Find Nearby Plumbers In Toledo, Ohio

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided. While this single review is highly positive and mentions professionalism (scheduling ease, punctuality, cleanliness, safety protocols), project completion (timely installation, cleanup), and experience (technical knowledge demonstrated), a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single data point. Pricing was not addressed in this review.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is from 2020 (over 3 years old) — recency is a concern for current contractor assessment
• No pricing information mentioned — cannot evaluate Price Friendly dimension

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; at least 3 independent reviews are required to establish baseline reliability.

This single review presents severe and consistent criticism across all dimensions. The contractor is accused of prioritizing higher-paying jobs over scheduled appointments, no-showing multiple times, leaving work in worse condition than found, failing to measure properly, abandoning jobs when complications arose, and providing excuses rather than solutions. While the reviewer notes the contractor is personable, they characterize the overall engagement as a con. However, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated from a single review, as one customer's experience—however detailed—does not provide sufficient evidence of consistent performance patterns.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews to be statistically meaningful.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: This review is extremely negative (1.0 rating) with detailed complaints. Without corroborating reviews, it is impossible to determine if this represents systemic issues or an isolated dispute.
• NO VERIFICATION POSSIBLE: Cannot assess whether complaints are legitimate or if there are mitigating circumstances without additional customer perspectives.
• DATE NOTE: Review is from June 2023 (approximately 1.5+ years old). Current performance may differ significantly.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 review was provided. Any scoring would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The reviewer notes that the first service in January was completed excellently, suggesting solid workmanship at that time. However, a follow-up visit to complete remaining work left the customer still experiencing a problem, which significantly drags down the project completion score. The reviewer appears understanding of life circumstances causing delays, but the unresolved issue at the time of writing is a meaningful negative signal. No data exists for professionalism or pricing, so those dimensions cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The reviewer explicitly states a problem remains unresolved after the follow-up visit, indicating incomplete project resolution.
• The 3-star rating combined with an unresolved issue suggests this contractor should not be treated as fully vetted based on available data.
• No mentions of pricing, communication, punctuality, or appearance — large portions of the scoring framework have zero data.

This score is based on a single review and should be considered essentially meaningless for decision-making purposes — far more reviews are needed before any dimension score or overall WW Score can be trusted.

This single review describes a severely negative experience with significant pricing overages (40% above quote), poor communication (owner failed to follow up on promised callback), and lack of responsiveness to customer concerns. The job was completed but the customer explicitly warns others away. With only one review and all scores based on LIMITED mention counts, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Insufficient data: only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• Review is from 2014 (10+ years old) — does not reflect current business practices.
• No data on technical skill/experience quality — only pricing and communication issues mentioned.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a reliable score.

The sole review on record is an extremely serious allegation describing outright fraud: the contractor accepted $1,800 in payment for pool work and then failed to perform any work, stopped returning calls and texts, and allegedly cashed the check before disappearing. The reviewer states police were contacted and legal action is being pursued. Professionalism and project completion both score 0 as the contractor is accused of deliberate non-performance and criminal conduct. Pricing and experience cannot be scored as neither was meaningfully addressed in the review. Because only one review exists, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated, but the content of that single review is unambiguously severe.

• CRITICAL FRAUD ALLEGATION: Reviewer explicitly states contractor accepted $1,800 payment and performed zero work, characterizing this as criminal fraud.
• POLICE INVOLVEMENT: Reviewer states police were contacted and provided the contractor's details. Legal action is reportedly being pursued.
• VULNERABLE VICTIM: Reviewer states the alleged fraud was committed against a senior citizen.
• REVIEW AGE WARNING: This review is from October 2018, which is more than 6 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current behavior or whether circumstances have changed.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 1 review was provided. A WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews. Treat all dimension scores with extreme caution.
• NO FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The review contains specific details (bank name, location, dollar amount, dates, police involvement) that are consistent with a genuine firsthand account.

This score report is based on a single review from 2018 and cannot produce a reliable WW Score; however, the allegations described are severe and specific enough to warrant serious caution before engaging this contractor.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While this single review is highly positive across all dimensions (praising professionalism, courteous service, reasonable pricing, honesty, and quick problem identification), a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from fewer than 3 reviews. Each dimension is based on only 1 mention, resulting in LIMITED confidence across the board.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is from 2017 (7+ years old) — recency is a concern for current contractor performance assessment

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume. Additional recent reviews are needed before any meaningful scoring can be performed.