Find Nearby Plumbers In Asheville, North Carolina

David Rand's business demonstrates severe and consistent failures across all critical dimensions. All three reviews document abandonment of projects, non-delivery of paid services, lack of communication, and broken promises on timelines. While one reviewer noted he performed 'beautiful work' for a previous homeowner, this isolated positive is vastly outweighed by systematic failures in professionalism, project completion, and pricing transparency. The contractor has ghosted clients, failed to deliver paid products (including a $4,000 window and carport plans), and left projects incomplete for months. This represents a pattern of business conduct that poses significant financial and project risk.

• CRITICAL: All three reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints—not generic criticism. This is NOT a fake review pattern; rather, it indicates genuine, consistent customer harm.
• Pattern of project abandonment: Review 1 (abandoned since February, project incomplete since December); Review 2 (ghosted for 5+ months); Review 3 (incomplete door delivery, lack of follow-up).
• Pattern of financial misconduct: Billing for undelivered products, overcharging, requesting advance payments without delivery, refusing to show invoices, and ghosting refund requests.
• All reviews are from 2023–2024 (recent), making recency concerns moot—these are current issues.
• Review 3 explicitly states 'lack of professionalism has been mind blowing' and notes the reviewer considered hiring another contractor mid-project due to non-performance.

This WW Score of 8.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on three detailed, specific, and mutually corroborating reviews from the past 6 months, all documenting severe failures in project completion, communication, and financial integrity. The consistency and specificity of complaints across independent reviewers strongly indicates systemic business problems rather than isolated incidents.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, all from 2013–2019 (5–11 years old). All reviews are uniformly negative with 1-star ratings, citing severe scheduling failures, legal/compliance violations, poor workmanship, and lack of follow-through. No positive mentions or pricing feedback provided. The extreme age of reviews and uniformly poor sentiment prevent reliable scoring.

• All 3 reviews are extremely old (2013–2019), with the most recent being 4+ years old. Current contractor performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• All reviews carry 1-star ratings with uniformly negative sentiment. No positive or neutral reviews present to balance assessment.
• Review from 2015 alleges serious legal violations (permit requirements, court testimony accuracy, electrical code violations). This is a critical compliance red flag if accurate.
• Insufficient review volume (n=3) and no recent data make any WW Score calculation unreliable and potentially misleading.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and critically outdated data (oldest review is 11 years old, newest is 4+ years old). Any scoring would be based on historical performance that may not reflect current operations. Do not rely on this assessment for contractor selection.

With only two reviews spanning nearly a decade apart, meaningful conclusions are extremely difficult to draw. The positive review from 2024 reflects a long-term customer relationship of nearly 30 years, praising helpfulness and value, which supports moderate scores in professionalism and pricing. However, the 2016 negative review describes a serious communication failure — repeated dropped calls and a complete lack of follow-through on a promised callback — which significantly drags down the professionalism score. Project completion received a modest score only because the long-term reviewer implies work was consistently finished over many years, but this is a single data point. Experience could not be scored as no review explicitly addressed skill level or workmanship quality in specific terms.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The two reviews are 8 years apart (2016 and 2024), making trend analysis impossible and reducing overall reliability.
• The negative review describes a complete communication breakdown including unreturned emails and unanswered calls — a significant professionalism concern.
• The positive review is from a long-term repeat customer, which may reflect survivorship bias and not represent the typical new customer experience.

This score profile is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current performance can be drawn without substantially more review data.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. The positive review (2019) explicitly praises professionalism, communication, fair pricing, and skill level. The negative review (2020) documents failure to return calls, which is a critical professionalism failure. However, with only 2 reviews spanning 4+ years and no recent data, the sample is too small and too old to calculate a reliable WW Score. Project completion is not explicitly addressed in either review.

• Only 2 reviews total — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Most recent review is from 2019 (5+ years old); no reviews from past 12 months
• Extreme polarity: one 5-star and one 1-star with no middle ground — suggests possible selection bias or incomplete review history
• Positive review contains generic praise language ('excellent team', 'always leaving place better') but lacks specific project details
• Negative review is extremely brief and provides no context (e.g., reason for non-response, whether follow-up was attempted)

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2), age of data (oldest review from 2019), and extreme rating polarity with no recent feedback. Do not rely on this analysis for decision-making.

Only two reviews are available, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The first review (2024) is specific and credible, praising same-day responsiveness, expert installation of a water heater and filtration system, and the technician's professionalism and care — all strong positive signals. The second review (2023) confirms job completion for a drain/pipe clog issue but is written in vague, oddly phrased language with no specific details about the technician, timeline, or process, reducing its evidentiary value. No pricing information was mentioned in either review, so that dimension cannot be scored. Overall, the limited data skews positive but cannot be treated as representative of consistent performance.

• Only 2 reviews provided — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score. Results should not be used for decision-making without additional reviews.
• The second review (2023-04-01) contains unusual and vague phrasing ('running and wet', 'tubes were long') with no specific details about the job, technician, or company. This review may be low-quality, spam, or potentially not genuine. Its contribution to scoring has been treated with caution.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored at all.
• The most recent credible review is from August 2024; the second review is from April 2023, making it over 12 months old and carrying reduced recency weight.

This WW Score cannot be calculated due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews), and the available data should be considered highly unreliable as a basis for evaluating this contractor's overall performance.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score. The reviews are highly contradictory: one 1-star review from April 2024 criticizes non-responsiveness and project delays, while one 5-star review from February 2022 praises courtesy and promptness. This extreme polarity, combined with minimal sample size and significant recency gap (one review is nearly 2 years old), prevents meaningful scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews provided; minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation
• EXTREME POLARITY: Reviews are contradictory (1-star vs 5-star) with opposing claims about responsiveness
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from February 2022 (nearly 2 years old); more recent review (April 2024) is highly negative
• PRICING DATA ABSENT: No reviews mention pricing, value, or cost-related factors
• EXPERIENCE DATA ABSENT: No reviews explicitly discuss skill level or technical workmanship quality

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and extreme contradictions between reviews; any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.