Find Nearby Plumbers In Shelton, Connecticut

Aqua Plumbing and Rick Marion receive overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers consistently highlight punctuality, responsiveness, courteous communication, and willingness to go above and beyond (including weekend and vacation-time responses). Pricing is described as fair, honest, and transparent across many reviews, with one detailed comparison showing Rick completing three jobs for $196 versus a competitor's quote of over $1,000. Project completion scores are strong, with multiple reviewers noting jobs finished quickly, cleanly, and with follow-through on callbacks and warranty issues. Experience and workmanship are praised extensively, with Rick described as a third-generation master plumber who diagnoses problems accurately and solves them efficiently. Two negative or mixed reviews temper the score slightly: one 1-star review citing no callback on a serious issue, and one 3-star review citing unresponsiveness during a project and a disputed claim about a faucet component.

• 9 reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', or extremely minimal text (e.g., 'Very well.', 'One word!! EXCELLENT') and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• The vast majority of reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback, which warrants mild fake-review awareness scrutiny. However, most reviews contain specific job details, named individuals, and varied phrasing, which reduces the likelihood of systematic fabrication.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years, with many dating back to 2007–2019. Recency weighting was applied: the 12 reviews from 2024–2025 were given higher weight in scoring, and they remain consistently positive, suggesting sustained quality.
• One 1-star review (2022) describes two unreturned voicemails for a serious plumbing issue — a notable responsiveness failure that was factored into the professionalism score.
• One 3-star review (2019) describes unresponsiveness during a project, a refusal to install a customer-supplied disposal, and an alleged false statement about a faucet component — this was factored into both professionalism and experience scores.
• The reviewer named 'Scott' in one review (2013) may refer to a different technician, not Rick — this review was included but noted as potentially referencing a different worker.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over 15 years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and consistent recent positive feedback, making it a HIGH confidence assessment — though users should note that two credible negative reviews raise minor concerns about responsiveness and honesty in isolated incidents.

Valley Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, friendly communication, and responsive staff across 38 reviews. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished on time and callbacks honored, though a few responsiveness gaps appear in older reviews. Technical expertise is evident with skilled problem-solving and quality workmanship. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with mixed feedback—some customers praise competitive rates while others report overcharging or aggressive upselling (notably the carbon monoxide scare and the $200 five-minute repair). Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, while older reviews show occasional service failures.

• Multiple empty or placeholder reviews detected (8 reviews with no text or only 'unknown'/'.' as content) from 2015-2023, suggesting possible data quality issues or fake entries. These were excluded from scoring.
• Significant pricing inconsistency: 4 reviews explicitly mention overcharging or unfair pricing (1-star and 2-star ratings), while 5 reviews praise competitive/fair pricing. This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or variable customer expectations.
• One serious ethical concern: 2015 review alleges technician used scare tactics (false carbon monoxide warning) to pressure furnace replacement. This is a red flag for integrity.
• Recency bias noted: Reviews from 2024-2025 (past 12 months) are uniformly 5-star with detailed positive feedback. Reviews from 2010-2015 show more critical feedback. Recent reviews may be more curated or reflect improved practices.
• Responsiveness gaps: 2 reviews (2022, 2024) report no callback or email response, contradicting the otherwise strong communication profile.

This WW Score of 81.2 is moderately reliable for recent work (2024-2025) but should be treated cautiously for historical performance due to pricing inconsistencies, ethical concerns in older reviews, and data quality issues. The company appears to have improved significantly in recent years, but the pricing dimension remains a legitimate concern with only MODERATE confidence.

Custom Plumbing and Heating has a strong overall reputation built on consistent praise for responsiveness, knowledgeable staff, and fair pricing across a large volume of reviews spanning many years. Professionalism scores well in the majority of reviews but is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of complaints about no-shows, canceled appointments without rescheduling, failure to return calls or follow up on estimates, and at least one instance of faulty work that was never corrected. Project completion is similarly mixed: most jobs are described as completed well and on time, but several negative reviews describe abandoned jobs, unresolved emergencies, and a sewer repair that was done incorrectly and never remediated. Pricing and experience are the strongest dimensions, with numerous reviewers explicitly calling out reasonable or affordable pricing and technically skilled, knowledgeable plumbers. The score reflects a genuinely capable company with a real but non-trivial reliability problem that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• Four blank reviews (no text) were submitted with ratings of 5 or 1 stars — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable data.
• One review (2022) is unusually long and reads as a personal defense of the owner against alleged competitor slander rather than a genuine service review — this was treated with reduced weight as it does not describe a service experience.
• One review references 'Mel Martinez' as owner while the majority reference 'Barry Sauder' — this may indicate a change of ownership or two separate entities operating under the same name, which could affect score continuity across time periods.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2022), including some from 2006, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 — these were given reduced weight in scoring. The majority of recent reviews (2023–2025) are positive, but negative patterns around responsiveness and follow-through persist across all time periods.
• The 2015 negative review describes faulty sewer work that was never corrected and the owner removing evidence without permission — this is a serious workmanship and integrity flag that was factored into both project completion and professionalism scores.
• Multiple independent negative reviews describe the same failure mode: appointments canceled day-of, estimates never followed up, calls not returned — this is a consistent operational weakness, not isolated incidents.
• No suspected fake reviews detected. Most positive reviews include specific names, job details, and varied language, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 63 reviews with a high volume of usable data across all four dimensions and is considered moderately reliable, though prospective customers should note a consistent minority pattern of serious complaints about responsiveness, follow-through, and at least one documented case of unresolved faulty workmanship.

Jason and Call The Plumber receive consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most universally mentioned quality, with every reviewer noting responsiveness, promptness, and courteous communication — including emergency availability on evenings and weekends. Pricing is described as fair and transparent in four reviews, with one reviewer specifically noting that Jason actively steered them away from unnecessary expense, which is a strong positive signal. Project completion scores slightly lower because one review explicitly notes the job was not fully completed (the dryer situation remained unresolved), though this was due to circumstances beyond Jason's control and he handled it responsibly. Experience is well-supported, with multiple reviewers citing technical skill, problem-solving ability, and competence with complex or older infrastructure.

• All 8 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews contain specific details and varied scenarios that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• 6 of 8 reviews are older than 12 months as of a 2024 reference date; 5 reviews are from 2017–2019, meaning recent performance data is limited. The most recent review is from March 2023.
• Review volume is low (8 total), which limits statistical confidence in all dimension scores despite the HIGH confidence labels on mention counts.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the small review pool of 8 and the skew toward older reviews, but the specificity and variety of scenarios described across reviews lend credibility to the consistently positive ratings.

Frank demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, and honest communication across multiple reviews. Project completion is solid, with explicit references to timely job completion and comprehensive work scope. Pricing feedback is mixed—one review explicitly calls him 'pricey' while another praises fair pricing, suggesting premium positioning rather than budget-friendly service. Technical expertise is affirmed through descriptions of master-level plumbing work and knowledgeable problem-solving. However, the dataset is small (4 usable reviews) and heavily skewed toward older reviews (2006–2016), limiting confidence in current performance.

• Two reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings—these are not usable and suggest data quality issues
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, which is atypical and may indicate selection bias or incomplete review dataset
• Review dates are very old: most reviews are 8–18 years old (2006–2016); only one review is from 2016. No recent reviews available to assess current service quality
• Limited sample size (4 usable reviews) reduces statistical reliability of scoring

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, extreme age of reviews, and absence of recent performance data. The score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current service quality.

Freddy's Sewer and Drain demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous demeanor across 7 reviews. Technical expertise is evident in complex problem-solving and thorough diagnostics. However, project completion shows mixed results: while most jobs were resolved successfully, two significant failures (2018 church job with recurring clog; 2012 slab job with unresolved mortar blockage) and poor customer service recovery undermine confidence. Pricing concerns emerge in 4 reviews, with complaints about high costs ($350 for initial assessment, $850 for jet service) and lack of transparent options presented to customers. The 2018 review suggests potential diagnostic shortcuts to justify upselling.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 8 reviews are from 2012-2017 (7+ years old); only 3 reviews from 2018 or later. Historical data may not reflect current service quality.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: 2018 church review documents serious failure—clog returned within 2 days despite $350 service and 30-day warranty claim. Suggests either incomplete work or diagnostic manipulation to justify expensive follow-up services.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Multiple reviews (2018, 2012) indicate lack of upfront options and cost alternatives. 2018 review explicitly states customer was not offered root treatment alternative ($20 vs $850 jet service).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURE: 2012 review shows poor conflict resolution and inflexibility when customer questioned value. Freddy refused reasonable compromise despite customer offering potential long-term business relationship.
• ONE UNKNOWN REVIEW: 2015-05-28 review contains only 'unknown' text; cannot be scored but counted as 5-star.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly satisfied customers (5 five-star reviews with detailed praise) and severely dissatisfied customers (1-star and 2-star reviews with documented problems). Suggests inconsistent service delivery or selective application of standards.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported by 5+ mentions, the data is heavily weighted toward reviews older than 7 years, and two documented project failures with poor customer service recovery significantly undermine confidence in project completion reliability. Recent pricing and completion concerns warrant direct inquiry before engagement.