Find Nearby Plumbers In Bayonne, New Jersey

This contractor's review set is deeply divided, with three 1-star reviews describing serious misconduct — including an alleged payment scam via Venmo, a $1,000 charge for a 30-minute drain cleaning, and a paid electrical report that was never delivered despite repeated follow-ups. These are not minor complaints; they describe fraud, price gouging, and failure to deliver on paid services. The three positive reviews do highlight courteous, on-time technicians and quality workmanship, but they are insufficient to offset the severity of the negative reports. The professionalism and project completion scores are heavily dragged down by explicit failures in both areas across multiple reviews. Pricing receives a very low score due to one credible overcharging complaint and one alleged scam involving upfront payment for parts.

• SERIOUS FRAUD ALERT: One reviewer explicitly states the company requested Venmo payment for parts and then disappeared — this is a hallmark of a contractor scam and should be treated as a critical red flag.
• FAILURE TO DELIVER PAID SERVICE: One reviewer paid $225 for an electrical report that was never provided despite weeks of follow-up requests — this constitutes non-delivery of a paid service.
• PRICE GOUGING CONCERN: One reviewer was charged $1,000 for a 30-minute drain cleaning and reports false warranty promises — this suggests deceptive pricing practices.
• REVIEW SPLIT IS EXTREME: The 6 reviews are evenly split between 5-star and 1-star with no middle ground, which may indicate selective solicitation of positive reviews or suppression of neutral feedback.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review (July 2024) is the fraud/scam allegation, which is the most current signal of business behavior and should be weighted heavily.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 reviews total limits statistical reliability. Scores should be treated with caution despite some dimensions reaching HIGH or MODERATE confidence thresholds.

This WW Score has MODERATE overall confidence due to a small but highly polarized review set containing credible allegations of fraud and non-delivery, which significantly outweigh the positive reviews in severity.

The reviews for this contractor paint a deeply negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Two of the three reviews describe serious issues including gross overcharging, a $400 charge for a five-minute job, failure to fix the reported problem, and an attempt to upsell unnecessary new units rather than perform the requested repair. The company's response to a direct complaint was described as indifferent, further damaging their professionalism score. The sole positive review is vague, dated 2015, and appears to reference retail advice rather than an actual plumbing job, making it of very limited analytical value.

• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 3 reviews analyzed. The WW Score cannot be considered reliable with this volume of data.
• SUSPECT REVIEW: The 5-star review from 2015 is highly generic, references 'retailers' rather than a plumbing service, and contains no specifics about a plumbing job. It may be misattributed, off-topic, or fabricated. It was included conservatively but treated with very low weight.
• RECENCY WARNING: Two of the three reviews are from 2018 and 2020, and the only positive review is from 2015. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current service quality is unknown.
• PATTERN WARNING: Both negative reviews independently describe a pattern of overcharging and failure to complete work, which increases the credibility of those complaints despite the small sample size.
• COMPLAINT RESPONSE FAILURE: One reviewer explicitly states the company was contacted to complain and showed no concern, which is a significant professionalism red flag.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are negative and credible, and one of which appears off-topic or fabricated; the score should be treated as directionally indicative of poor service quality but not statistically reliable.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 4 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. Additionally, two reviews appear to be duplicates with identical text (dated 2023-09-16 and 2022-01-19), raising concerns about review authenticity. The remaining reviews are sparse and dated (one from 2020), limiting recency and confidence in any dimension scoring.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews contain identical text praising 'excellent price' and 'above standard service work' (2023-09-16 and 2022-01-19, attributed to 'Gwen'). This suggests potential fake or manipulated reviews.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 total reviews analyzed. Minimum 5+ reviews recommended for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2020 (3+ years old). Only one review is from the past 12 months.
• SAFETY INCIDENT: One 1-star review reports a traffic safety violation (running red light). This is a serious professionalism/conduct issue that cannot be ignored despite being a single mention.
• SPARSE DIMENSION COVERAGE: All dimensions have 1-2 mentions only, resulting in LIMITED confidence across the board.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (below 5 reviews), suspected duplicate/fake reviews, and extremely limited mention counts across all dimensions. Any scoring would be highly speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.

Insufficient data to calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. The first review (2022) mentions helpful service and fair pricing, while the second review (2019) raises significant concerns about a $195.98 handling fee on a warranty replacement. The reviews are contradictory in tone and separated by 3 years, with the older review being outside the preferred 12-month recency window.

• Insufficient review count (n=2) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably
• Reviews are contradictory: one highly positive, one highly negative
• Second review is from 2019 (5+ years old) — outside preferred recency window
• No data on project completion, timeliness, or technical experience
• Pricing dimension based on single disputed fee — limited context

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews are positive and mention fair pricing, reliability, and quality of work, which supports moderate scores across all dimensions. Review 1 provides more specific detail, describing responsiveness to an HVAC issue, plumbing backup, and general handyman work, lending some credibility to the experience and project completion scores. Review 2 is brief but corroborates trustworthiness and fair pricing. However, with only 2 reviews total, all scores are treated conservatively and no WW Score can be reliably calculated. The limited sample size means these scores carry very low statistical weight.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language and no critical feedback, which is a pattern consistent with either genuine satisfaction or a limited/curated review set.
• Review 1 references landscaping, HVAC repair, and plumbing in a single review — the breadth of services described without specifics (e.g., no mention of cost, timeline, or technical detail) slightly reduces credibility.
• Review 2 is generic and brief with no specific details about the work performed, reducing its evidentiary value.
• No negative or mixed reviews present — this may reflect a genuinely good contractor or an incomplete review picture; treat with caution.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are 5-star and lack granular detail, making the findings highly unreliable and insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall performance.

Both reviews are identical in content and appear to be the same review submitted twice, likely a duplicate entry, so only one unique review is usable. That single review paints a strongly negative picture across all dimensions: the plumber displayed a poor attitude and apparent lack of care upon arrival, undermining professionalism. Pricing was flagged as grossly inflated, with a quote escalating from $2,000 to $2,500 for work that a building maintenance worker ultimately completed for $70 in labor. The plumber left without completing any work, representing a near-total failure of project completion. The reviewer's comparison to a non-licensed maintenance worker who resolved both issues quickly and cheaply also raises serious concerns about the plumber's diagnostic competence and technical judgment.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Both reviews are word-for-word identical in content, submitted on the same date (2011-07-01) with only a minor timestamp difference. Only one unique review is counted for scoring purposes.
• EXTREMELY SMALL SAMPLE: Only 1 unique review exists. No reliable WW Score can be calculated. All dimension scores carry very low evidentiary weight.
• REVIEW AGE WARNING: The sole review dates from July 2011, which is over 13 years old. This data may not reflect the contractor's current quality or practices.
• PRICING CONCERN: The reviewer explicitly describes a quote that escalated unprompted from $2,000 to $2,500 during a single visit, with no work performed, followed by a $85 service fee. A comparable job was completed by another party for $70 in labor. This suggests potential price inflation or upselling behavior.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: The plumber left the job site without performing any repair work, which is treated as a project completion failure.

This WW Score report is based on a single unique review that is over 13 years old, making it highly unreliable as a current assessment of this contractor's quality — no meaningful score can be calculated and consumers should seek more recent and numerous reviews before making a hiring decision.