Find Nearby Plumbers In Lawrence, Massachusetts

Breen and Sullivan presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. On the positive side, several reviewers praised specific technicians — Guss, Kevin, Jimmy, and Brian — for being knowledgeable, thorough, clean, and professional, and a handful of installation jobs were completed on time, under budget, and to high quality. However, these positives are substantially offset by a recurring pattern of serious professionalism failures: multiple reviews cite unreturned calls, broken promises to follow up, rude owner interactions, billing errors, and outright refusal to take on new customers or honor service agreements. Project completion is similarly split — some jobs were executed flawlessly, while others involved abandoned quotes, ignored service requests, and failure to follow through on commitments. Pricing received some positive mentions for competitive quotes, but one reviewer alleged excessive service contract fees and another noted a billing error in the company's favor, which tempers confidence in pricing fairness. The experience dimension scores moderately well based on specific technician praise, but is undermined by at least one review describing a technician as slow and inefficient.

• Six reviews contain no text — only a 5-star rating. These blank reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence inflates the apparent star average and may indicate padding.
• Multiple driving-related complaints (at least 4 reviews) reference reckless or aggressive behavior by company vehicles. While not directly related to mechanical service quality, this is a consistent pattern suggesting a cultural or management issue worth noting.
• Several negative reviews describe a pattern of non-responsiveness: unreturned calls, ignored emails, and broken follow-up promises. This pattern appears across multiple years (2015, 2018, 2021, 2025), suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• The review from 2021 alleges the company refused service on a geothermal unit under warranty unless the customer paid additional service contract fees — a potential consumer protection concern.
• The 2018 review describes the owner calling back 'as rudely as possible' and stating they did not want to do business with the customer — a significant professionalism red flag at the leadership level.
• Most reviews with detailed positive content are from 2019 or earlier. Recent positive reviews (2022–2025) are either blank, very brief, or limited to a single technician. The most recent substantive negative review is from February 2025, suggesting service quality may have declined.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed, verifiable reviews are more than 2 years old. Only 3 reviews with substantive content are from the past 12 months (2024–2025), and two of those are negative.

This WW Score is based on 26 reviews with usable content spanning 2012–2025, with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions; however, reliability is moderated by a significant volume of blank reviews, a consistent multi-year pattern of responsiveness and follow-through failures, and the fact that most detailed positive reviews are more than 3 years old — consumers should treat this score as a cautionary moderate and seek recent references before engaging.

Burke and Sons presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension: while several reviewers praise individual technicians as polite, punctual, and friendly, multiple detailed negative reviews describe supervisors and office staff using profanity, hanging up on customers, calling them liars, and refusing to provide itemized receipts — behavior that significantly drags the score down. Pricing is a consistent concern, with multiple reviewers citing unexpected charges, billing for travel time to retrieve parts, charging for an apprentice without disclosure, and using used parts billed at high rates without transparency. Project completion is similarly split — many jobs were completed quickly and effectively, including same-day and emergency responses, but there are credible accounts of abandoned or unfinished work, failure to return calls for non-emergency follow-ups, and jobs done without required permits. Experience scores moderately, as several technicians demonstrated clear skill and problem-solving ability, but at least one reviewer was explicitly told by a technician that he did not know how a washer worked, and a flooding incident caused by a technician error was documented.

• RECENCY WARNING: Six of the fifteen reviews are from 2014–2016, making them 8–10 years old. These older reviews carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly positive, but the sample of recent reviews is small.
• PATTERN NOTE: The five-star reviews from 2023–2024 are generally specific and credible with named technicians and detailed scenarios. No strong fake review pattern detected in recent reviews.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT FLAG: Multiple independent negative reviews (2014, 2015, 2018) describe the same office contact 'Brian' using profanity, name-calling, and threatening behavior toward customers. This is a systemic pattern, not an isolated incident.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY FLAG: At least three separate reviewers independently raised concerns about undisclosed charges, lack of itemized receipts, charging for parts retrieval time, and use of used parts billed without disclosure.
• PERMIT COMPLIANCE FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states work was done without obtaining a required gas permit, and the company later attempted to charge the customer nearly double the permit cost for retrieval.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: At least two reviewers report paying for work that was left unfinished, with no satisfactory resolution offered by the company.
• SPLIT REPUTATION: The company appears to perform well on straightforward emergency or in-person jobs handled by field technicians, but has a documented pattern of poor office/management conduct when disputes or billing questions arise.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews spanning 10 years with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable; however, the significant time range and the stark contrast between recent positive field-level reviews and older but detailed negative management/billing complaints means prospective customers should weigh the negative reviews carefully, as the misconduct described is specific, consistent, and corroborated across multiple independent reviewers.

Paul E. Martin Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Positive reviews praise responsiveness, professionalism, fair pricing, and quality work, but a substantial cluster of negative reviews — many with specific, credible detail — describe incomplete jobs, misdiagnosis, billing disputes, and failure to follow through. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing work left half-done, incorrect diagnoses, and technicians leaving without finishing. Pricing received both praise and serious criticism, including allegations of charging above agreed rates and billing for unnecessary labor. The negative reviews are detailed and specific, lending them significant credibility and pulling scores down considerably across all dimensions.

• Several positive reviews are notably brief and generic (e.g., 'Paul Martin is the best! He's a man of integrity and does great work') with limited job-specific detail, which warrants mild fake review suspicion for a subset of 5-star reviews.
• The review dated 2024-05-29 reads like a personal endorsement rather than a service experience — no specific job described, which reduces its evidentiary weight.
• Recency note: The most recent negative review (2024-08-14) is highly specific and credible, describing a failure to replace a visibly deteriorating expansion tank and a subsequent admission by Paul himself that his team 'should have' done the repair. This is weighted heavily.
• Several older reviews (2013–2017) are positive but are more than 7 years old and carry reduced weight given more recent negative patterns.
• A pattern of incomplete work appears across multiple independent reviews (toilet job, boiler room job, shower leak job, ceiling leak job), suggesting a systemic issue with job thoroughness rather than isolated incidents.
• Billing disputes appear in at least two independent reviews (2018 and 2019), suggesting a possible pattern of pricing transparency issues.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews spanning 11 years with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the significant proportion of detailed, credible negative reviews and the mild suspicion of generic positive reviews inflating the rating pool.

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

Arlington Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across its review history. Positive reviews — mostly from 2005 to 2015 — praise responsiveness, courteous workers, and solid technical workmanship, including complex jobs like freeze-seal pipe replacement and multi-issue plumbing repairs. However, the two most recent substantive reviews (2024) are severely negative, describing overbilling, lack of estimates, failure to fix problems on repeated visits, and conduct bordering on fraudulent (charging for unfixed work, alleged theft of parts). Pricing is a significant liability: multiple reviewers across different years cite overcharging, lack of upfront estimates, and shock at final bills. Project completion is similarly split — older reviews show reliable follow-through, while recent reviews describe repeated failed visits and unresolved problems. The recency of the negative reviews is a serious concern and drags the score down considerably.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (2024) are both severely negative (1-star and 2-star) and describe billing fraud, repeated failed service visits, and lack of transparency. These are given elevated weight per Rule 6.
• TWO BLANK/USELESS REVIEWS: Two reviews contain only 'unknown' or '.' as text with 5-star ratings and no detail. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 1.
• OLDER REVIEW DOMINANCE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2005–2015, some nearly 20 years old. Business practices and staff may have changed significantly. These reviews were scored conservatively.
• POTENTIAL PATTERN CONCERN: Several older all-caps 5-star reviews (2005–2006) are brief, generic, and lack specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in those data points. However, there are not enough to flag as definitively fake.
• PRICING DIMENSION HEAVILY NEGATIVE: Of 6 reviews mentioning price, 4 are explicitly negative about overcharging or lack of estimates. Only 1–2 older reviews describe pricing as fair or acceptable. This dimension score reflects that imbalance.
• NO CALLBACK/COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One 2008 review and one 2024 review both describe failures to communicate or follow through on scheduling, indicating a possible systemic responsiveness issue.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while the mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence in each dimension, the extreme age gap between positive and negative reviews — with the most damaging reviews being the most recent — means the score likely overstates current service quality, and prospective customers should weight the 2024 reviews heavily.

Ed's Plumbing shows a deeply polarized customer base with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. While professionalism scores reasonably well (68) based on 28 mentions of punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness, pricing emerges as the critical weakness (38/100) with 32 explicit complaints about overcharging, hidden fees, and estimates far exceeding market rates. Project completion is moderate (62) with several reports of incomplete work, callbacks not honored, and quality issues. Experience/workmanship is mixed (65) with skilled work noted in some jobs but significant technical failures in others. The company's reliance on church bulletin advertising appears to correlate with complaints from seniors and fixed-income customers who felt exploited.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic overcharging documented across 32 reviews. Multiple complaints cite $125 diagnostic fees not waived as promised, quotes 2-5x higher than competitors for identical work, and undisclosed labor multipliers when customers supply materials.
• SENIOR TARGETING: Repeated pattern of targeting elderly and fixed-income customers via church bulletins, with documented cases of $2,900 water heaters, $788 spigot repairs, $1,750 toilet installations, and $4,500 carpentry quotes that competitors completed for 80-90% less.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 5 reviews document abandoned jobs, unfinished repairs, and customers forced to hire second plumbers to complete work (e.g., sewer line not cleared, washroom drain not addressed, water heater leak not repaired).
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reports of phone hang-ups, non-responsiveness to texts, missed appointments without notice, and refusal to take responsibility for errors.
• QUALITY CONTROL: Documented technical failures including burned gaskets, misaligned soldering, leaking pipes, poor workmanship on simple jobs, and denial of responsibility.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster in 2019-2024 (recent period), while older positive reviews (2013-2018) are more generic. Recent reviews show escalating pricing complaints.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERNS: Several empty/blank reviews with 5-star ratings (2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2019-10-15, 2019-06-11) suggest possible fake reviews, though not enough to invalidate overall analysis.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference both Illinois (DuPage County, Wheaton) and Louisiana (Baton Rouge), suggesting either multiple locations or data aggregation issues.

This WW Score of 54.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted as a WARNING SIGNAL rather than a balanced assessment. The high volume of detailed, specific pricing complaints (32 mentions) from verifiable customer scenarios, combined with documented cases of work abandonment and quality failures, creates a credible pattern of problematic business practices. While some customers report excellent experiences, the systematic nature of overcharging complaints—particularly targeting seniors—and the company's apparent refusal to honor stated discounts and fee waivers suggest structural business ethics issues that outweigh positive testimonials. Prospective customers should obtain independent quotes before engaging this contractor.