Find Nearby Plumbers In Stamford, Connecticut

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.

The reviews present a mixed picture of this contractor. Two positive reviews highlight strong professionalism, punctuality, and technical skill, while one strongly negative review describes a complete failure to respond to messages and a no-show appointment, which significantly drags down professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is mentioned only once as 'reasonably priced,' making that dimension low confidence. The most recent review is from 2020, meaning all reviews are over three years old, which limits their reliability as a current indicator of performance.

• All reviews are older than 3 years (most recent: November 2020), reducing reliability as a current performance indicator.
• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-confidence.
• One review (1-star, 2018) describes a no-show and poor communication, which is a serious service failure that is not offset by the positive reviews given the small sample size.
• Positive reviews span 2016–2020 with no recent data; it is unknown whether service quality has improved or declined since then.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all more than 3 years old, and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary estimate — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek more current references before hiring.

This contractor shows mixed performance across a very small sample of reviews. Two recent positive reviews (2021) praise fast service, professionalism, and timely project completion, with one customer noting quick sourcing and installation of a water heater within 24 hours. However, a 2023 negative review explicitly criticizes the company for charging premium labor rates for mediocre work, particularly regarding water filtration and well work, and questions their technical competence. The pricing concern is raised only once but is severe. With only 3 reviews total and significant recency gaps (oldest positive reviews are 2+ years old), confidence in this score is limited.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and insufficient for high-confidence scoring
• Significant recency concern: two positive reviews are from 2021 (2+ years old); one negative review is from 2023, suggesting potential service quality decline
• Conflicting evidence: positive reviews praise professionalism and speed, but negative review explicitly questions competence and charges premium rates for mediocre work
• Negative review specifically warns against using this contractor for water filtration and well work, suggesting possible specialization or competence gaps in certain service areas
• No detailed pricing information in positive reviews to validate the 'fair' claim against the 'premium rates' criticism

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and conflicting evidence between older positive reviews and a more recent negative review; additional reviews are needed to establish reliable performance trends.

The three reviews present a mixed picture. Two reviews describe competent, professional technicians who arrived on time and resolved difficult problems effectively, with one reviewer noting a notably fair price of $133 for a complex sewer job. However, the third review — while older — is a serious negative outlier describing sewage contamination of a customer's belongings due to inadequate work protection, compounded by a deeply unprofessional owner response ('whatever, lose my number'). This single severe complaint significantly drags down both professionalism and project completion scores. With only three reviews spanning several years, confidence in any dimension is low to moderate at best.

• Very small sample size (3 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• Reviews span from 2015 to 2019 — all reviews are more than 5 years old and none fall within the past 12 months. Current performance is unknown.
• The 1-star review describes a serious incident: sewage contamination of customer property and an explicitly hostile owner response. This is a significant red flag for both workmanship and business conduct.
• Pricing data is based on a single review — the $80 score reflects one positive data point and should not be generalized.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 3 reviews, all of which are over 5 years old, and the presence of one serious negative incident that meaningfully offsets the positive reviews.

This plumbing supply store demonstrates strong technical expertise and knowledgeable staff, with consistent praise for 24/7 availability and helpful counter service. However, the business is severely undermined by pervasive pricing complaints—customers report markups 50-100% above competitors and alleged price-changing tactics. Project completion and return policies are problematic, with multiple reports of refund denials and incorrect parts. Professionalism is mixed: while many staff members are described as helpful and kind, there are credible reports of rude behavior, intoxicated employees, and poor customer service. The stark divide between positive and negative reviews suggests inconsistent service quality.

• PRICING CRISIS: 11 mentions of overpricing, price gouging, and price-changing tactics. This is the dominant complaint across the review set. Multiple customers report 50-100% markups compared to competitors (e.g., $1,061 vs $700 for water heater; $40 for coupling; $360+ overcharge).
• RETURN POLICY ABUSE: Multiple credible reports of refund denials on defective or incorrect items, with staff citing 'electrical parts' exclusion inconsistently. This directly contradicts stated refund policies.
• STAFF CONDUCT CONCERNS: At least 3 reviews mention staff appearing intoxicated or unprofessional (drunk employee, rude demeanor, ignoring customers). These are serious allegations.
• INVENTORY ACCURACY: Multiple reports of staff confirming items in stock that are not actually available when customer arrives.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster in 2023-2024 (recent period), while older reviews (2016-2018) tend to be more positive. This suggests service quality has deteriorated significantly.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain no text, only ratings (5 five-stars, 1 one-star, 2 four-stars). These provide no actionable data and may indicate fake reviews or review manipulation.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews from 2023-06-10 are extremely generic ('Knowledgeable people', 'Quick service', empty text) and clustered on same date, suggesting possible review padding.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted cautiously: while the data volume is adequate, the business shows a stark and credible pattern of pricing abuse and return policy violations that dominate recent reviews, suggesting the WW Score may underweight the severity of customer harm. The 24/7 availability and technical expertise are genuine strengths, but they do not offset systematic overcharging and poor refund practices. Customers should verify pricing independently before purchasing.

Frank's performance is highly inconsistent across reviews. Two older reviews (2016, 2019) praise his reliability, responsiveness, professionalism, and quality work, with one explicitly noting he kept to his quote and left the area clean. However, a 2015 review documents a serious failure: a missed appointment with no communication, false excuses, and dismissive behavior when finally contacted. The professionalism score is dragged down by the documented lack of responsiveness and respect in the 2015 incident, which directly contradicts claims in later reviews. Pricing appears fair based on one mention, but project completion is undermined by the abandoned service call. The WW Score reflects this volatility and the recency concern that the most recent review is from 2019.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are 5+ years old (2015-2019). No recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been resolved.
• INCONSISTENCY ALERT: Stark contradiction between reviews. Two positive reviews praise reliability and responsiveness, but 2015 review documents failure to show up, non-responsiveness to multiple calls over two weeks, and dismissive attitude. This suggests either significant service degradation or improvement over time, but cannot be determined without recent reviews.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONFLICT: 2015 review explicitly states 'lack of professionalism and respect' with documented evidence (missed appointment, false excuse, dismissive quote). This directly contradicts positive professionalism claims in other reviews.
• LIMITED DATA: Only 3 reviews total. Confidence in overall score is constrained by small sample size and age of data.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme inconsistency across reviews, all data being 5+ years old with no recent validation, and a small sample size of only 3 reviews. The documented service failure in 2015 is serious and unresolved in the dataset, making it impossible to determine current reliability without recent reviews.