Find Nearby Plumbers In Norwich, Connecticut

Of the 9 reviews analyzed, only 6 contained usable substantive content — 3 reviews were effectively blank or contained no meaningful information ('unknown', '.', '.'). Among the usable reviews, professionalism was the most consistently praised dimension, with multiple reviewers noting prompt response times, polite demeanor, mask-wearing during COVID, and professional conduct. Project completion was positively referenced in several reviews, with one reviewer specifically noting the contractor discovered and fixed additional issues without padding the bill. Pricing was mentioned favorably in two reviews, with one long-term customer noting the contractor is honest and fairly priced and never upsells unnecessary work. Experience was reflected in references to quick, competent repairs and problem-solving on-site, though specific technical detail was sparse.

• 3 out of 9 reviews contain no usable content ('unknown', '.', '.') and should be treated as placeholder or incomplete submissions — these were excluded from scoring.
• The majority of reviews (8 out of 9) are dated 2015 or earlier, with only one review from 2020. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• Several reviews are extremely brief and generic ('Great!!! We'll use this provider again.', 'They did a great job and everything went well.') with no specific details, which limits scoring confidence and raises minor concern about review authenticity or effort.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants caution — this pattern can indicate a non-representative sample, though the small total volume makes it inconclusive.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small number of substantive reviews, the near-total absence of recent reviews (only 1 from the past 5 years), and the presence of multiple blank or near-blank submissions that could not be scored.

Plumbing 911 demonstrates a genuinely split reputation across a very large review base. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a recurring pattern of broken appointments, no-shows, rude office staff interactions, and scheduling failures — with multiple detailed negative reviews describing confirmed appointments that were canceled last-minute or simply not honored. Pricing is the weakest dimension: a substantial number of reviewers across many years explicitly describe charges as excessive, sometimes 2–6 times what competitors charged for identical work, and the $89 diagnostic fee combined with high labor quotes generated repeated complaints. Project completion is moderate-positive — most jobs that were started were finished, but there are notable exceptions including incomplete work, return visits required to fix errors, and at least one egregious multi-year unfinished job. Experience scores are moderate-positive, with many reviewers praising individual technicians by name for skill and problem-solving, but offset by multiple reviews describing misdiagnosis, inexperienced plumbers, and situations where a second company quickly resolved what Plumbing 911 could not.

• LARGE VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text whatsoever, only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their star ratings skew positive (mostly 4-5 stars), which may inflate the raw average rating but cannot be verified.
• ONE CLEARLY IRRELEVANT REVIEW DETECTED: One review (rated 5 stars, dated 2024-12-11) references 'We Buy Junk Cars' and a person named 'Mike' — this is almost certainly a misplaced review for a completely different business. It was excluded from all scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: A meaningful cluster of reviews (roughly 40%) are dated 2024-06-09 with identical timestamps, suggesting a bulk import or data migration artifact rather than organic review dates. These were treated with reduced confidence for recency weighting.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 10 distinct reviews across multiple years describe confirmed appointments that were canceled last-minute or where the technician simply did not appear. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPECIFIC: Multiple reviewers provided direct price comparisons showing Plumbing 911 charged 2x to 6x what competitors charged for identical work. This is not vague dissatisfaction — it is a documented and recurring pattern.
• INDIVIDUAL TECHNICIAN VARIANCE IS HIGH: Reviews are heavily technician-dependent. Named technicians like Shane, Nick, Rob, Josh, Dennis, Ryan, and Adam receive strong individual praise, while anonymous or different technicians receive complaints. Company-level scores mask this variance.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, but a subset of very short generic 5-star reviews ('Great service!', 'Awesome!', 'Very professional') with no specifics slightly inflate the positive signal. These were scored conservatively.
• GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews note that the company lists service areas on its website that it does not actually serve, leading to wasted customer time. This is a transparency issue.

This WW Score is based on a very large review dataset spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy — the score of approximately 68 reliably reflects a company with competent individual technicians but systemic weaknesses in pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and office staff professionalism that meaningfully reduce overall trustworthiness.

Currie's Plumbing, Heating & Cooling presents a genuinely mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is dragged down significantly by multiple credible complaints about rude office staff, broken appointments with no communication, and dismissive handling of customer concerns — though many positive reviews praise individual technicians as friendly and professional. Pricing receives both praise (transparent quotes, fair pricing, one instance of coming in under quote) and serious criticism (repeat-visit charges for the same unfixed problem, undisclosed diagnostic fees, and one allegation of significant overcharging). Project completion is similarly split: many customers report same-day or next-day resolution and thorough work, while others describe no-shows, incomplete repairs requiring costly callbacks, and one serious allegation of a fabricated fault diagnosis. Experience scores moderately well, with multiple reviews citing knowledgeable and skilled technicians, though the misdiagnosis complaints and the alleged false heat exchanger crack report temper confidence in consistent technical quality.

• 9 reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• One review (2024-11-08) is entirely political in nature and contains no service-related content; it was excluded from all dimension scoring.
• One review (2024-08-26) alleges that a technician falsely reported a cracked heat exchanger — a serious integrity concern that, if accurate, would indicate deliberate deception to generate business. This is a significant red flag.
• One review (2018-08-16) alleges theft of copper items during an estimate visit. This is an unverified but serious allegation.
• One review (2015-11-12) alleges systematic misdiagnosis resulting in nearly $3,000 in unnecessary charges, with the correct fix costing $150 from a different plumber.
• A recurring pattern of no-shows and poor communication from the office/dispatch side appears across multiple independent reviews, suggesting a systemic scheduling and communication problem rather than isolated incidents.
• The hidden $125 diagnostic fee complaint (2025-01-10) and the undisclosed charges pattern suggest inconsistent fee transparency practices.
• Review dates span from 2014 to 2025. Reviews older than 2 years (pre-2023) were given reduced weight in scoring. The majority of substantive reviews fall within 2022–2025, providing reasonable recency coverage.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in detail, tone, and specificity. Both positive and negative reviews reference named technicians and specific job types, which increases authenticity confidence.

This WW Score is based on 43 reviews with usable content spanning over a decade, with the majority from 2022–2025, and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy — however, the score reflects a genuinely polarized customer base and should be interpreted as a moderate-risk contractor with strong individual technicians but documented systemic issues in office communication, scheduling reliability, and pricing transparency.

The majority of reviews are positive, highlighting prompt service, fair pricing, and solid workmanship across multiple jobs including boiler installation and faucet repair. However, one detailed 1-star review describes a serious failure in professionalism and project follow-through — the company was unable to locate a warranty part that the customer found in 6 minutes online, and the job was ultimately abandoned. This single but highly detailed negative review meaningfully drags down both the professionalism and project completion scores. Additionally, nearly all reviews are from 2012–2019, with the most recent being from early 2019, meaning there is no data from the past several years to confirm current performance levels.

• RECENCY WARNING: All 9 reviews are dated between 2012 and 2019. The most recent review is from February 2019 — over 5 years ago. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• ABANDONED JOB FLAG: One detailed 1-star review (2014) describes the company failing to follow through on a warranty repair job, providing misinformation about parts availability, and ultimately leaving the customer without heat near Thanksgiving. This is a significant project completion and professionalism failure.
• GENERIC REVIEW CONCERN: Several reviews (e.g., 'Good service, would recommend', 'They were reliable and good to work with', 'This was a friend's recommendation. They were prompt and reasonable.') are very brief and lack specific detail, reducing their evidentiary weight.
• MINOR QUALITY NOTE: One reviewer noted the crew did not clean up all of their mess after completing the job, which is a minor but notable professionalism deduction.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the age of all reviews (none within the past 5 years), the presence of one serious and well-documented negative experience, and several low-detail reviews that limit scoring precision.

TMG shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with stark contrasts between customer experiences. The June 2024 review documents serious failures in professionalism (argumentative technician, refusal to identify staff or speak to management), pricing fraud (charged $380 for a $150 part), and incomplete project completion (system still not running properly, refused callback). Conversely, five older reviews (2019-2024) praise professionalism, responsiveness, and job quality. The company demonstrates competent workmanship when engaged, but critical failures in accountability, pricing transparency, and service recovery severely undermine overall trustworthiness. The recency of the fraud allegation is particularly concerning.

• CRITICAL: June 2024 review alleges fraud, overcharging ($380 vs $150 part), and refusal of service recovery—these are serious red flags requiring investigation
• RECENCY CONCERN: Five positive reviews are from 2019-2024 but lack specificity; the most recent detailed negative review (June 2024) documents systemic failures in accountability and customer service
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Extreme polarization between reviews suggests either highly variable service quality or potential service recovery issues after failures
• PROFESSIONALISM FAILURE: Documented refusal to identify staff, speak to management, and argumentative communication via text represents serious professional breach
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Oil burner system 'still not running properly' after service and company refused callback—indicates failure to complete project to working standard

This score should be treated with caution due to conflicting evidence and recency of serious allegations. The June 2024 fraud claim and service refusal significantly undermine confidence in the company's current operations, despite positive historical reviews. Recommend independent verification before engaging this contractor.

The reviews present a sharply divided picture of this contractor. Three positive reviews from 2017–2020 praise responsiveness, politeness, on-time arrival, and clean worksites, while one highly detailed negative review from 2021 raises serious concerns about improper boiler installation, billing practices, and the owner's refusal to remedy faulty work. The negative review is the most recent and carries the most weight under recency rules, and it is corroborated by two independent heating contractors who confirmed the installation was done incorrectly. Pricing is similarly mixed — praised as affordable in positive reviews but criticized as exploitative ($200/hour for a technician on hold with tech support) in the negative review. Project completion is significantly penalized because the 2021 review describes an incomplete and improperly executed installation that was never corrected, which is a serious failure in the most heavily weighted dimension.

• Most reviews are older than 1 year; the most recent review (2021) is the only one within the past few years and is strongly negative — recency weighting reduces confidence in the positive scores.
• The three positive reviews (2017, 2017, 2018) are clustered in a narrow time window and contain somewhat generic praise with limited job-specific detail, which warrants mild fake review scrutiny, though they are not identical in phrasing.
• The 2021 negative review is highly specific, detailed, and corroborated by third-party contractors — it is treated as high-credibility evidence of workmanship and billing failures.
• Only 5 total reviews are available. This is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution. Scores may shift significantly with additional reviews.
• The owner's alleged refusal to return and correct faulty work is a significant red flag for project completion and professionalism that materially drags down both dimensions.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 2017–2021, with the most recent and most detailed review being strongly negative — the overall score should be treated as LOW CONFIDENCE and prospective customers are advised to seek additional recent references before hiring.