Find Nearby Plumbers In Bayonne, New Jersey

Precise Plumbing & Heating earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of reviews praising Anthony and Chris for rapid emergency response, clean workmanship, and technical competence across complex jobs including boiler installations, tankless systems, and water heater replacements. Pricing is generally described as fair and transparent, with one reviewer explicitly noting a detailed bill with no hidden fees and another praising upfront quotes — though one reviewer flagged the company as 'a bit costly,' which tempers the pricing score modestly. Project completion is the most nuanced dimension: the vast majority of reviews describe jobs completed fully and efficiently, but two notable negative reviews describe a failure to follow through — one where a clog was made worse and no callback was made, and one where Anthony failed to return calls after an installation issue — which meaningfully reduces the project completion score from what would otherwise be near-perfect. Professionalism scores well overall but is pulled down by two reviews describing Anthony hanging up on customers and being dismissive, which are credible and specific enough to warrant a meaningful deduction.

• 4 reviews contain no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring — they contribute nothing to evidence-based analysis.
• Two reviews mention a plumber named 'Jeff' rather than Anthony or Chris. It is unclear if Jeff is a separate employee or a misidentification. These reviews were included but noted as potentially referring to a different technician.
• The review corpus spans 2013–2025 (over 12 years). Reviews from 2013–2019 were given reduced weight relative to 2020–2025 reviews. The majority of reviews are recent (2024–2025), which increases reliability.
• Two credible negative reviews (1–2 stars) describe Anthony hanging up on customers mid-call and being dismissive or rude. These are specific, detailed, and independently corroborated, and have been factored into the professionalism score.
• One negative review (2 stars, April 2025) describes a job that worsened the customer's situation and a promised callback that never came. This is the most recent negative signal and has been weighted accordingly in project completion.
• One negative review (2 stars, December 2021) describes Anthony ignoring calls after a Navien installation issue. This is a follow-through failure and has been factored into project completion.
• One older negative review (1 star, December 2017) describes Anthony failing to return a call for a follow-up issue. This is a recurring pattern of post-job communication failure across multiple years.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Most positive reviews contain specific job details, named individuals, dates, and unique circumstances. Language varies sufficiently across reviews to suggest authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 71 reviews with usable content spanning over a decade, with strong recency weighting toward 2024–2025 data, and is considered highly reliable — the score reflects genuine strengths in responsiveness and technical skill tempered by a documented and recurring pattern of post-job communication failures and at least two credible reports of unprofessional phone conduct.

B&D Plumbing and Heating has a strong track record of technical competence and follow-through, with numerous reviewers praising their ability to solve difficult problems that other plumbers could not, and their willingness to return until a job is resolved. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of poor office communication, rude phone staff, and broken promises to call back — issues raised independently across multiple reviews spanning several years. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers acknowledge the premium cost as acceptable for quality, a significant number of reviewers describe feeling overcharged, billed for unresolved work, or surprised by charges that were never disclosed upfront, pulling the pricing score well below average. Project completion scores moderately well given the many accounts of jobs done right and honored warranties, but is tempered by several credible accounts of unresolved issues, no-shows, and work that required multiple revisits without resolution. Overall, B&D is a capable but expensive contractor whose office-side operations introduce meaningful and consistent risk.

• RECENCY WARNING: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 60%) are older than 3 years, with many dating back to 2012–2014. The WW Score reflects the full review history but recent reviews (2023–2024) are weighted more heavily in narrative interpretation.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly describe being overcharged, billed for unresolved work, or surprised by undisclosed fees. This is a consistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: At least 4 reviews independently cite rude or unresponsive office/phone staff, broken callback promises, and poor scheduling communication. This is a structural weakness distinct from the field technicians, who are generally praised.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW CREDIBILITY: The 1-star reviews contain specific names, dates, dollar amounts, and detailed narratives consistent with genuine customer experiences. They are not dismissed as outliers.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: Review language is varied, specific, and spans many years with differing tones and details. No significant fake review pattern detected.
• ONE ETHICAL CONCERN: One reviewer (2014) reports that technicians replaced a hot water heater without customer authorization, resulting in a $1,000 charge. This is a serious allegation that, if accurate, represents a significant trust and ethics issue.

This WW Score is based on 46 reviews with strong dimensional coverage across all four categories, yielding HIGH confidence in the score; however, the heavy skew toward older reviews and the consistent multi-year pattern of pricing and office professionalism complaints means prospective customers should treat the score as a reliable signal of mixed-but-capable service rather than a blanket endorsement.

The majority of recent reviews (2025) are strongly positive, praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, communication, and technical knowledge. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — spanning 2011 through 2024 — describes serious issues including incomplete work, price inflation after job completion, rude owner interactions, unauthorized credit card charges, and recurring failures on the same jobs. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out overcharging, hidden fees, and quotes that nearly doubled without warning. Project completion is also dragged down by several credible accounts of abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, and jobs that required a second plumber to fix. The high volume of recent positive reviews improves the score but cannot fully offset the documented pattern of serious failures in the historical record.

• POSSIBLE REVIEW CLUSTERING: A large number of 5-star reviews from May–June 2025 mention different named technicians (Emiliano, Ricky, Julian, David, Miguel, Luis, Juan, Tony, Albert) with similar praise structures. While some contain specific detail, several are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Excellent', 'Great guy!', 'Great thanks guys!'). This pattern warrants moderate suspicion of review solicitation campaigns or padding.
• MULTIPLE BLANK REVIEWS: At least 6 reviews contained no text — only a star rating (all 5 stars). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The score is meaningfully influenced by a surge of 5-star reviews in 2025. Reviews from 2011–2020 contain a disproportionate share of serious complaints about workmanship, pricing, and owner conduct. Consumers should weigh the historical negative pattern carefully.
• OWNER CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the owner (referenced as Gary or Jamie/Jaime) as rude, belligerent, or dismissive when complaints were raised. One reviewer alleges a hit-and-run incident involving a company vehicle and subsequent non-response from the owner.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / CALLBACK FAILURES: At least 4 reviews describe jobs that were left unfinished, required a return visit that never happened, or had to be corrected by a different plumber — a meaningful signal for project completion reliability.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: At least 3 reviews explicitly describe prices that increased significantly after work began or was completed, with no prior disclosure. One reviewer was charged for time a technician spent retrieving the wrong equipment.
• REVIEW SPAN IS VERY WIDE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2025. It is possible this profile aggregates reviews for more than one business entity or location operating under similar names. Scores should be interpreted with this ambiguity in mind.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but consumers should treat it with caution given the wide date range, a documented pattern of serious negative experiences in older reviews, credible pricing and completion complaints, and signs of possible review solicitation in the most recent period.

The majority of reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Pasquale, Sal, Rob, Frank, and Jonathan — for being professional, knowledgeable, and efficient, which drives solid scores across all four dimensions. However, several serious negative reviews significantly temper the overall score: one reviewer alleges $15,000 was taken for substandard sewer work requiring a second contractor to fix; another details a no-show with no follow-up communication; a third accuses the owner (Pasquale) of dishonest pricing — quoting a 2-man, 2-day job that was completed solo in 4 hours at a cost the reviewer estimates was inflated by over $1,800; and a fourth flags that the contractor is not licensed or bonded and was not forthcoming about this. Pricing confidence is dragged down by two credible, detailed accounts of overcharging and a separate 'a little pricey' comment, offsetting the positive fair-pricing mentions. Project completion is similarly penalized by the abandoned callback complaint and the allegation of a half-completed $15,000 sewer job. The large number of blank 5-star reviews (17 reviews with no text) raises a fake review flag that further reduces confidence in the raw positive signal.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: 17 out of 79 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. This is a statistically unusual pattern and may indicate review padding. These reviews were excluded from dimension scoring.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION — NO-SHOW: One reviewer (2023-11-04) reports the contractor never arrived for a confirmed appointment, did not call, and the office did not return follow-up calls. This is a direct professionalism and project completion failure.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION — UNLICENSED/UNBONDED: One reviewer (2023-10-02) explicitly states the contractor is not licensed or bonded, and that this was not disclosed until directly asked. The contractor allegedly attempted to dismiss the concern by claiming most licenses shown to customers are fake. This is a significant legal and consumer protection red flag.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION — DISHONEST PRICING: One detailed 1-star review (2022-08-08) credibly alleges the contractor quoted a 2-man, 2-day job but completed it alone in approximately 4 hours, charging $2,600 for what the reviewer estimates was an $800 job. The reviewer also alleges the contractor broke a verbal promise to perform a follow-up task as a favor, then demanded $300 for it.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION — SUBSTANDARD WORK / FINANCIAL HARM: One reviewer (2024-01-22) alleges paying $15,000 for sewer pipe work that was done improperly and required hiring a second contractor to correct. This is the most financially severe complaint in the dataset.
• ABANDONED CALLBACK: One reviewer (2020-12-27) reports contacting the company multiple times over more than a month to address uneven flooring and grout issues left after a job, with no response or return visit.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most serious negative reviews (no-show, unlicensed allegation, $15,000 substandard work) span 2020–2024. The bulk of positive reviews are from 2025 and may reflect a different team or operational period (many reference Roto-Rooter branded technicians such as Rob, Sal, Jonathan, and Frank), suggesting this listing may aggregate reviews for more than one business entity or operational phase. Scores should be interpreted with this ambiguity in mind.
• POSSIBLE MIXED ENTITY: A significant portion of 2025 reviews reference Roto-Rooter by name and technicians not associated with P&A Sewer and Drain (the entity named in older reviews). It is possible this review set combines two distinct businesses or that the contractor now operates under a franchise. This undermines the reliability of treating all reviews as reflecting a single consistent operation.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-limited trust despite HIGH statistical confidence: the volume of reviews is sufficient, but the dataset appears to mix reviews for at least two distinct operational entities (P&A Sewer and Drain vs. Roto-Rooter technicians), contains 17 content-free 5-star reviews suggesting possible padding, and includes multiple credible, detailed negative reviews alleging unlicensed operation, dishonest pricing, a no-show, and a $15,000 substandard job — any one of which would be disqualifying for many consumers.

Nationwide Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for professionalism and responsiveness, with many reviewers praising courteous staff, timely arrivals, and clean workmanship. However, pricing transparency is a significant and recurring concern: multiple reviewers explicitly describe being charged more than quoted, billed for time not worked, or discovering charges only via credit card statements with no invoice provided. Project completion is generally solid but not perfect — there are documented instances of incomplete work requiring callbacks, a trainee being sent when a senior plumber was requested, and one toilet left unrepaired. Experience scores are moderately strong, with several reviewers noting skilled senior plumbers, though a pattern emerges of inconsistency between senior and junior staff quality. The pricing dimension is the clearest drag on the overall score, with serious complaints including a threatened lawsuit for leaving a review and a front-office staff member threatening to undo completed work.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: At least 4 reviews explicitly describe being charged more than the quoted amount, billed for hours not worked, or discovering charges only via credit card with no invoice. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FRONT OFFICE CONDUCT: Two separate reviews (2017 and 2022) describe aggressive or threatening behavior from office staff — one reviewer was threatened with a lawsuit for leaving a review, another reports a staff member yelled and threatened to remove completed work. This is a serious red flag.
• STAFF CONSISTENCY ISSUE: Multiple reviews note a marked quality difference between senior and junior/trainee plumbers. One reviewer explicitly states a trainee performed work they did not consent to. High staff turnover is also mentioned.
• RECENCY NOTE: Several high-scoring reviews are from 2015–2019 (more than 4 years old). The most recent reviews (2022–2023) include both positive and negative experiences. The pricing complaints are concentrated in more recent reviews (2022), suggesting this may be a worsening issue.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Reviews vary in rating (1–5 stars), contain specific details, names, dates, and job descriptions. No patterns of fake or coordinated reviews detected.

This WW Score is based on 20 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given documented patterns of pricing disputes, aggressive office conduct, and inconsistent workmanship quality between senior and junior staff.

IAFE Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion capabilities, with multiple reviews praising quick response times, effective communication, and thorough workmanship. However, a significant pricing concern emerges from a 2021 review citing a $350 half-hour charge ($700/hour rate) for a simple gas leak repair, which substantially conflicts with other reviews describing competitive pricing. The company shows solid technical expertise and follow-through on jobs. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects reliable service delivery tempered by legitimate pricing transparency concerns that cannot be ignored.

• PRICING CONFLICT: One 2021 review explicitly criticizes pricing as excessive ($700/hour for simple work), directly contradicting other reviews claiming competitive rates. This is a material discrepancy requiring caution.
• REVIEW AGE IMBALANCE: Three of five reviews are from 2012–2015 (8–13 years old). Only two reviews are from 2021 or later, limiting recency validity for current pricing and service standards.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Reviews from 2015 and 2012 contain very generic language ('Five Star company,' 'excellent people') with minimal specific detail, though this is not conclusive of fakery given the 2023 and 2021 reviews provide concrete examples.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total limits statistical confidence. A single negative review carries disproportionate weight.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, significant age of most reviews, and an unresolved pricing conflict between reviews. The 2021 pricing complaint is recent enough and specific enough to warrant serious consideration before engaging this contractor, despite otherwise positive professionalism and completion ratings.