Find Nearby Plumbers In Lakeville, Minnesota

Only a single review is available, dated June 2013, making this over 10 years old and of very limited reliability. The reviewer speaks positively about the plumber Pat, noting a completed bathtub repair, reasonable pricing, and helpful advice — all of which suggest competent and professional service. However, with just one review and no specifics beyond general satisfaction, all dimension scores are conservative and carry only LIMITED confidence. No negative signals were detected, but absence of complaints cannot be treated as evidence of consistent quality.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated June 2013 — over 10 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention each and should be treated as highly tentative.

This score is not reliable — it is based on a single review from over a decade ago, and no meaningful conclusions about current contractor quality can be drawn from this data alone.

This single review paints a positive picture across several dimensions. Professionalism is supported by explicit mentions of punctuality, friendliness, and clear communication from both the office contact (Katie) and the technician (Bill). Project completion is evidenced by the job being finished, the old unit removed, and the work area left clean. Experience is modestly supported by the reviewer noting Bill explained everything about the new heater and worked efficiently. Pricing was not mentioned at all, leaving that dimension entirely unscored. With only one review, all scores must be treated as very low confidence and should not be relied upon as representative of the contractor's overall performance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• Pricing dimension has no data whatsoever and cannot be assessed.
• A single 5-star review with no critical feedback provides an incomplete and potentially unrepresentative picture of this contractor.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable — far more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn about this contractor's performance.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer noted good, efficient work at a fair price, suggesting positive outcomes across all four dimensions. The technician demonstrated technical knowledge about tanks and drain fields and showed intellectual honesty by admitting when he did not know something, which is a positive indicator of experience and professionalism. However, with only one review dated October 2019 — over five years ago — no reliable trend can be established. All scores have been kept conservative in line with the limited evidence available.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The sole review is dated October 2019, making it over 5 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability.
• With a single data point, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be used as a strong indicator of current contractor quality.

This score report is based on a single review from 2019 and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or consistency.

This single review describes severe failures across all dimensions: excessive diagnostic fees ($148/hour, ~$300 for 2 hours with no repair credit), poor communication and technical competence (incorrect diagnosis later proven wrong by competitor), unacceptable project completion (5-day delay, incomplete service), and aggressive payment collection practices. The customer explicitly states the company prioritizes profit over customer care. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from only one review, as this represents an insufficient sample size to establish meaningful patterns or confidence.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews to calculate reliably.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from October 2019 (5+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot determine if this represents systemic issues or isolated incident without additional data.
• HIGH SEVERITY ALLEGATIONS: Review alleges misdiagnosis, excessive fees, and poor customer service. If accurate, these are critical failures, but single-source validation is insufficient.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1). At minimum 3 reviews are required; 5+ reviews are strongly recommended for any confidence level. The single review provided is also significantly outdated (2019). Do not rely on any scoring from this dataset.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review mentions professionalism positively ('nice group of guys'), pricing favorably ('reasonable price'), and project completion (water softener installation completed). However, with only one data point, no dimension can be scored with confidence, and the review lacks specific technical details about workmanship quality. A minimum of 3 reviews is required for meaningful analysis.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from 2021 (over 3 years old). Recency is a concern for current contractor assessment.
• Review is generic and lacks specific details about quality, timeline, or technical expertise.
• No mention of experience/skill level or technical problem-solving.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data volume (1 review vs. minimum 3 required) and age of the single review.