Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Louis, Missouri

Professionalism is the most heavily evidenced dimension and paints a deeply negative picture: multiple reviewers describe the contractor hanging up on clients, abandoning jobs without notice, refusing to communicate, and dismissing customers who raised legitimate concerns. Project completion is similarly alarming, with at least three reviewers explicitly stating that paid work was never finished and no refund was issued, spanning multiple years. Pricing and experience have limited data — one reviewer praised affordability and another noted the physical workmanship was good, but these positives are heavily outweighed by the pattern of non-completion and poor conduct. The overall WW Score of 28.4 reflects a contractor with serious, recurring reliability and professionalism failures documented across multiple independent reviews.

• PATTERN OF ABANDONED WORK: At least three reviewers (2018, 2019, 2021) independently describe paid work that was never completed and no refund provided. This is a consistent and serious pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PATTERN OF COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews describe the contractor cutting off contact — hanging up on clients, not responding to emails or calls, and in one case texting a client to 'find another Master plumber' when a scheduling concern was raised.
• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review is from May 2021, meaning all reviews are more than 3 years old as of 2024. Business practices may have changed, but the pattern across 2018–2021 is consistent and concerning.
• NO FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, and rating. The negative reviews contain specific, credible details (dates, job types, communications). No fake review pattern detected.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total. While the pattern is consistent, the limited sample size reduces overall score reliability.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, all older than 3 years, but the consistency of serious complaints across independent reviewers — including unpaid refunds, abandoned work, and hostile communication — makes the low score credible and the contractor's reliability genuinely questionable.

The reviews paint a consistently negative picture of this contractor across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by a documented hang-up on a prospective customer mid-sentence, leaving a job unfinished with garbage and paint on carpet, and failing to follow through on promised cleanup after a sewer line replacement. Project completion is a major concern, with one reviewer explicitly noting the job was left unfinished, a drip left unrepaired, and a buried cleanout installed contrary to the customer's stated preference. On experience, the floor drain slope issue and the unresolved drip suggest technical shortcomings, though the sewer line job was completed at a significantly lower price than a competitor quoted. Pricing received a modest score solely because one reviewer acknowledged substantial cost savings, but this positive is heavily outweighed by the incomplete work and lack of follow-through that accompanied it.

• One 5-star review (2021-08-07) appears to be from a personal acquaintance or former employee rather than a genuine customer review — the reviewer describes a personal mentorship relationship and employment assistance, not a plumbing or contracting service experience. This review should be treated as non-representative and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• All reviews with usable service data are from 2021 or earlier (oldest from 2018), meaning no reviews are within the past 12 months. Current performance cannot be assessed.
• Only 4 total reviews are available, which is a very small sample size. Scores carry LOW reliability and should be interpreted with significant caution.
• Two separate reviews independently document incomplete or abandoned work, suggesting a possible pattern of poor follow-through rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on only 3 usable customer service reviews spanning 2018–2021, all of which are over two years old, making it a LOW-reliability signal that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

This contractor's reviews paint an overwhelmingly negative picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated no-shows, no callbacks, and failure to communicate across four of five reviews — a consistent and damning pattern. Project completion fares even worse, with multiple accounts of abandoned work, missing equipment, and a down payment taken with no work delivered. The single positive review (2023) does describe good communication, on-time arrival, and quality finished work, which prevents scores from hitting zero, but it stands in stark contrast to the majority. Pricing and experience data are each drawn from only one review and should be treated with very low confidence.

• 4 out of 5 reviews are 1-star with highly specific, credible complaints — no fake review pattern detected on the negative side.
• The sole 5-star review (2023) explicitly questions whether other positive reviews are genuine, suggesting possible fake positive reviews may exist outside this dataset.
• Two reviews are from 2015 and may not reflect current business practices; however, the most recent review (2024) confirms the negative pattern has persisted.
• Down payment taken with no work performed is a serious red flag indicating potential financial misconduct.
• Repeated no-shows without notification across multiple reviews and multiple years indicate a systemic reliability failure, not isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the very small review sample (5 reviews), but the consistency of serious complaints across multiple years and multiple reviewers makes the low score directionally trustworthy — this contractor demonstrates a strong and documented pattern of unreliability.

All three reviews are negative and paint a consistent picture of serious service failures. Professionalism is critically low, with explicit reports of ignored communications, ghosting after initial visits, sarcastic responses to follow-up, and refusal to answer calls. Project completion is nearly non-existent across reviews — one job was never scheduled after an assessment, another involved a defective AC installation that was never properly resolved, and a third describes broadly unsatisfactory work. Experience scores marginally above zero only because one reviewer acknowledged hearing secondhand praise, though their own direct experience was the opposite. No reviewer mentioned pricing, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• All three reviews are 1-star, which is consistent with genuine negative experiences rather than fake review patterns.
• Reviews span from 2016 to 2021, meaning the most recent review is over 3 years old. Current service quality is unknown and may have changed.
• The 2016 review is approximately 5+ years older than the most recent review, reducing its relevance to current performance.
• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for WW Score calculation. Results should be treated with caution due to very small sample size.
• A pattern of abandoning jobs mid-process and refusing follow-up contact appears across multiple reviews, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 5 years, all negative, and should be treated as a preliminary warning signal rather than a definitive assessment — more recent and numerous reviews would be needed to establish a reliable score.

Only 2 of 4 reviews contain substantive, usable data. The detailed negative review from 2017 documents significant failures across all dimensions: incorrect diagnosis, overcharging, incomplete work, and misleading warranty claims. The positive reviews lack specificity and detail. All reviews are older than 1 year, with the most recent usable data from 2017. The sample size is too small and data quality too poor to generate a reliable WW Score.

• Only 2 usable reviews out of 4 total — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• All reviews are older than 1 year (oldest from 2015, most recent usable from 2017) — recency is a concern
• Two reviews are essentially unusable: one is blank ('unknown') and one is generic praise ('Awesome!') with no substantive detail
• Positive reviews lack specificity and detail, making them difficult to validate against dimensions
• Severe quality and service issues documented in the one detailed negative review suggest potential systemic problems
• Cannot calculate WW Score with fewer than 3 reviews containing usable data

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient usable review data (only 2 substantive reviews) and age of all reviews (all pre-2018). Any scoring would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 3+ reviews needed for a trustworthy composite score. While all reviews are positive and mention professionalism, experience, and project completion, each dimension is supported by only 1–2 mentions, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all dimensions. Pricing is mentioned in only 1 review. All reviews are older than 12 months (2020–2021), limiting recency relevance.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — below recommended minimum for reliable scoring
• All reviews are 3+ years old (2020–2021); no recent data available
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise language; limited specific detail about actual work performed
• Pricing dimension supported by only 1 mention — insufficient for confident assessment
• Pattern of vague positive language ('great company', 'excellent service') without specific examples raises minor concern about review authenticity, though not conclusive

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and age (all reviews >3 years old). Individual dimension scores should be treated with extreme caution and are not suitable for decision-making.