Find Nearby Plumbers In Jacksonville, North Carolina

This contractor has a deeply mixed record. Several older reviews praise responsiveness, politeness, and fair pricing, with customers highlighting same-day service, honest assessments, and reasonable fees. However, two significant negative reviews — one describing an unresolved job with a failed callback and one describing a technician who appeared impaired, left water shut off, and abandoned the job — severely drag down professionalism and project completion scores. The negative reviews are specific, detailed, and credible, and they describe serious failures in both conduct and follow-through. The positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are predominantly from 2008–2018, making recency a significant concern for current reliability.

• Two highly detailed negative reviews describe serious misconduct: one technician allegedly appeared impaired (slurring words, staggering), left the customer without water, and abandoned the job mid-project. Another review describes a paid job left unresolved with no follow-up despite repeated contact attempts.
• Two reviews ('unknown' and '.') contain no usable text and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• The vast majority of reviews are older than 5 years, with most positive reviews dating from 2008–2018. Only the two most negative reviews are from 2019, which is the most recent activity. This recency pattern is concerning — the most recent customer experiences are the worst ones on record.
• One review describes the contractor declining a job and referring to another provider who had gone out of business, suggesting possible capacity or reliability issues.
• No reviews are present from 2020 onward, making it impossible to assess current performance. The WW Score should be treated with caution given the age of most data.

This score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the high volume of very old reviews skewing positive, while the most recent reviews (2019) are strongly negative and describe serious professionalism and project completion failures — prospective customers should weight the 2019 reviews heavily when making a hiring decision.

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning multiple years. The 2023 review describes severe failures in professionalism, project completion, and pricing, while older reviews (2017–2021) praise service quality and friendliness. The most recent and detailed negative review explicitly documents incomplete repairs, lack of technical expertise, unresponsiveness, and overpricing, which heavily influences the overall score. The stark contradiction between recent and historical reviews suggests either significant organizational decline or potential service inconsistency depending on technician assignment.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 3–7 years old (2017, 2019, 2021). The most recent review (2023) is severely negative and detailed, describing systemic failures. This temporal pattern is concerning.
• REVIEW QUALITY IMBALANCE: The 2023 negative review is highly detailed and specific with multiple documented failures. The positive reviews, while friendly in tone, lack specific technical detail and are older. The 2017 review contains excessive punctuation and capitalization ('!!!!I I') which may indicate low-quality data.
• CONTRADICTION PATTERN: Extreme polarity between reviews (1-star vs. 5-star) with no middle-ground reviews suggests either significant service variability or potential data quality issues.
• PRICING DATA LIMITED: Only one review explicitly addresses pricing (the negative 2023 review), making the pricing score unreliable despite the strong negative signal.

This score should be treated with caution due to severe inconsistency across reviews and heavy reliance on a single recent detailed negative review versus older positive reviews. The recency of the 2023 failure documentation is concerning and suggests current performance may be significantly worse than historical ratings indicate. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish reliable current performance.

This contractor demonstrates catastrophically poor performance across all measured dimensions. Every single review is 1-star with explicit complaints of incomplete work, non-responsiveness, financial misconduct, and property damage. Professionalism is severely compromised by lack of tools, poor communication, failure to follow up, and abandonment of jobs. Pricing integrity is violated through unexplained charges, failure to deliver promised services, and apparent financial exploitation of customers. Project completion is consistently absent—jobs are abandoned mid-work, partially completed work fails, and promised callbacks never materialize. Technical competence is questionable given misdiagnosis, unnecessary part replacements, and failure to complete basic repairs. No positive evidence exists to offset these findings.

• CRITICAL: All 6 reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly severe complaints. This is not a pattern of mixed satisfaction but rather consistent failure across all customer interactions.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document financial misconduct including unexplained charges, failure to refund, and apparent theft of customer deposits.
• CRITICAL: Property damage documented (backed into block wall, refused to repair or file insurance claim).
• CRITICAL: Pattern of non-responsiveness and abandonment—customers report being unable to reach contractor after payment.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews reference work done under home warranty companies, suggesting systemic issues with warranty-covered repairs.
• CRITICAL: One review explicitly threatens legal action and references potential criminal conduct.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (2020-2022), but recency does not mitigate the severity of documented failures.
• No positive reviews exist to provide counterbalance or context.

This score is extremely reliable and should be treated as a strong warning signal. The unanimous 1-star rating across 6 independent reviews with specific, detailed complaints of incomplete work, financial misconduct, and property damage indicates this contractor should not be hired. The HIGH confidence across all dimensions reflects consistent negative evidence, not data scarcity.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent failures across all dimensions. Multiple reviews document unlicensed operation, substandard work that fails code inspection, extreme overcharging (550% markup on a simple 20-minute job), missed appointments, and evasive behavior including blocking customers and attempting identity concealment. One positive review from 2020 praising responsiveness and professionalism is heavily outweighed by four damning accounts spanning 2020-2023 detailing fraud, property damage, licensing violations, and refusal to take accountability. The pattern of behavior suggests systemic misconduct rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews confirm contractor is NOT licensed in North Carolina and Florida respectively, despite advertising as licensed. This is a legal violation.
• CRITICAL: Two separate reviews document contractor blocking customer phone numbers and evading communication after service failures.
• CRITICAL: One review documents contractor allegedly changing business name to conceal identity and lying to TaskRabbit platform.
• CRITICAL: One review documents property damage (apartment flooding) with contractor fleeing scene.
• CRITICAL: Extreme price gouging documented: $550 charged for 20-minute job with $100 part (expected cost ~$250).
• CRITICAL: Work quality failures: third-party inspection found zero code compliance on bathroom installation.
• One positive review (2020-02-21) exists but is vastly outnumbered and contradicted by pattern of fraud and misconduct in other reviews.
• Recency concern: Most damaging reviews are from 2020, but 2023 review confirms pattern continues.
• Possible identity issues: Reviews reference both 'Steve' and 'Ariel Gonzalez' as owner/operator; one review mentions attempted name change to 'Joe Smith Plumbing'.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient positive data, but the available evidence overwhelmingly indicates this contractor engages in unlicensed operation, fraud, property damage, and systematic customer evasion. This business should be avoided entirely and reported to state licensing boards and consumer protection agencies.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score calculation. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience, but pricing is not addressed in either review. The limited sample size and absence of pricing data prevent confident scoring.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Both reviews dated identically (2024-05-13) and both 5-star ratings with suspiciously similar praise patterns (generic compliments, no specific details about pricing or challenges)
• Potential fake review pattern: identical date, both perfect ratings, repetitive language ('great guy', 'truly note worthy'), lack of specificity about work quality or pricing
• No pricing feedback in either review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• All scores based on only 2 mentions each — extremely limited confidence

This report cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment. The sample size is too small (2 reviews vs. 3 minimum), pricing data is absent, and the reviews show suspicious patterns consistent with potential fake reviews. Do not use this score for decision-making without additional verified customer feedback.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed, below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation. The positive review (5-star, 2016) explicitly praises professionalism, punctuality, respect, and technical skill. The negative review (1-star, 2017) cites poor responsiveness and failure to return calls. These reviews are contradictory and both are over 7 years old, limiting their relevance. No meaningful data on pricing or project completion exists.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot calculate reliable WW Score
• Both reviews are older than 7 years (2016–2017); no recent data available
• Contradictory evidence: one review praises professionalism and responsiveness; the other criticizes non-responsiveness
• No pricing data mentioned in any review
• Limited mentions across all dimensions prevent confident scoring

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required) and age of reviews (both pre-2018). Any score derived would be unreliable.