Find Nearby Plumbers In Rocky Mount, North Carolina

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent failures across all dimensions. Four of five reviews document serious misconduct: abandonment of projects, non-completion despite upfront payment, dishonesty regarding warranty authorization, and failure to respond to customer calls. One positive review from November 2023 praising painting work stands in stark contrast but is heavily outweighed by documented fraud allegations, police involvement, and financial harm to customers. The pattern of abandonment and dishonesty is too severe and consistent to be offset by a single positive review.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document fraud, abandonment, and non-completion of paid work totaling thousands of dollars
• CRITICAL: Review from 2018 documents police warrant filed against contractor (Jose Lopez) for fraud
• CRITICAL: Three separate reviews (2018, 2021, 2022) describe identical pattern: upfront payment, non-completion, non-responsiveness, and refusal to return calls
• CRITICAL: One review (2023) alleges dishonesty regarding warranty authorization to extract additional payment
• SUSPICIOUS: Single 5-star review from November 2023 uses generic praise language ('flawless,' 'brand new,' 'highly recommend') with no specific details, stands in extreme isolation from four 1-star reviews documenting serious criminal conduct, and may represent fake review or different business entity
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most damaging reviews are 2-5 years old, but pattern is consistent and severe; most recent review (Nov 2023) contradicts historical pattern without explanation

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient trustworthy data and severe red flags. The overwhelming evidence of fraud, abandonment, dishonesty, and police involvement makes this contractor unsuitable for hire regardless of the single positive review. Any potential customer should conduct independent verification and exercise extreme caution.

With only 3 reviews, this analysis lacks sufficient data for a reliable WW Score calculation. Two reviews (2022 and 2020) describe severe failures in communication, project execution, and workmanship—including failure to deliver estimates, property damage, and questionable billing practices. One positive 2017 review praises responsiveness and pricing but provides minimal detail. The extreme polarity and small sample size make any aggregate score unreliable. The two negative reviews are detailed and specific, suggesting legitimate complaints rather than fabrication.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews total — insufficient for reliable scoring. Industry standard requires minimum 10-15 reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent negative review is from 2022; oldest positive review is from 2017 (7 years old). No recent positive reviews to balance narrative.
• EXTREME POLARITY: Two 1-star reviews with detailed complaints vs. one 5-star review with minimal specifics. This suggests either significant service inconsistency or potential selection bias in review sample.
• DAMAGE ALLEGATIONS: Second review contains serious allegations of property damage (broken septic tank), potential cover-up, and inadequate repair. These are specific, eyewitness claims that warrant investigation.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: First review documents repeated failure to deliver promised estimate over one month, suggesting systemic responsiveness issues.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3). The extreme negative-to-positive ratio and recency skew toward older data make any aggregate metric untrustworthy. Do not rely on this analysis for contractor selection; obtain additional recent reviews or direct references before engaging.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold for reliable scoring. Additionally, all reviews are older than 12 months (2020–2021), limiting recency validity. Professionalism mentions are split between positive (friendly, thorough, professional) and negative (poor customer service, scheduling nightmare). Project completion shows positive signals (prompt service, ASAP response) but limited mention count. Experience is mentioned only once. Pricing is not addressed in any review.

• All reviews are 3+ years old (2020–2021); no recent data available to assess current service quality
• Only 3 total reviews — insufficient volume for reliable WW Score calculation
• Conflicting signals on professionalism: one review praises technicians but criticizes office staff; another praises professionalism. Unclear if same company or different experiences
• No pricing data mentioned in any review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 reviews met but at threshold) and all reviews being older than 12 months, making current service quality assessment impossible.

Both reviews speak positively across all four dimensions, with particular strength in pricing transparency and professional conduct. The second review is notably detailed, describing a plumber who ignored the customer's assumptions, applied independent diagnostic skill, and delivered a final bill of $125 against an expected $500 — a strong signal of both technical competence and pricing integrity. Professionalism is consistently praised across both reviews, with mentions of friendliness, clear communication, and a cordial demeanor. Project completion is affirmed in both cases, with problems resolved on each visit. However, with only two reviews total, all scores carry LIMITED confidence and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — this is below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings; while the second review contains substantial specific detail that reduces fake review concern, the small sample size means results should be treated with caution.
• One review is dated April 2022, which is over 12 months old relative to the most recent review (December 2023). Recency weighting slightly favors the December 2023 review, though both are considered.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — significantly more review data is needed before any WW Score can be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality.

These two reviews paint a sharply contradictory picture of this contractor. The 2020 review describes a serious failure: a $600 deposit taken, work never started, and all contact ignored — a significant professionalism and project completion failure. The 2018 review is strongly positive, praising punctuality, honest communication, fair pricing, and a competent repair. However, the negative review is more recent by roughly two years, which under recency weighting carries greater relevance. With only two reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, and all dimension scores carry very low confidence. The pattern of a deposit taken with no follow-through is a serious red flag that cannot be offset by a single older positive review.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews provided. A minimum of 3 is required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The negative review (December 2020) is more recent than the positive review (January 2018). Under recency weighting rules, the negative review carries greater relevance.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: The 1-star review alleges the contractor accepted a $600 deposit, failed to show up, and became completely unresponsive. This describes potential fraud or theft of services and is weighted heavily in project completion and professionalism scores.
• CONTRADICTORY SIGNAL: The two reviews are in direct conflict with each other, making any aggregate score highly unreliable. The positive review may reflect a genuinely different experience or an earlier period of operation.
• AGE OF DATA: Both reviews are over 3 years old as of a 2024 reference point. Neither review reflects recent contractor behavior with confidence.

This WW Score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — only 2 reviews exist, they directly contradict each other, both are dated, and one describes serious misconduct including an unpaid deposit and complete loss of contact.

Only one substantive review was available for analysis (the second review contains no text). The single usable review from June 2024 is highly positive, explicitly praising Keith's honesty, straightforward communication, fair pricing, quick turnaround, and quality workmanship on a sewage line repair. However, with only one review mentioning each dimension, confidence in these scores is limited and cannot support a reliable overall WW Score calculation.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 1 usable review provided; minimum 3 reviews recommended for reliable scoring
• Second review contains no text content and cannot be analyzed
• Single review is inherently vulnerable to bias and does not represent a statistically meaningful sample
• All scores based on 1 mention each — treat with caution

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data; at least 3 substantive reviews are required to calculate a reliable overall score.