Find Nearby Plumbers In Durham, North Carolina

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent failures in professionalism and project completion. Five of six reviews document no-shows, missed appointments, broken promises, and failure to communicate or follow up—patterns that span from 2019 to 2021. The single positive review (2018) praises professionalism, pricing, and workmanship, but is heavily outweighed by the overwhelming evidence of unreliability. The contractor's inability to honor commitments and respond to customers represents a fundamental business failure that undermines any technical competence.

• CRITICAL: Extreme pattern of no-shows and missed appointments across 5 of 6 reviews spanning multiple years (2019–2021). This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document complete lack of follow-up communication and unresponsiveness to phone calls and voicemails.
• One positive review (2018) stands in stark contrast to five 1-star reviews. The positive review is significantly older and may not reflect current operations.
• The consistency and specificity of failure complaints (dates, times, multiple reschedules) suggests genuine customer experiences, not fake reviews.
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews are 2–4 years old, but the pattern is so severe and repeated that age does not mitigate the risk.

This WW Score is highly reliable. The overwhelming consensus across six reviews, with five documenting identical failure modes (no-shows, non-communication, broken promises), provides strong evidence of systemic operational failure. The single positive review cannot offset the weight of evidence. This contractor should not be trusted for any appointment-based service.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. While all three reviews are positive and mention professionalism (punctuality, politeness, responsiveness), pricing fairness, and job completion, the sample size is too small to produce a trustworthy composite score. No reviews explicitly address technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews provided — below minimum threshold for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2012 (12+ years old); two reviews from 2021 (3+ years old). No recent reviews within past 12 months
• PATTERN ALERT: All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language and no specific criticisms or nuanced feedback. This pattern warrants caution regarding authenticity
• EXPERIENCE DIMENSION: No reviews mention technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability — this critical dimension has no data

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews minimum required) and concerning recency (no reviews from past 3 years). The uniformly perfect ratings and generic praise language further reduce confidence in the data quality. Do not rely on any composite score until additional recent, detailed reviews are available.

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The positive review praises knowledgeability and efficiency but lacks specific detail, while the negative review raises serious concerns about incomplete work being billed in full and lack of fixture choice. Pricing is flagged negatively by the dissatisfied reviewer, who explicitly states not all promised repairs were completed yet the full charge was applied. The single positive review is enthusiastic but generic, offering limited evidentiary weight. Overall, the negative review carries significant concern for project completion and pricing integrity.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The positive review (5-star, 2019) uses generic praise with no specific job details, reducing its evidentiary value.
• The negative review explicitly describes incomplete work being charged in full — a serious project completion and pricing integrity concern.
• Both reviews are older than 12 months (2018 and 2019), meaning there is no recent data to assess current performance.
• With only 2 reviews, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be treated as representative.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 5 years old, and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or trustworthiness.

With only two reviews — one strongly negative and one strongly positive — no reliable scoring is possible. The negative review (2019) describes rude, disrespectful behavior, excessive pricing for a simple faucet install, and conduct that only improved when a male neighbor appeared, raising serious professionalism concerns. The positive review (2017) praises responsiveness, communication, transparent pricing, and effective problem-solving on a wastewater system issue. The two reviews directly contradict each other across nearly every dimension, making any averaged score misleading rather than informative. All dimension scores above are heavily discounted due to the extremely small and conflicting sample size.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict across professionalism, pricing, and project completion — averaging them would produce a misleading middle score.
• The negative review raises a potential gender-based conduct concern: behavior reportedly improved only after a male neighbor appeared, which is a serious professionalism red flag.
• The negative review references complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau and warns readers to check other forums — suggesting additional negative feedback may exist outside this dataset.
• Both reviews are older than 5 years (2017 and 2019) — recency is poor and current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present; this score should not be used to assess current service quality.

This WW Score report has very low reliability — with only 2 conflicting reviews, both over 5 years old, no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or consistency can be drawn.

With only 2 reviews, reliable scoring is not possible. The first review (Nov 2024) praises professionalism, timeliness, and workmanship. The second review (June 2023) describes severe failures: a leaking sink from day 1, misleading communication to the customer's daughter, an uncapped pipe that risked water damage, and overpricing ($2,900.55 for work later completed for half that cost by another plumber). The stark contradiction between these reviews and the recency gap (18 months) make it impossible to establish a trustworthy overall score.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot calculate reliable WW Score
• Extreme polarity: one 5-star vs. one 1-star with detailed allegations of defective work, deception, and overcharging
• Second review contains serious allegations: leaking sink from day 1, misleading customer communication, uncapped plumbing left behind, and significant overpricing
• 18-month gap between reviews; older review contains specific, detailed complaints with verifiable claims (cost comparison, follow-up plumber findings)
• First review is generic praise with no specific details; second review is highly specific with dollar amounts and technical failures
• Possible identity/business name inconsistency noted in second review (Anthony Manning of Rooter-Man dba as Harmon Plumbing Service) — suggests potential business structure or naming issues

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and extreme polarity between reviews. The detailed allegations in the 2023 review (defective work, deception, overpricing) are serious and specific, but with only two reviews, no trustworthy overall assessment is possible. Additional recent reviews are essential before making any business decision.

Both reviews speak positively across all four dimensions, praising responsiveness, fair pricing, thoroughness, and technical knowledge. Pricing stands out as a clear strength — one reviewer explicitly compared quotes and found Project Services significantly cheaper for the same product. Professionalism is well-supported by mentions of friendliness, reliability, and consistent communication. Project completion and experience are affirmed through references to multiple successful jobs over several years and thorough problem investigation. However, with only 2 reviews, all scores carry LIMITED confidence and should be interpreted cautiously.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• One review is dated 2016 (over 8 years old), which significantly reduces its recency weight. Only one review falls within the past 3 years.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews do contain specific details (tankless water heater model comparison, multiple remodel projects), the absence of any criticism across both reviews warrants mild caution.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns definitively, but the uniformly positive tone with no constructive feedback is noted.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews — one of which is over 8 years old — making it insufficient for a reliable WW Score; the positive signals are noted but should not be treated as statistically meaningful until more recent reviews are available.