Find Nearby Plumbers In Bridgeport, Connecticut

Positive Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed track record across its review history. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praised friendly, professional technicians, reasonable pricing, and quality workmanship on completed jobs. However, two serious negative reviews — one describing an abandoned job with a tech who never returned and caused additional damage, and another citing a lazy diagnosis that missed the actual problem — significantly drag down the scores for both project completion and experience. Responsiveness and communication are also inconsistent, with one reviewer explicitly warning that callbacks are unreliable and the answering service borders on rude. The overall picture is a contractor capable of good work but with a meaningful pattern of failures that cannot be ignored.

• Two reviews (2017-12-15 and 2012-07-24) describe serious failures in responsiveness and follow-through, including a tech who abandoned a job mid-repair and never returned, causing additional damage to the client's property.
• One review (2020-11-10) describes a paid diagnostic visit that produced an incorrect diagnosis, with the correct issue later found by a non-professional — raising a concern about technical thoroughness.
• Several positive reviews are older than 5 years (2017, 2018) and one dates to 2012. Only two reviews are from the past 12 months (2023, 2024). Recency weighting reduces confidence in the positive trend.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, but the positive reviews vary enough in detail and phrasing to appear genuine.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews spanning over a decade, with only 2 from the past 12 months, which limits how well it reflects the contractor's current performance — treat this score as a moderate-confidence signal requiring further vetting.

Canestri Plumbing receives strong praise across most reviews for professionalism, responsiveness, and courteous staff, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out named employees like Gabe, Jason, Dan, and Paul for quality work. Pricing is mentioned positively in a few reviews, with one customer noting initial sticker shock but ultimately finding the quote fair and transparent. However, two separate negative reviews — from 2017 and 2020 — describe a critical and recurring failure pattern: work that did not hold, followed by a complete lack of callback or follow-through to resolve the issue. This significantly drags down the project completion score, as abandoned callbacks represent a serious breach of service. The overall picture is a contractor with genuine strengths in day-of execution and communication, but a documented and repeated failure to honor follow-up work when problems arise.

• Two separate reviews (2017 and 2020) describe nearly identical failure patterns: initial work failed shortly after completion, and the company refused to return or respond to repeated callback requests. This is a meaningful pattern, not an isolated incident.
• Several 5-star reviews are older than 3 years (2018 and earlier), and the most recent reviews are from late 2021. No reviews from 2022 or later are present — recency of data is limited and the score may not reflect current performance.
• Some positive reviews lack specific detail (e.g., 'great service,' 'top on the shoreline') which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though most positive reviews do include named individuals or specific job descriptions, reducing fake review concern.
• The two 1-star reviews are notably specific and credible in their detail, lending them higher evidentiary weight relative to their count.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the positive dimensions are supported by multiple detailed reviews, but the project completion score is materially impacted by two credible and patterned negative experiences that suggest a systemic issue with post-service accountability.

Edgerton shows significant inconsistency across dimensions. Technical expertise and experience are strong (82.0), with multiple reviews praising technician knowledge and problem-solving. However, professionalism is undermined by chronic scheduling failures, poor communication, and unresponsiveness documented across multiple reviews spanning 2017–2023. Pricing concerns are substantial, with complaints about unauthorized charges, lack of transparency, inflated estimates, and aggressive subcontractor billing practices. Project completion is hampered by incomplete diagnostics, failed first attempts, and unresolved issues requiring multiple visits. The company demonstrates capability but poor operational execution and customer service management.

• CRITICAL: Multiple independent complaints about unauthorized billing and credit card charges without consent (2023, 2018 reviews) — potential fraud pattern
• CHRONIC SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 4 separate reviews (2017, 2017, 2018, 2022) document missed appointments, no-shows, poor communication about delays, and failure to honor time windows
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: Complaints about high bills, lack of estimates before work, subcontractor cost pass-through without disclosure, and alleged overcharging (2018, 2019 reviews)
• SUBCONTRACTING PROBLEMS: 2019 review documents use of subcontractors without disclosure, poor quality work, and refusal to absorb costs for failed service
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEWS: 2022 restaurant owner review uses generic praise ('junky monkey companies,' 'super knowledge'), lacks specifics, and reads as promotional. 2019 and 2018 reviews defending company against 'negative reviews' appear defensive and lack detail
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2017–2019). Only 2 recent reviews (2022–2023), one highly negative (2023 unauthorized billing), one suspicious (2022 generic praise). Recent trend appears negative
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Same company receives both 5-star technical praise and 1-star operational failures, suggesting quality depends heavily on individual technician rather than company systems

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While technical competence is well-documented (HIGH confidence), serious concerns about billing practices, scheduling reliability, and customer service management are consistently corroborated across multiple independent reviews over 6 years. The 2023 unauthorized billing complaint and chronic scheduling failures suggest systemic operational problems that outweigh technical capability. Recent reviews are sparse and conflicting, limiting confidence in current performance.

Rozmus Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately due to a meaningful split: several reviews praise punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous staff, while recent and older reviews alike describe unprofessional behavior, an unpleasant office coordinator, and plumbers making themselves at home uninvited. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple independent reviewers explicitly calling out extreme markups, labor overcharges, and a $175 half-hour visit — complaints spanning from 2012 to 2024, suggesting a persistent pattern rather than isolated incidents. Project completion is also troubled: one detailed review describes a water heater installation that required wrong-sized equipment, structural damage to a door and frame, and broken promises on repair costs, while another describes a shower faucet repair that failed after two uses and a shutoff valve that failed after four months and flooded a garage. Experience scores slightly higher due to positive mentions of skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship from satisfied customers, but is significantly dragged down by the documented failures in technical execution.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising 'Eddie and DJ' (Rating 5.0) appears twice with different dates (2020-06-10 and 2020-03-27). This inflates positive review count and may indicate a submission error or manipulation.
• TWO REVIEWS HAVE NO TEXT CONTENT (Rating 5.0, dates 2019-06-11): These blank reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. They may artificially inflate the star rating average.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (April 2025 and June 2024) are both negative (2-star), suggesting a possible decline in service quality. The majority of positive reviews are from 2018–2022.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS SPAN MULTIPLE YEARS (2012, 2018, 2018, 2024): This is not an isolated incident — overpricing appears to be a structural and persistent issue with this contractor.
• PROJECT FAILURE PATTERN: At least two reviews describe work that physically failed shortly after completion (valve failure after 4 months, shower faucet after 2 uses), indicating potential quality control issues beyond one-off errors.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews contain very little detail ('Great speedy service!', 'Another great job!!', 'Good company', 'Excellent plumbing service.'). These provide minimal evidentiary value and were weighted conservatively.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the volume of reviews (27) is sufficient for analysis, but the presence of duplicate entries, blank reviews, a strong recency skew toward negative feedback, and persistent multi-year pricing complaints introduce meaningful uncertainty — prospective customers should weight the negative reviews heavily given their specificity and recency.

This contractor has a mixed record across a small number of reviews. Two recent positive reviews (2023) highlight fast response times, courtesy, and successful problem resolution, which bolster professionalism and project completion scores. However, a detailed 1-star review from 2020 describes serious workmanship failures — a damaged bathtub, improper installation, a failed leak test, arriving ill-equipped, and a refusal to negotiate any refund — which significantly drags down scores across all dimensions. The positive reviews are largely brief and lack specific detail, limiting their evidentiary weight against the highly specific negative account. Overall confidence in this score is low due to the small review pool and the stark contrast between vague praise and a detailed complaint.

• Very small review pool (4 reviews total) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable.
• Two of the four positive reviews ('Job was fine, in and out, they were great.' and the 2023 fast-response review) are vague and lack specific detail, limiting their evidentiary value.
• The 2020 1-star review is highly detailed and describes multiple serious failures: damaged property, improper installation, failed leak test, arriving without proper tools/supplies, and refusal to offer any refund — this carries significant weight despite its age.
• Recency note: The two most recent reviews are from September 2023 and are positive, but they are brief. The most damaging review is from 2020 and may not reflect current performance. The 2019 review is over 5 years old and carries reduced weight.
• No reviews mention pricing in a positive context — the only pricing mention is from the negative review, which noted the quote seemed reasonable but the value was severely undermined by poor workmanship.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning over 4 years, with significant quality variance between them, and should be considered LOW reliability — substantially more review data is needed before this score can be trusted.

This contractor has a mixed but small review record spanning nearly a decade, making trend analysis difficult. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is pulled down significantly by one review describing rude, dismissive phone behavior — a serious concern that cannot be ignored. Pricing and project completion each receive modest positive signals from only one or two reviews, keeping those scores conservative. The two positive professionalism reviews (punctuality, politeness, responsiveness) are encouraging but insufficient to overcome the negative data point. Overall, the score reflects genuine uncertainty rather than a clear positive or negative picture.

• RECENCY WARNING: All 4 reviews are older than 1 year. The most recent review is from 2020, and two reviews date back to 2011 and 2012. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• NEGATIVE PROFESSIONALISM FLAG: One reviewer explicitly described the contractor as 'unbelievably rude' and stated they hung up during a basic inquiry. This is a direct, specific complaint and was weighted accordingly.
• LOW VOLUME WARNING: Only 4 reviews total. No dimension reaches the 5-mention threshold for HIGH confidence. All scores should be treated as low-reliability estimates.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, which is a positive signal for authenticity.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to a very small review sample, entirely outdated reviews (none within the past 4+ years), and a meaningful negative professionalism incident that cannot be offset by the limited positive data available.