Find Nearby Plumbers In Cary, North Carolina

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The positive review from 2018 describes a professional, tidy, and reasonably priced emergency visit, while the deeply negative review from 2011 describes property damage, a hostile response to complaints, a bogus contact email, and being hung up on by management. The negative review is particularly damaging because it touches on professionalism, project completion, and workmanship simultaneously. The gap between the two reviews is approximately 7 years, and neither is within the past 12 months, further reducing reliability. Scores are heavily pulled downward by the severity of the 2011 complaint, but the small sample size means no confident conclusions can be drawn.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are older than 12 months (most recent is from 2018, oldest from 2011) — recency weighting cannot be applied favorably.
• The 2011 negative review describes serious misconduct: property damage left unaddressed, hostile verbal response to a customer, a deliberately false email address provided to avoid accountability, and a manager hanging up on a customer. These are severe professionalism and project completion failures.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present, meaning current business quality is entirely unknown.
• The two reviews are polar opposites in rating and detail — this contrast cannot be resolved with only 2 data points.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — with only 2 reviews spanning 7 years apart and none within the past 12 months, there is insufficient data to form a reliable picture of this contractor's current quality or consistency.

Both reviews describe severe failures across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. The contractor failed to show up for work, did not complete any tasks despite full payment ($2000 mentioned), became unresponsive to phone calls, and allegedly disputed complaints to have them removed from review platforms. No technical skill or experience is mentioned in either review. The extremely limited review count (2 reviews, both from 2014-2015) and serious allegations of non-completion and unresponsiveness result in critically low scores across all measurable dimensions.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews available, both from 2014-2015 (9+ years old). No recent data to assess current business practices.
• CRITICAL: Both reviews describe identical core failures: non-completion of work, non-responsiveness, and full payment taken without service delivery. This consistency suggests genuine complaints rather than fake reviews.
• CRITICAL: Allegations of review manipulation and complaints filed with regulatory board. Suggests potential pattern of problematic business conduct.
• Insufficient review volume to calculate reliable WW Score. Minimum 3 reviews recommended; ideally 5+ with recent dates.

This assessment is unreliable due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews) and extreme age (9+ years old). While the reviews describe serious failures, they cannot support a statistically valid WW Score. Current business practices cannot be assessed from data this old. Do not rely on this score for decision-making without seeking current customer feedback.

Only one review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The single reviewer explicitly praised Joel as professional, responsive, and punctual, supporting a conservative but positive professionalism score. Project completion is inferred from the reviewer's satisfaction with both the sink and pot filler installations being completed to their happiness. Experience is modestly scored based on the implied quality of the finished work, though no technical detail was provided. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• Single review with a 5-star rating and positive language; cannot assess authenticity or representativeness with only one data point.
• Review is from July 2023 — over 12 months old depending on current date; recency weighting noted but irrelevant with only one review.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall performance can be drawn until substantially more reviews are analyzed.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation. The single review is highly detailed and credible, describing significant professionalism failures (poor communication, ignored messages, missed appointments, inconsistent follow-through), moderate pricing satisfaction, poor project completion (service never delivered after weeks of delays), and mixed experience quality (good initial work that degraded over time). The review is dated 2014 (10+ years old), which severely limits its relevance to current operations.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from May 2014 — over 10 years old; does not reflect current business operations or practices
• Cannot assess fake review patterns with single review
• Severe recency bias: this review predates modern communication standards and may not reflect current business model

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review, especially one from 2014; at minimum 3 recent reviews are needed to establish any confidence in contractor performance assessment.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The review mentions reasonable pricing and quality service/workmanship, but lacks specific details about professionalism, punctuality, communication, or project completion. The review is generic and does not provide concrete evidence across multiple dimensions. Additionally, the review is from 2016 (8+ years old), which significantly limits its relevance to current service quality.

• Insufficient data: only 1 review provided; minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from July 2016 — over 8 years old; does not reflect current service quality
• Review is generic with no specific details about punctuality, communication, attitude, or project completion
• Cannot calculate WW Score with confidence due to insufficient sample size and age of data

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score; at least 3 recent reviews with specific details are required to assess contractor quality reliably.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture of the contractor's professionalism and ability to complete any work. The reviewer experienced significant miscommunication between phone staff, was misled by the company's website about service offerings and geographic location, and was ultimately unable to receive an estimate or have any work performed. Project completion scores near the floor because no job was ever started, let alone finished, due to internal disorganization. Pricing and experience cannot be scored as no work was quoted or executed. With only one review, all scores carry very low confidence and should be treated as directional only.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The review raises a serious concern about deceptive or misleading website practices, including false geographic representation and inaccurate service listings.
• Internal staff contradicted each other on basic service offerings, suggesting significant organizational dysfunction.
• No pricing, workmanship, or completed project data is available — two of four scoring dimensions return null.

This score is based on a single 1-star review and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance — far more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.