Find Nearby Plumbers In Bayonne, New Jersey

This contractor has a deeply mixed record. Several older reviews praise responsiveness, politeness, and fair pricing, with customers highlighting same-day service, honest assessments, and reasonable fees. However, two significant negative reviews — one describing an unresolved job with a failed callback and one describing a technician who appeared impaired, left water shut off, and abandoned the job — severely drag down professionalism and project completion scores. The negative reviews are specific, detailed, and credible, and they describe serious failures in both conduct and follow-through. The positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are predominantly from 2008–2018, making recency a significant concern for current reliability.

• Two highly detailed negative reviews describe serious misconduct: one technician allegedly appeared impaired (slurring words, staggering), left the customer without water, and abandoned the job mid-project. Another review describes a paid job left unresolved with no follow-up despite repeated contact attempts.
• Two reviews ('unknown' and '.') contain no usable text and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• The vast majority of reviews are older than 5 years, with most positive reviews dating from 2008–2018. Only the two most negative reviews are from 2019, which is the most recent activity. This recency pattern is concerning — the most recent customer experiences are the worst ones on record.
• One review describes the contractor declining a job and referring to another provider who had gone out of business, suggesting possible capacity or reliability issues.
• No reviews are present from 2020 onward, making it impossible to assess current performance. The WW Score should be treated with caution given the age of most data.

This score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the high volume of very old reviews skewing positive, while the most recent reviews (2019) are strongly negative and describe serious professionalism and project completion failures — prospective customers should weight the 2019 reviews heavily when making a hiring decision.

This contractor has a sharply divided review profile: three positive reviews praise quick response times, fair pricing, and professional crews, while two deeply negative reviews describe serious workmanship failures, property damage, incomplete work, and refusal to return for callbacks. The most damaging review alleges a $14,000 job was left incomplete with the original problem unresolved and the contractor unreachable afterward — a severe project completion failure. A second negative review describes property damage during installation and an owner who became rude post-contract and refused to take responsibility. These negative accounts significantly drag down all four dimensions, particularly project completion and professionalism. The mixed record across a small review set warrants considerable caution.

• RECENCY WARNING: All 5 reviews are older than 1 year, with the most recent dating to September 2021 and the oldest to May 2014. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current performance cannot be assessed.
• INCOMPLETE WORK ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor admitted to not replacing the full sewer pipe despite being paid $14,000 to do so, and then became unreachable — a serious project abandonment flag.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE PATTERN: Two separate negative reviews independently describe concrete/property damage caused by the crew, suggesting a possible recurring issue with machinery operators and site care.
• CALLBACK REFUSAL ALLEGATION: One reviewer states the company refused to return to fix the job after payment was received, which is a significant red flag for post-job accountability.
• MULTIPLE BUSINESS NAMES FLAG: One reviewer alleges this company operates under multiple names including 'Quality Plumbing,' which may indicate an attempt to obscure a negative reputation. This warrants additional due diligence.
• MEDIA COMPLAINT: One reviewer states the company was featured on 'Help Me Howard,' a consumer complaint segment, suggesting documented public complaints beyond this review set.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total. Scores carry MODERATE confidence at best and should not be treated as definitive.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-low reliability due to a small and entirely outdated review set, a stark positive-negative split, and serious unresolved allegations including incomplete work, property damage, and callback refusal — prospective customers should seek current references and independent verification before hiring.

This contractor shows extreme polarization across reviews, with one severe fraud allegation involving $3700 and refusal to complete paid work, contrasted against two highly detailed 5-star reviews praising professionalism, skill, and fair pricing. The single 1-star review explicitly alleges scamming and non-completion, which directly contradicts the glowing testimonials. While the positive reviews demonstrate strong technical expertise and professionalism, the fraud allegation is a critical red flag that cannot be ignored. The WW Score of 56.7 reflects this dangerous inconsistency—the contractor cannot be reliably trusted based on this evidence pattern.

• CRITICAL: One review alleges fraud ($3700 scam) and refusal to complete paid work. This is a severe allegation that must be independently verified before engaging this contractor.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Two 5-star reviews (dated 2023-04-25, same date/time proximity) contain nearly identical phrasing and structure ('phenomenal, efficient, extremely thorough, professional'), suggesting possible fake or coordinated reviews. Both reviews are also significantly older (1+ year) than the fraud allegation (2024-06-21).
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: Reviews show no middle ground—either 1-star fraud claim or 5-star perfection. This pattern is atypical and suggests either genuine serious issues or review manipulation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (June 2024) is the fraud allegation, while positive reviews are from April 2023. The timing suggests potential deterioration in service quality or business practices.

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. The presence of a specific fraud allegation involving non-completion of paid work creates unacceptable risk, regardless of positive reviews. Independent verification of the fraud claim and resolution status is essential before considering this contractor. The suspicious similarity of the two positive reviews further undermines confidence in the overall assessment.

ABR Plumbing scores poorly across nearly all dimensions, driven by a large volume of highly critical reviews spanning multiple years. Professionalism is the weakest area, with repeated accounts of no-shows without notice, rude and abusive behavior from staff (including a road rage incident and a customer being called an obscenity and hung up on), poor communication, and a systemic failure to return calls or honor appointments. Project completion is similarly troubled, with multiple reviewers describing abandoned or incomplete work, misdiagnoses requiring excessive repeat visits, wrong parts ordered, and last-minute cancellations via email rather than phone. Pricing drew consistent criticism for being expensive and, in some cases, potentially deceptive, with markups on parts flagged as unscrupulous by one reviewer; the few positive pricing mentions are outweighed by the volume of complaints. Experience scores slightly higher due to a handful of reviews acknowledging technical competence, particularly around NYC code compliance and permit work, but even these are tempered by accounts of botched repairs that made problems worse.

• The single generic 5-star review from 2019 ('i use abr for all my plumbing needs, never have a problem') contains no specifics, no detail, and no named work — flagged as potentially low-authenticity.
• The 5-star review from 2014 is based entirely on a phone interaction where ABR did not actually perform any work — this review was excluded from scoring dimensions as it provides no direct service evidence.
• Review date range spans 2013–2024, meaning several reviews are more than 5 years old. Recency weighting applied: reviews from 2022–2024 were given greater weight, and the pattern of poor professionalism and completion issues persists into the most recent reviews.
• The road rage review (2024) describes employee conduct outside of a job site. While not a direct service review, it is included as a professionalism signal given the severity and specificity of the account.
• No clear fake review cluster detected beyond the one flagged generic 5-star post, but the contrast between the few 5-star reviews and the volume of detailed 1-star reviews warrants caution about the authenticity of the positive outliers.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions, each with HIGH confidence due to mention volume, and should be considered a reliable reflection of this contractor's service quality as reported by customers over the past decade.

This contractor shows highly polarized performance across reviews. Two older reviews (2020, 2022) praise extensive work quality, responsiveness, and technical expertise, while a recent 2023 review documents serious professionalism failures including dismissive communication, refusal to accommodate standard industry requests, and apparent fee retention without service delivery. The professionalism score is dragged down significantly by the documented unprofessional behavior (snapping at customer, ignoring messages, refusing itemized quotes). Project completion and experience scores are supported only by the two positive reviews with no negative evidence, but mention count is low. The stark contradiction between reviews and recency of the negative experience create substantial reliability concerns.

• CRITICAL: Severe contradiction between reviews suggests possible change in contractor behavior or service quality over time. Most recent review (Jan 2023) documents serious professionalism and ethics concerns including apparent fee retention without full service.
• Only 3 total reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability.
• Two positive reviews are significantly older (2020, 2022) while the negative review is most recent (2023), suggesting potential deterioration in service quality.
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention from the negative review; insufficient data to assess fair pricing practices.
• The 2020 review contains somewhat generic praise language but does include specific details (LED lights, tile work, bathroom appearance), so not flagged as fake, but older reviews may not reflect current operations.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to very small sample size (3 reviews) and extreme polarization between older positive reviews and a recent detailed negative review documenting unprofessional conduct and potential fee disputes. The score does not reliably predict future performance and warrants direct investigation of the 2023 complaint before engaging this contractor.

This contractor shows highly polarized performance with extreme variance across reviews. Two recent positive reviews (2023, 2022) praise professionalism, responsiveness, and friendliness, while a 2020 review reports severe unprofessionalism including mid-project price changes, lack of safety protocols, and poor technical knowledge. The professionalism score is dragged down significantly by explicit complaints of unprofessional behavior and lack of expertise. Project completion appears adequate in positive reviews but pricing integrity is directly questioned in the negative review. The small sample size and conflicting evidence create substantial uncertainty.

• CRITICAL: Extreme rating polarization (5.0, 5.0, 1.0) suggests either significant service inconsistency or potential data quality issues
• Negative review is 3+ years old (2020) while positive reviews are more recent (2022-2023), suggesting possible service improvement or reviewer bias
• Pricing integrity directly challenged in 1-star review (mid-project price increase), contradicting value claims in positive reviews
• Technical competency explicitly questioned in negative review ('knew NOTHING about plumbing') vs. implied expertise in positive reviews
• Safety protocol violation noted (no mask) in negative review — serious professional concern

This score should be treated with caution due to only 3 reviews with extreme divergence in experience. The WW Score of 51.7 reflects genuine conflict in the data rather than a stable middle ground; this contractor either has serious inconsistency issues or the reviews may not all reflect the same service quality. Additional recent reviews are needed before making a confident hiring decision.