Find Nearby Plumbers In New Haven, Connecticut

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans a wide date range (2014–2017), making any conclusions tentative. Two positive reviews from 2014 describe Rob as responsive, punctual, and willing to go above and beyond to source parts. However, the most detailed and most recent review (2017, describing a 2015 incident) is severely damaging: it alleges that substandard aftermarket parts were installed, resulting in catastrophic flooding, a six-month displacement, and significant financial loss. Critically, the owner is described as uncooperative and rude when contacted by insurance investigators, which heavily penalizes both professionalism and project completion scores. The single pricing mention notes the bill was 'acceptable but high,' yielding only a middling price-friendly score.

• VERY LOW REVIEW COUNT: Only 3 reviews total. No statistically reliable conclusions can be drawn.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The two positive reviews are from 2014 (over 10 years old). The most recent review is from 2017 (over 7 years old). All reviews are significantly outdated and may not reflect current business practices.
• SEVERE WORKMANSHIP ALLEGATION: One review alleges use of unidentified aftermarket parts that directly caused catastrophic water damage, gutting of a home, and a six-month displacement. This is a serious quality and liability flag.
• OWNER CONDUCT ALLEGATION: The 2017 reviewer explicitly states the owner refused to cooperate with insurance companies and was 'very rude,' which is a significant professionalism red flag.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The two 5-star reviews from 2014 are relatively brief and generic in praise, though they do contain some specific details. Cannot confirm inauthenticity, but the contrast with the detailed 1-star review is notable.
• NO RECENT DATA: There are zero reviews from the past 12 months (relative to any reasonable current date). The WW Score should be treated as historically indicative only.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 3 reviews, all of which are at least 7 years old, combined with a severe unresolved workmanship and conduct allegation that significantly drags down multiple dimensions.

Perry's Plumbing receives deeply mixed reviews, but the negative feedback is both more numerous and more detailed, dragging scores down significantly across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most damaged dimension, with at least 7 reviews explicitly describing rude, disrespectful, or hostile behavior — including one reviewer quoting the contractor saying 'Kiss my a$$' and another describing sloppy, destructive work inside their home. Pricing is also a serious concern, with multiple reviewers citing surprise charges, quotes that ballooned significantly upon completion, and at least one charge of $179.23 for reattaching a toilet chain that the contractor himself admitted was the only work performed. Project completion is mixed: several positive reviewers confirm jobs were finished and problems resolved, but negative reviewers describe incomplete diagnostics, property damage during the job, and a refusal to commit to any estimate. Experience scores moderately because a handful of reviewers do confirm successful repairs and technical knowledge, but this is undercut by accounts of a contractor who could not locate a frozen pipe for hours and ultimately caused ceiling and panel damage in the process.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The positive reviews are notably sparse in detail compared to the negative reviews. Several 5-star reviews contain only one or two generic sentences with no specifics (e.g., 'Perry was terrific! very nice man who did a great job for a fair price'). One reviewer explicitly alleges that Google reviews for this contractor are manipulated ('Don't believe Google reviews — they have to be fixed').
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly negative (1-star), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Positive reviews are concentrated in 2018 and earlier. This recency pattern is a significant red flag.
• PRICING INTEGRITY FLAG: At least two reviews describe quotes that were significantly exceeded upon job completion without clear justification — one from $225–$250 to $380, and another from $350 to $1,030.94. This pattern suggests a systemic issue with pricing transparency.
• ATTITUDE/CONDUCT FLAG: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2016, 2018, 2019, 2023, 2024) describe the same hostile, dismissive, or rude behavior. The consistency of this complaint across unrelated reviewers and time periods lends it high credibility.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE FLAG: One reviewer explicitly describes the contractor ripping part of their ceiling and removing panels without care or consent while searching for a frozen pipe, indicating a potential workmanship and liability concern.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews spanning 2016–2024 with strong mention coverage across all four dimensions, making it a HIGH confidence assessment; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible allegations of review manipulation and a clear negative trend in the most recent reviews.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture, with two serious 1-star reviews describing abandoned work, cracked pipes, unreturned calls, and a disputed charge of $4,800 for a job allegedly worth $1,500. The positive reviews offer some counterbalance — one reviewer praised responsiveness and same-day service, another highlighted late-hour availability and fair pricing, and a third credited a plumber named Hamdi for resolving a clog others could not — but these positives are outweighed by the severity of the negative incidents. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with two explicit accounts of work left incomplete or made worse. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by documented failures to return calls and deflecting blame onto the customer. The overall score is low and should be treated with caution given the small review pool and the seriousness of the documented complaints.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review alleges the contractor charged $4,800 for a job an independent expert valued at $1,500, did not replace the pipe as claimed, and cracked existing pipes causing a new leak.
• ABANDONMENT FLAG: Two separate reviews describe work being left incomplete or worsened, with the contractor failing to return to resolve the issues.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS FLAG: At least two reviews mention the contractor not returning calls after problems arose.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most damaging review is from November 2022 and is the most recent. The positive reviews are from 2019–2021, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 5 reviews total. Scores are based on limited data and should not be considered statistically reliable.
• NAMED EMPLOYEE NOTE: One positive review references 'Hamdi' specifically, not Sam. It is unclear if this is the same contractor or a different technician, which may affect score attribution.

This WW Score has LOW overall reliability due to only 5 reviews, a wide split between serious negative and generic positive feedback, and the most recent review being a severe complaint — treat this score as a warning signal rather than a definitive rating.

This contractor's review set is small (4 reviews) and deeply mixed, with two highly detailed 1-star reviews that describe serious failures across every dimension. The 1-star reviews document a 4-month sewer job with repeated no-shows and subpar workmanship, and a diagnostic failure that nearly resulted in $2,200 of unnecessary work — both of which heavily drag down professionalism, project completion, and experience scores. The two positive reviews (5-star and 4-star) do provide genuine counterweight, noting responsiveness, honesty, and good customer service, but they are older (2014 and 2018) and less detailed than the negative accounts. The net picture is a contractor with serious documented failures that outweigh the limited positive evidence available.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• The two positive reviews are significantly older (2014 and 2018) than the two negative reviews (2019), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. More recent reviews are weighted more heavily per scoring rules.
• The 1-star review from 2019-07-16 describes a pattern consistent with upselling or fraudulent diagnostic practices — recommending unnecessary $2,200 pipe replacement and soliciting the customer's homeowner's insurance policy. This is a serious red flag beyond mere incompetence.
• The 1-star review from 2019-09-26 describes a 4-month project timeline for a job completed by a competitor in under 4 days, along with repeated no-shows and subpar workmanship — indicating potential systemic operational failures.
• No reviews are available from 2020 or later. The recency gap means current performance cannot be assessed from this data set.

This WW Score is LOW RELIABILITY — it is based on only 4 reviews spanning a wide date range, with the most recent and most detailed reviews being strongly negative, and the positive reviews being 5–9 years old; prospective customers should seek additional current references before hiring.

The review pool is dominated by severely negative experiences across nearly every dimension. Three of four reviews describe serious failures: an unresolved heating system that requires resetting 6-8 times per week after 3.5 years, a boiler leak discovered the day after installation, and a job that ran months over schedule leaving a tenant without heat or hot water in winter. Communication and responsiveness were repeatedly cited as major failures, including an owner who allegedly told a customer to leave his office using profanity. The sole positive review (5 stars, 2016) praises professionalism and workmanship but is nearly a decade old and uses notably generic, promotional-sounding language, reducing its reliability.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR BIASED REVIEW: The single 5-star review (2016-01-07) uses unusually promotional language ('you are the best!', 'stress free', 'top notch'), lacks specific technical detail, and stands in stark contrast to all other reviews. It may be a planted or incentivized review.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The positive review is from January 2016 — over 8 years old. The three negative reviews span 2018–2020. No reviews from the past 4+ years are present, making current performance unknown.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Multiple reviews describe the company becoming unresponsive after installation problems arose, suggesting a systemic pattern of post-job disengagement.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer alleges the owner used profane and threatening language when the customer sought resolution in person. This is a significant professionalism red flag.
• LEGAL ACTION NOTED: One reviewer states they are pursuing the company in court over unresolved work, which further reduces confidence in this contractor's reliability.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. Scores should be treated with caution and are not statistically robust.

This WW Score has LIMITED reliability due to the very small review sample (4 reviews), the age of all available data (oldest review from 2016, most recent from 2020), and strong indicators that the sole positive review may not be authentic — the score should be treated as a warning signal rather than a definitive assessment.

The overwhelming majority of reviews paint a deeply negative picture of this contractor across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is the most heavily documented concern, with three of four reviewers citing serious issues including failure to communicate, threatening billing tactics, no-shows without notice, and dismissive treatment of customers. Pricing transparency is also a significant problem, with hidden travel charges, unexplained bills, and pressure to pay by phone without written documentation all explicitly mentioned. Project completion fared only marginally better, with one reviewer noting an abandoned job and another describing a system that failed within two years due to poor installation choices. The single positive review — praising responsiveness and compassion for an elderly customer — provides a small counterweight but is insufficient to meaningfully raise the score given the volume and severity of negative accounts.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as directional only, not definitive.
• Three of four reviews are 1-star with highly specific, detailed complaints across multiple dimensions, lending credibility to the negative pattern.
• The one 5-star review (2020) is positive but relatively brief and lacks the operational detail present in the negative reviews; it cannot offset the weight of three detailed negative accounts.
• Most reviews are from 2019–2022; no reviews from the past 12 months were provided, so current performance cannot be assessed.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in language, specificity, and complaint type, suggesting authentic authorship.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 2019–2022, which limits statistical reliability, but the consistency and specificity of the negative feedback across professionalism, pricing, and project completion dimensions makes the low score directionally trustworthy.