Find Nearby Plumbers In Boston, Massachusetts

Frank Gomes demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally responsive, friendly service with competitive pricing. However, the WW Score of 76.8 reflects significant reliability concerns that emerge across the review timeline. While most recent reviews (2014-2023) are highly positive, a persistent pattern of no-shows, missed callbacks, and communication failures appears in 8 separate reviews spanning 2010-2017, suggesting systemic responsiveness issues despite Frank's acknowledged skill and professionalism when he does show up. Project completion is solid when work begins, but the initial contact and scheduling phase shows material gaps. Pricing is consistently praised as fair and competitive.

• CRITICAL: Eight reviews explicitly document no-shows, missed callbacks, or communication failures (2010, 2014, 2015, 2017 x2, 2019). This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• One review (2016-03-27) documents a serious professionalism incident: Frank allegedly shouted at customer, blamed them for damage caused by his work, and left the job site in disarray. This is the only review documenting aggressive behavior.
• One review (2016-02-29) describes Frank as 'sounding unstable' during a phone inquiry.
• Recency bias noted: Most negative reviews cluster in 2010-2017 period. Recent reviews (2018-2023) are predominantly 5-star with no documented issues. This suggests either business improvement or potential selection bias in recent reviewers.
• One review (2014-10-15) contains only 'unknown' text with 5-star rating—unusable for analysis but counted in total.
• One review (2015-08-03) documents recent missed appointments and late callbacks, though reviewer acknowledges Frank eventually followed through and provided legitimate explanations.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews show specific details, varied experiences, and authentic voice variation across the dataset.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with caution: while HIGH confidence is supported by 56 reviews with substantial mentions across all dimensions, the score masks a critical bifurcation in service quality. Recent reviews (past 3-4 years) are consistently excellent, but historical reviews document a serious responsiveness problem that may or may not have been resolved. Customers should verify current communication practices before hiring, as the pattern of no-shows and missed callbacks—though apparently less frequent recently—represents a material risk factor not fully captured in the aggregate score.

Big Blue Plumbing & Heating has a strong and well-documented track record of professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, communication, courteous staff, and responsiveness — including after-hours and emergency situations. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are frequently highlighted, with multiple reviewers noting that technicians identified issues other plumbers missed and offered cost-saving alternatives. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by a recurring pattern of serious negative experiences: no-shows, scheduling miscommunications, billing disputes, pressure tactics around payment, and at least two instances of work that was completed incorrectly or left damage behind. Pricing receives a below-average score because while many reviewers found costs reasonable, a notable minority described feeling overcharged, receiving inflated hours on invoices, or receiving quotes that seemed excessive for the scope of work. Project completion is solid overall but is tempered by several reviews describing rescheduling, abandoned or botched jobs, and follow-up failures.

• Three reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several reviews span from 2009 to 2017, which is more than 7 years old. These older reviews were given reduced weight relative to reviews from 2022–2025.
• No strong fake review pattern detected — reviews vary significantly in length, detail, tone, and rating, and negative reviews are specific and credible. Review authenticity appears generally reliable.
• A recurring pattern of billing and administrative complaints (undisclosed charges, pressure to pay without invoices, inflated hours, no formal quotes sent) suggests systemic office management issues that have persisted across multiple years.
• At least two reviews describe work that caused new damage or made the original problem worse (cracked tile, damaged tub seal, incorrect water heater installed, gas leak fix that caused additional leaks), which materially impacts the project completion and experience scores.
• One reviewer explicitly questioned whether positive reviews were purchased, citing the technician arriving with no diagnostic equipment and immediately recommending a $4,900 replacement. This was treated as a credible concern but not confirmed — no score adjustment was made beyond the conservative scoring already applied.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, with strong data across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable but moderately conservative representation of this contractor's performance — the score reflects genuine strengths in technical skill and responsiveness alongside documented and recurring weaknesses in billing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

Narrow Way Plumbing & Heating has a long track record with many loyal customers spanning 10–20+ years, and the majority of detailed reviews praise their professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill — particularly with complex old-home heating and plumbing systems. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (roughly 7–8 substantive 1-star reviews) documents serious failures: no-shows, abandoned jobs mid-project, shoddy workmanship on gas leaks, overbilling disputes, and poor follow-through on callbacks. These are not isolated incidents and span multiple years, which prevents the score from reaching the high 80s or 90s. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable by most reviewers, though a few experienced billing confusion or felt overcharged. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to multiple documented cases of work left unfinished or technicians failing to return as promised.

• 28 reviews have no text content at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• Two reviews are exact duplicates (text and date: 2002-10-25, 'IVE ESTABLISHED A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM...') — counted as one unique review to avoid score inflation.
• One review (Rating 5.0, 2019) explicitly discloses the reviewer is the owner's child ('It's my Dad's plumbing company'). This review was excluded from scoring due to clear conflict of interest.
• Several older 5-star reviews use very generic language ('They were great,' 'It went well,' 'Very good and fast work') with no specifics — these were given reduced evidentiary weight.
• Recency note: A significant portion of detailed reviews are from 2009–2019. Only 5 reviews with substantive text are dated within the past 12 months (2024–2025), which limits confidence in current performance.
• Negative reviews document a recurring pattern of no-shows and abandoned jobs across multiple years (2006, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019), suggesting a systemic reliability issue rather than isolated incidents.
• One negative review (2018) describes dangerous workmanship on a gas leak — putty used instead of proper pipe repair — which a subsequent plumber confirmed was still leaking nearly a year later. This is a serious safety-related flag.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given the recurring pattern of no-show and job-abandonment complaints, a confirmed dangerous gas leak repair, the large number of content-free reviews excluded from scoring, and the fact that most detailed reviews are more than 5 years old.

Bartlett and Steadman earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising prompt response times, knowledgeable technicians, and courteous service over many years. Project completion is generally positive, with multiple reviews noting same-day fixes and follow-through, but is tempered by several credible complaints about incomplete work, a technician who failed to diagnose a problem and still charged $399, and at least one instance of a permit not being pulled for a furnace installation. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while a few reviewers mention fair or good value, multiple negative reviews cite charges perceived as grossly excessive (e.g., $1,470 to install a faucet), opaque billing with no itemized breakdown, and billing errors resulting in interest charges on invoices customers never received. The negative reviews are specific, detailed, and credible, preventing higher scores in pricing and project completion despite the overall volume of positive feedback.

• BILLING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years report billing problems including invoices never sent, interest charges applied to unbilled amounts, and a lack of itemized breakdowns for materials and labor. This is a recurring operational issue.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: At least two reviews cite pricing that appears significantly above market rate. One reviewer was quoted $1,470 for a faucet installation versus $350 from a competitor. Another was charged $399 for an hour of inconclusive diagnostics with no repair performed.
• PERMIT VIOLATION FLAG: One reviewer (2024) states the company did not pull a required permit for a furnace installation, which is a serious safety and legal concern. This was not rebutted in any other review.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / COMPETENCY CONCERN: One review describes a technician who spent an hour making phone calls to other technicians, failed to diagnose the problem, and then demanded immediate payment in a manner the customer described as threatening. A separate review mentions a technician named Dennis who repeatedly failed to complete jobs.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: One reviewer reports calling three times and never receiving a callback, indicating a potential gap between office responsiveness praised by most and actual follow-through in some cases.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2025 and late 2024, which is positive for recency weighting. However, the most serious negative reviews (permit issue, $399 non-repair charge) are also recent (2023-2024), meaning these are not legacy issues.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text and only a star rating (6 blank-text reviews). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW FLAG (LOW CONCERN): One review (Rating 5.0, 2020) appears to be a customer leaving their contact information and service request as a review rather than an actual review. This was excluded from scoring.
• MANAGEMENT TRANSITION CONCERN: Two older reviews explicitly state that quality declined after the original owner Dick Steadman handed the business to his son, suggesting a historical quality dip. Recent reviews are mostly positive, suggesting possible recovery, but this pattern warrants awareness.

This WW Score is based on 61 reviews with usable content spanning 2012 to 2025, with strong recency weighting; the score is considered moderately reliable for professionalism and experience but should be treated with caution on pricing and project completion due to multiple specific, credible negative reports that meaningfully drag those dimensions down.

Puleo Plumbing scores well on professionalism, with the majority of reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, courteous technicians, and clear communication across many years of reviews. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and transparent, with a few reviewers explicitly noting competitive quotes and final bills coming in at or below estimates, though one billing discrepancy was documented. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: three separate 1-star reviews describe repeated failed attempts to fix heating systems — one reviewer reported six visits with no resolution and the problem worsening, and another described an incorrect diagnosis with an attempt to charge full price — which meaningfully drags this dimension down despite many successful jobs. Experience scores moderately well overall, with numerous reviewers praising skill and knowledge, but the repeated heating system failures suggest a gap in technical competence for more complex HVAC diagnostics.

• 5 reviews contained no text at all (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimensional scoring — these blank reviews inflate the raw review count without providing usable data.
• Three 1-star reviews describe the same pattern: multiple return visits to fix a heating/HVAC problem with no successful resolution. This is a meaningful and specific negative signal for the project_completion and experience dimensions.
• One review (2016) documents billing discrepancies including incorrect time logged and no itemized cost breakdown. The issue was partially resolved by the owner, but the pattern warrants caution.
• Several 5-star reviews use enthusiastic but generic praise with limited specifics (e.g., 'simply the best', 'only the very best'). While not conclusive, this slightly reduces confidence in the highest-scoring reviews.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2022). Only 7 reviews are from 2024 or later. Recency weighting was applied — older reviews were given reduced influence on final scores.
• The three negative reviews span 2018 to 2024, suggesting the heating system competency issue is not isolated to a single time period.

This WW Score is based on 20 reviews with usable content spanning 2015–2025 and carries HIGH overall confidence due to sufficient mention counts across all four dimensions, though the score should be interpreted with caution given documented repeated project failures on heating systems and a notable proportion of older reviews.

Nate and Bay State Heating & Cooling receive consistently strong praise across professionalism, pricing, project completion, and technical experience from the majority of reviewers. Multiple customers highlight his responsiveness, fair and transparent pricing, and ability to diagnose and resolve HVAC and plumbing issues efficiently. However, one recent 1-star review (June 2024) describes a significant failure in communication — specifically being ghosted after repeated requests for an estimate — which meaningfully drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. This negative review is the most recent in the dataset and therefore carries elevated weight under recency rules. The overall picture is of a capable and generally well-regarded contractor with a notable and recent lapse in responsiveness that prospective customers should be aware of.

• One recent 1-star review (June 2024) describes being ghosted after multiple follow-up attempts for an estimate — this is the most recent review and is weighted more heavily per recency rules.
• Several 5-star reviews are relatively brief and generic (e.g., 'Hard working, fast and efficient' with minimal specifics), which slightly reduces confidence in those individual reviews, though the majority contain enough detail to be considered credible.
• No suspected coordinated fake review pattern detected, but the cluster of 5-star reviews with limited detail warrants mild caution.
• Most reviews are from 2022, with only two from 2023 and two from 2024. The business's recent performance may not be fully represented by the older reviews.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews with a reasonable spread of detail, but the score should be treated with moderate caution given that the most recent review raises a serious responsiveness concern and a significant portion of supporting reviews are over two years old.