Find Nearby Plumbers In Brockton, Massachusetts

Anthony's service shows strong responsiveness and communication in most cases, with many customers praising quick response times and scheduling flexibility. However, significant reliability issues emerge across multiple reviews: no-shows despite verbal confirmation, missed follow-up appointments, and incomplete diagnoses that required customer intervention or third-party correction. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though one customer experienced unexpected charges. Technical competency is inconsistent—some customers report excellent problem-solving, while others describe misdiagnosis, improper installation, and work that failed shortly after completion. The pattern of positive reviews is offset by serious negative experiences involving property damage, unprofessional communication, and refusal to take responsibility.

• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show incidents (3 reviews) with conflicting accounts about verbal vs. email confirmation—suggests systemic scheduling/communication breakdown
• CRITICAL: Serious quality control failures documented: reversed thermostat leads, improperly installed filter causing water damage, incorrect part installation requiring customer correction, failed repairs requiring third-party technician
• CRITICAL: Unprofessional conduct under pressure: profanity toward customers, defensive/angry responses to legitimate complaints, refusal of refunds despite service failures
• CRITICAL: Incomplete follow-through: promised callbacks never made (3+ weeks), abandoned jobs mid-diagnosis, work that failed within days/weeks of completion
• Pattern of blame-shifting: customer blamed for issues technician created, denial of responsibility for broken components, dismissive attitude toward customer concerns
• Inconsistent quality suggests possible skill gaps with certain equipment brands (Carrier, Navien systems specifically mentioned as problematic)
• Review recency: Most positive reviews are 5+ years old (2018-2020); most recent negative reviews are 2023-2024, suggesting potential service degradation over time

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 76.8 reflects mixed data, the HIGH confidence is driven by volume of mentions, not consistency of experience. The contractor demonstrates strong initial responsiveness and communication but exhibits critical failures in project completion, follow-through, and professionalism under pressure. Recent reviews (2023-2024) are significantly more negative than older reviews, suggesting declining service quality. Customers should be aware of documented risks: no-shows, incomplete diagnoses, installation errors, and defensive behavior when issues arise. This contractor is NOT recommended for critical systems or customers who require high reliability.

Leahy Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally reliable project completion, with many customers praising workmanship quality and timely service delivery. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by numerous complaints about owner John Leahy's communication style—described as rude, dismissive, impatient, and sometimes hostile—along with isolated incidents of unprofessional technician behavior. Pricing is mixed: many customers report fair and reasonable rates, but several cite substantial markups on parts (3-4x retail) and lack of transparency on service fees. The company shows inconsistency in service quality and customer treatment, with some customers becoming loyal repeat clients while others report being ignored after service issues.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (at least 8) explicitly describe owner John Leahy as rude, yelling, impatient, dismissive, or hanging up on customers. This is a significant and recurring professionalism issue.
• INCONSISTENCY ALERT: Stark contrast between highly positive reviews (praising professionalism, responsiveness, fairness) and highly negative reviews (describing rudeness, poor follow-up, overcharging). This suggests either inconsistent service delivery or significant variation in customer experience depending on technician assigned or customer type.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 5 reviews mention failure to return calls, follow up on complaints, or respond to service issues after work completion. This undermines project completion confidence.
• PARTS MARKUP CONCERN: Multiple reviews (at least 3) cite excessive markups on parts—one customer noted $89 charged for items costing under $20 at Home Depot; another noted $40 for a $15 part. This raises pricing transparency concerns.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Several reviews from 2025-03-08 (4 reviews with identical dates, 3 of which are 5-star with generic praise: 'professional,' 'helpful,' 'thorough,' 'friendly,' 'efficient') show suspicious clustering and generic language without specific details. One review on that date is blank (5-star with no text). This pattern warrants caution but is not conclusive.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025) show mixed quality. Reviews from 2013-2016 tend to be more positive; reviews from 2018-2022 show increased complaints about owner behavior and follow-up failures.
• MANAGEMENT VS. TECHNICIAN SPLIT: Multiple reviews praise individual technicians (Gary, Blaine, Mark, Emory, Kevin) while criticizing owner/management. This suggests technician quality is generally good but management/owner communication is a weak point.

This WW Score of 73.2 is reliable at HIGH confidence due to substantial review volume (100 reviews) across all dimensions, but the score masks significant operational inconsistency: Leahy excels in technical execution and project completion but is severely hampered by owner professionalism issues and inconsistent follow-up on complaints. Customers should expect competent work but should be prepared for potentially difficult communication with ownership and should verify pricing transparency upfront.

Power Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base spanning many years, with the majority of customers praising individual technicians by name for being professional, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative. Professionalism scores are pulled down meaningfully by a recurring pattern of serious complaints: technicians arriving late or not at all, poor internal communication, unanswered callbacks, and at least one instance of inappropriate conduct by a technician. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible and detailed complaints about billing from the time a technician leaves a prior job rather than arrival on site, charges exceeding quoted amounts, parts marked up significantly, and in several cases customers feeling outright overcharged or scammed — including one allegation of a $10,000 unnecessary system replacement recommendation. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished correctly, but there are notable failures including incomplete work, jobs requiring emergency return visits due to new damage caused during service, and at least one instance of a toilet being left uncleaned and a tank lid left on the floor. Technical experience is a relative strength, with many reviewers specifically praising diagnostic skill and problem-solving, though offset by several reviews describing technicians who misdiagnosed problems or lacked necessary tools.

• Multiple reviews appear to be duplicates submitted on different dates with identical text (e.g., the Brian overcharge review appears twice, the 'SO WONDERFUL' Kevin review appears twice, the 'Avoid Power Plumbing' lien review appears twice, and the Saturday water heater Kevin review appears twice). This inflates review count and may indicate platform cross-posting or manipulation.
• Several reviews contain no text and only a star rating (approximately 30+ blank reviews), which cannot be scored and reduce the reliability of the overall rating distribution.
• Two reviews appear to be about the physical filming location of the TV show Sanford and Son and are entirely unrelated to plumbing services — these were excluded from scoring.
• One review states 'It's my dads work' suggesting a potential fake or biased review from a family member.
• Pricing complaints are numerous, specific, and credible: at least 8 distinct reviewers with detailed billing grievances including charges for drive time not disclosed upfront, final bills 3x the quoted amount, $1,100+ for simple pipe replacements, and a $10,000 upsell allegation. This pattern is too consistent to dismiss.
• A significant number of highly positive reviews reference the same individual technicians (Rameez, Alan, Johnny, Jorge, David) repeatedly, which is consistent with genuine repeat customers but also warrants noting as a concentration of praise around specific individuals rather than the company as a whole.
• Recency note: The review set spans from 2006 to June 2025. Reviews from 2024-2025 are the most relevant and show a mixed but generally positive recent trend, though pricing complaints and professionalism failures continue into 2025.
• One review explicitly alleges the company installed a used, soiled toilet and another alleges a technician attempted to pick up a customer in her home — both are serious conduct allegations that, if accurate, represent significant professionalism failures beyond what the score alone conveys.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a substantial number of blank reviews, serious and credible recurring pricing complaints, and several alarming conduct allegations that suggest meaningful inconsistency in service quality across different technicians and locations.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses operating under similar names (A Plus Plumbing, AAA Paradise Plumbing, A2Z Atomic Plumbing, and others), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising prompt response times, courteous technicians, and solid workmanship across hundreds of jobs. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 15-18% of substantive reviews — describe serious failures including incomplete repairs, no-shows, billing disputes, hidden charges, rude owner behavior, and work that caused additional damage. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing rates they considered excessive or non-transparent, and several describing being charged without prior quotes. Project completion is also dragged down by recurring complaints about jobs left unfinished, callbacks not honored, and technicians failing to return as promised.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span several distinct businesses (A Plus Plumbing in multiple states, AAA Paradise Plumbing, A2Z Atomic Plumbing, Mr. Plumber). Scores reflect an aggregate and may not represent any single contractor accurately.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews share the date 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10 with generic, non-specific praise and no job details. This pattern is consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score direction is reduced accordingly.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — NOTABLE: One review (2024-06-09) is an elaborate original poem praising the company with no factual service details. This is atypical and may indicate a solicited or fabricated review.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2025. A substantial portion of reviews predate 2022 and were given reduced weighting. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) contain both strong positives and several serious negatives.
• REPEATED NEGATIVE PATTERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe the same failure modes — no-shows, unreturned calls, incomplete work, and billing disputes — suggesting these are systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• OWNER CONDUCT: At least three separate reviews explicitly describe the owner (referenced as Sal or Steve in different reviews) as rude, threatening, or dishonest. This is a significant professionalism flag.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviewers report being charged without prior quotes, receiving unexpected fees, or discovering overcharges. This materially suppresses the pricing score.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Several reviews describe technicians leaving jobs unfinished, failing to return with parts, or not honoring verbal commitments to complete work at no extra charge.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be treated with caution as a contractor-level assessment because the reviews likely represent multiple distinct business entities, contain suspected padded or fake reviews, and show systemic negative patterns that the high volume of generic positive reviews may be obscuring.

Pete's Plumbing has a strong base of loyal long-term customers — many citing 10, 20, 25, even 39 years of repeat use — and the majority of technicians (Colin, Vince, Josh, James, Ron, Joey, Horacio, Frank) are praised for punctuality, friendliness, and technical skill. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (roughly 25–30 out of 163) reveals recurring systemic issues: missed or no-show appointments without notification, poor office communication and follow-through on estimates and callbacks, and at least several instances of work left incomplete or worsened. Pricing complaints are notable — multiple reviewers cite billing discrepancies, undisclosed hourly charges, and feeling overcharged — which meaningfully drags the pricing score below the otherwise positive sentiment. Project completion is similarly mixed: while most jobs are described as completed well, there are documented cases of abandoned work, unresolved problems after service, and refusal to honor callbacks. The experience dimension scores highest, as technical competence is praised far more often than it is criticized, though a few reviews describe plumbers who were clearly out of their depth.

• CLUSTER OF NEAR-IDENTICAL COLIN SPENCER REVIEWS: Between December 2024 and February 2025, there are 14+ reviews all praising 'Colin' or 'Colin Spencer' with very similar structure, generic praise, and minimal job-specific detail. Several are posted on the same dates. This pattern is consistent with a coordinated or incentivized review campaign and should be treated with caution. Confidence in the professionalism score is slightly reduced as a result.
• 15 REVIEWS CONTAIN NO TEXT: These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data beyond a star rating.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews analyzed are from 2024–2025 and carry full weight. Reviews from 2013–2019 are present and were considered but given reduced weight. Several older negative reviews (2014–2019) describe extreme unprofessionalism including profanity from staff and abandoned repipe jobs — these may reflect prior ownership or management and are noted but not fully weighted against current operations.
• REPEATED OFFICE/COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 8 distinct reviews across multiple years describe the same pattern — no-shows, no callbacks, estimates never sent, and dismissive office staff. This is a systemic flag, not isolated incidents.
• BILLING IRREGULARITIES: At least 4 reviews explicitly describe being overbilled, charged for time not worked, or surprised by undisclosed fees. One reviewer documented being billed $172 for a job quoted at $106 with the plumber in and out in under 15 minutes.
• ONE REVIEW (Jeremy/Anoka County) APPEARS TO BE FOR A DIFFERENT BUSINESS: The review referencing 'Jeremy' in 'Anoka County, Minnesota' does not match the Long Beach, CA location of Pete's Plumbing and may be a misattributed review. It was excluded from scoring.
• ONE REVIEW (Paul/Metuchen) ALSO APPEARS MISATTRIBUTED: References 'Paul' and 'Metuchen' plumbers, inconsistent with Pete's Plumbing Long Beach. Excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (163 total, ~148 usable) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction — but the score should be interpreted cautiously given suspected coordinated positive reviews for one technician (Colin Spencer), documented recurring office and billing failures, and the possibility that current service quality differs from historical performance.

Dave and Minuteman Drain Cleaning receive consistently strong marks across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with all five reviewers noting courteous, responsive, and attentive behavior — including a late-night Saturday call and a blizzard-day visit. Project completion is equally well-supported, with multiple reviewers explicitly confirming that jobs were finished thoroughly, cleaned up afterward, and accompanied by preventative guidance. Experience scores well based on four reviews describing effective diagnosis and resolution of main-line and multi-fixture drain issues. Pricing is mentioned in only two reviews, both positively, but the limited data warrants a conservative score and low confidence on that dimension.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details (blizzard visit, late-night call, named contractor, specific drain issues) that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• All reviews are dated between 2016 and 2019 — none are within the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date). Recency is a significant concern; business quality and staffing may have changed materially since these reviews were written.
• Only 5 total reviews analyzed — sample size is small, limiting statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to specific and credible review content, but should be treated with caution given the small sample size of 5 reviews and the fact that all reviews are 5 or more years old with no recent data to confirm current service quality.