Find Nearby Plumbers In Woburn, Massachusetts

All four reviews describe severe failures in professionalism, pricing integrity, and project completion. Customers report deposits ranging from $700–$876 that were cashed but never followed by work or communication. Multiple customers explicitly mention abandonment, non-responsiveness to calls and texts, and broken promises. One review notes an expired Master Plumber license. No reviews mention technical skill or workmanship quality because no work was completed. This contractor exhibits a pattern of taking deposits and failing to deliver or communicate.

• CRITICAL: All four reviews are uniformly negative (1-star ratings) spanning 2013–2017, describing what appears to be systematic non-performance and potential fraud.
• Multiple customers report cashed deposits with zero follow-up work or communication—this is a red flag for possible predatory business practices.
• One review explicitly mentions an expired Master Plumber license as of May 2016, raising legal/licensing concerns.
• No positive reviews present; no dimension has supporting evidence of quality work.
• Reviews are dated 2013–2017 (6–11 years old); recency is very low, but pattern is consistent across all available data.

This score should be treated with extreme caution due to very limited review volume (n=4) and age (oldest from 2013), but the uniformity and severity of complaints across all reviews—combined with explicit mentions of non-refunded deposits and broken promises—suggest serious and persistent business conduct issues that warrant investigation before engaging this contractor.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, which is below the minimum threshold for reliable scoring. Additionally, only 2 of the 4 dimensions have explicit mentions in the reviews. Project completion is strongly supported (same-day/next-day service, warranty handling, complete repairs), and experience shows solid technical problem-solving. However, professionalism and pricing dimensions lack any explicit mention across all reviews. The review dates span from 2015 to 2021, with the most recent being over 2 years old.

• Insufficient review volume (n=3) — cannot reliably calculate WW Score
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language and no critical feedback — pattern suggests potential selection bias or incomplete review dataset
• Most recent review is from December 2021 (over 2 years old); no recent data available
• Two dimensions (Professionalism and Pricing) have zero explicit mentions — cannot score these areas
• Generic praise language ('highly recommend', 'never been disappointed') without specific operational details limits depth of analysis

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required, only 3 available at threshold) and missing data across critical dimensions. Any score calculated would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

The review set is extremely small and dominated by a serious negative experience. The 2024 review describes a contractor who failed to fix the issue, became unresponsive, blocked the customer, and refused to provide an invoice — representing critical failures across professionalism, project completion, and workmanship. The single positive review from 2023 notes responsiveness and good conduct, but lacks specifics. The third review from 2015 contains no usable text and cannot contribute meaningful data. Given the severity of the negative review and the minimal sample size, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Insufficient data: Only 2 reviews contain usable text out of 3 total. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules.
• One review is a blank entry (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2015-09-10) with no review text — excluded from scoring.
• The 2015 review is nearly 10 years old and carries no relevance under recency weighting rules.
• The most recent review (2024) describes being blocked by the contractor after incomplete work and refusal to provide an invoice — a serious red flag indicating potential abandonment of work and deliberate avoidance of accountability.
• The positive 2023 review is generic and lacks specific detail, which limits its evidentiary weight.

This score report is based on only 2 usable reviews spanning a wide date range, making any conclusions highly unreliable — prospective customers should seek additional references before engaging this contractor.

Both reviews speak positively about Peter at Mystic Plumbing across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is supported by mentions of mask-wearing during COVID, showing up and getting right to work, and providing helpful guidance including Mass Save rebate paperwork. Pricing is described as 'reasonable' in both reviews, with one reviewer noting it compared favorably to multiple competing estimates. Project completion is implied through successful delivery of multiple jobs across both households, though no explicit mention of on-time delivery or callbacks is made. Experience is supported by the breadth of work described — boiler replacement, cast iron drain pipes, bathrooms, laundry, and basement — suggesting solid technical range. However, with only 2 reviews, all scores carry very limited confidence and should not be treated as reliable indicators of consistent performance.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated in 2020, making them over 4 years old. Recency is a concern; current performance may differ significantly.
• Both reviews are 5-star with positive language, but they contain specific details and distinct writing styles, reducing concern about fake reviews.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present — this may reflect genuine satisfaction but could also reflect selection bias in the reviews provided.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both from 2020, and should be considered highly preliminary — no meaningful conclusions about consistent contractor quality can be drawn until significantly more recent and numerous reviews are analyzed.

Both reviews paint a deeply negative picture of this contractor across nearly every dimension. Professionalism suffered severely in both cases — one reviewer describes the contractor stopping all communication, failing to return calls, and leaving debris in a yard where children play, while the other notes the contractor was personally pleasant but ultimately untrustworthy on billing. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with an explicitly abandoned and unfinished sink installation left incomplete for over six months, representing a serious failure of follow-through. Pricing received the lowest possible confidence score, as one reviewer explicitly states they were overcharged beyond what was promised and had no recourse to negotiate. The only partial positive signal is in experience, where both reviewers acknowledged the actual work performed was acceptable in quality, though this is heavily overshadowed by the surrounding failures.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules. All dimension scores should be treated as very low confidence.
• Both reviews are dated between 2014 and 2016, making them over 8 years old. These scores may not reflect the contractor's current performance in any direction.
• No recent reviews are present to confirm whether the issues described (abandoned jobs, overcharging, non-responsiveness) have been resolved or persist.
• The abandoned sink installation described in Review 1 is a serious liability flag — work was started, payment or partial engagement occurred, and the contractor became unreachable without resolution.

This score is based on only 2 reviews, both over 8 years old, and should be considered extremely low reliability — it reflects a historical snapshot only and cannot be used to draw confident conclusions about this contractor's current service quality.

Both reviews are recent (August 2024) and speak positively about Kris and the Midtowne team. Professionalism is the most consistently mentioned dimension, with both reviewers explicitly praising respectful, patient, and prompt communication. Project completion is supported by both reviews referencing successful job delivery — a hot water system with filtration installed quickly, and work completed to the customer's satisfaction. Pricing is mentioned in one review, noting the quote did not change and the price was described as fair, which is a strong positive signal despite the limited sample. Experience is inferred from one review referencing quality of workmanship, but the sample is too small to score with confidence. Overall, the picture is very positive but the two-review sample is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules (minimum 3 reviews required).
• All reviews are 5-star ratings. While the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the small sample size and uniform rating warrant caution.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present — this may reflect genuine satisfaction or simply an insufficient sample to surface any issues.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to low mention counts. These scores should not be treated as definitive assessments.

This report is based on only 2 reviews, which is below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score — all dimension scores should be treated as preliminary indicators only and not used as a basis for strong hiring decisions without gathering more review data.