Find Nearby Plumbers In New Haven, Connecticut

All three reviews are strongly negative, painting a consistent picture of a contractor that fails across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by reports of a rude receptionist, a no-show appointment with no call or explanation, and a three-week delay to return an estimate. Pricing is flagged as exploitative, with multiple diagnostic fees charged for incomplete or incorrect diagnoses, and one reviewer finding a competitor who completed the same job under warranty for nearly half the quoted price. Project completion is critically low, as one reviewer's job was never started after a confirmed appointment, another was billed for work that should have been covered under a maintenance contract, and a third had to seek a different company entirely to get the job done. Experience scores marginally higher but is still very poor, as technicians failed to identify an active warranty on a unit they themselves installed, arrived without necessary parts, and misdiagnosed or incompletely diagnosed issues while still charging fees.

• All three reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive reviews present — this sample may represent a selection bias toward dissatisfied customers, but the specificity and detail in each review suggest they are genuine.
• The most recent review is dated 2018-09-25, meaning all reviews are more than 5 years old. Current performance of this contractor cannot be assessed from this data.
• Only 3 reviews are available, which is the absolute minimum threshold for score calculation. Results should be treated as highly preliminary and not representative of long-term performance.
• No fake review patterns detected — each review contains specific details, unique phrasing, and distinct scenarios, indicating authentic customer experiences.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are over 5 years old and uniformly negative, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality without significantly more recent data.

All three reviews are negative and paint a consistent picture of serious professionalism failures, including rudeness, belligerence toward customers, arriving late or not at all, and demanding cash payment before work could be verified. Pricing concerns appear in all three reviews, with complaints about overcharging, lack of upfront pricing transparency, and a mid-project price increase of 15% without prior notice. Project completion is severely undermined by accounts of leaving tools behind, dragging a leaking toilet through a customer's home, changing job specifications without consent, and refusing to allow testing of completed work before demanding full payment. Experience scores marginally higher only because one reviewer noted the contractor initially appeared knowledgeable, though that impression quickly deteriorated once work began.

• All three reviews are 1-star ratings with consistent negative themes — while this alignment could suggest a pattern of genuine poor service, the small sample size (3 reviews) limits statistical reliability.
• One review dates from 2015, which is over 9 years old and should be weighted significantly less than the 2021 and 2023 reviews.
• The most recent review (2023) and the 2021 review both describe active, ongoing behavioral issues, suggesting the problems documented in the older review have not been corrected.
• No positive reviews were provided for analysis. It is unknown whether this sample represents the contractor's full review history or a filtered subset. If this is the complete review record, the score is highly reliable in its negativity. If positive reviews exist elsewhere, this analysis is incomplete.
• Demand for cash payment before work verification was flagged in two separate reviews — this is a notable red flag for consumer protection purposes.

This score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 8 years, which limits statistical confidence, but the consistency and specificity of the negative feedback across all three reviews — covering professionalism, pricing, and project completion — makes the low WW Score directionally reliable as a warning signal.

Malangone/TJ's Plumbing demonstrates catastrophically poor performance across all measured dimensions. Every single review (7/7) is a 1-star rating with explicit complaints about unprofessionalism, including rudeness, missed appointments, failure to return calls, and bullying behavior. Project completion is severely compromised—work is left unfinished, appointments are arbitrarily canceled, and customers report having to hire second opinions to discover that promised work was never actually performed. Pricing concerns emerge in multiple reviews alleging overcharging, fabricated problems, and fraudulent billing practices. Technical competence is questioned, with reports of incorrect diagnoses and inadequate problem-solving. The company appears to operate under multiple business names (Malangone, TJ's Plumbing, TJ's Plumbing Supplies & Service LLC) in an apparent attempt to evade negative reviews.

• CRITICAL: All 7 reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly severe complaints—this is not a mixed-quality contractor but a consistently failing business.
• Multiple reviews explicitly state the company only remains in business due to forced use through American Home Shield warranty program.
• Evidence of potential fraud: Review from 2020 documents that company claimed to replace parts (overflow gasket and pipe) for warranty approval but never actually performed the work; second opinion confirmed only shoe pipe was replaced.
• Company appears to operate under multiple business names (Malangone Plumbing, TJ's Plumbing, TJ's Plumbing Supplies & Service LLC) with same phone number and address—suggests deliberate rebranding to escape negative reviews.
• One review mentions owner posted self-review, suggesting possible fake positive review activity (though no positive reviews appear in this dataset).
• Reviews span 2016–2022 (6+ years) with consistent pattern of failure—this is not a recent problem but systemic and persistent.
• Multiple reviewers report contacting regulatory bodies (BBB, State of Connecticut, American Home Shield corporate) due to severity of issues.

This WW Score of 8.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely—it is based on 7 detailed, specific reviews spanning 6 years with zero positive feedback, consistent patterns of documented failures, and explicit evidence of fraud and unprofessional conduct. This contractor should be avoided.

Only two reviews contain usable operational data, making any score highly provisional. The 2017 review is the most substantive and paints a positive picture: the plumber communicated proactively, arrived promptly, confirmed pricing before proceeding, and completed the job at or below the expected cost. The 2021 review confirms fast turnaround on a sump pump replacement, suggesting reasonable responsiveness and follow-through. However, one review simply notes the business appears permanently closed, and the business may no longer be operating at all, which severely limits the practical value of any score generated.

• Business closure warning: One review from 2020 states the business is permanently closed, and another from 2021 references calls being transferred to a different company (Al's Plumbing in Shelton). This contractor may no longer be operating under the Preferred Plumbing name.
• Recency concern: The only detailed positive review is from 2017, which is over 7 years old. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Scores based on this data should not be used to assess current service quality.
• Insufficient review volume: Only 3 reviews total, with only 2 containing usable performance data. Per scoring rules, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated with fewer than 3 usable data points.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected, but the extremely low review volume means patterns cannot be meaningfully assessed.

This score report has very low reliability due to the minimal number of reviews, the age of the most detailed review (2017), and strong indicators that the business may be permanently closed or operating under a different name.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 of 3 reviews contain usable information. The positive review (2020) explicitly praises craftsmanship and work quality but provides no pricing data. The negative review (2017) cites failure to return calls, indicating a serious professionalism issue. The third review contains no substantive content. The extreme recency gap (2017 vs 2020) and very small sample size prevent reliable scoring.

• Only 2 usable reviews out of 3 total — sample size is critically small
• One review marked 'unknown' with no substantive content — cannot be scored
• Significant recency gap: negative review from 2017 (7+ years old), positive review from 2020 (4+ years old) — both are stale
• Contradictory signals: one 5-star praising quality and communication, one 1-star citing non-responsiveness — suggests inconsistent service delivery
• No pricing information provided in any review
• Limited detail in negative review prevents deeper analysis of root cause

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient data (fewer than 3 usable reviews) and conflicting signals about service quality. Any score derived from this dataset would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

These reviews do not pertain to a contractor or plumber. They are tenant complaints about landlords (Dina and William Esposito) regarding property management and interpersonal conduct. The WW Score Engine is designed to evaluate contractor/plumber performance on dimensions including professionalism, pricing, project completion, and technical experience in service delivery contexts. These reviews contain no information about any of these dimensions as they relate to contracting or plumbing work.

• CRITICAL: Reviews are not about a contractor or plumber — they are about landlord/property manager conduct
• Reviews are extremely dated (2011 and 2013) and fall well outside the 12-month recency window
• No usable data for any WW Score dimension
• These reviews are out of scope for this analysis engine

This analysis cannot proceed — the provided reviews do not evaluate a contractor or plumber and therefore contain no scoreable data for any WW Score dimension.