivery.
• No reviews contain explicit evidence of contractor professionalism, pricing practices, project completion, or technical experience on actual plumbing jobs.

This WW Score cannot be calculated because the reviews provided evaluate a plumbing supply business, not a plumbing contractor's service delivery. A valid WW Score requires reviews of actual contractor work performance.