Find Nearby Plumbers In Camden, New Jersey

D Nelson's reviews paint a deeply divided picture, with a significant cluster of serious complaints centered on professionalism. Multiple reviewers independently describe the owner as rude, condescending, unresponsive by phone, and dismissive of customer concerns — including smoking on the job, making alarming sarcastic remarks to customers with ill family members, and showing no urgency. Project completion is mixed: several jobs were finished quickly and cleanly, but at least two reviews describe work that was not properly completed (an unfixed leak causing wall damage, and sump pumps replaced with inferior parts without consent). On the positive side, a handful of reviewers — mostly older reviews — praise fair pricing and solid technical knowledge, particularly with boilers and HVAC systems. The overall score is pulled down substantially by the volume and specificity of the negative professionalism and completion complaints.

• Several positive reviews are from 2018–2020 or earlier, while the most recent reviews (2024, 2019) include serious complaints — recency weighting favors the negative pattern.
• The 2024 review describes a canceled appointment without customer notification, suggesting ongoing professionalism issues that have not improved over time.
• One review explicitly describes a deceptive business practice: replacing sump pumps with cheaper units without disclosure and then charging extra for the correct ones — this is a significant integrity concern.
• A review describes staff (Kathy and Tiffany) as rude and work left incomplete, suggesting the professionalism issues extend beyond just the owner.
• Positive reviews tend to be brief and generic (e.g., 'he really knows what he's doing'), while negative reviews are detailed and specific — this asymmetry slightly reduces confidence in the positive scores.
• No fake review patterns detected, but note that several positive reviews reference home warranty assignments, which may reflect a captive customer base rather than freely chosen repeat business.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the stark split between older positive reviews and a consistent pattern of serious, detailed negative complaints spanning multiple years and multiple dimensions.

Edward Hughes & Sons receives a below-average WW Score of 42.3, driven primarily by severe deficiencies in project completion and professionalism. While the company demonstrates technical competence when work is performed, it is plagued by chronic no-shows, missed appointments, poor follow-up communication, and unresponsiveness to customer callbacks. Pricing practices are consistently criticized as opaque, inflated, and deceptive, with numerous customers reporting bait-and-switch tactics and refusal to provide itemized breakdowns. The company shows occasional excellence in responsiveness and courteous technicians, but these positive instances are vastly outweighed by patterns of abandonment, verbal abuse from ownership, and failure to honor commitments.

• CRITICAL: Severe pattern of no-shows and missed appointments documented across 15+ reviews spanning 2011-2024, indicating systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 8) document owner Edward Hughes Sr. engaging in verbal abuse, yelling, cursing, and hanging up on customers, including long-term clients.
• CRITICAL: Consistent pricing deception pattern: customers report being quoted one price and charged significantly more; refusal to provide itemized bills; claims of 'free estimates' contradicted by $125 service charges; markups of 200-400% on parts.
• CRITICAL: Deposit/payment disputes documented in at least 5 reviews; customers report difficulty obtaining refunds, being ignored for weeks/months, and having bills posted publicly on doors.
• Pattern of misdiagnosis: multiple reviews describe unnecessary repairs recommended (e.g., $8,000 sump pump for roof leak, $7,500 main sewer repair when actual cost was $2,680, new HVAC unit when only fuse blown).
• Callback failures: at least 10 reviews explicitly state customers called multiple times (3-6+ times) with no return calls from management or billing department.
• Quality control issues: incomplete work, poor drywall patches, improper roof sealing leading to water damage, work left unfinished and abandoned.
• Recency note: While some positive reviews exist from 2011-2015, the pattern of complaints intensifies and persists through 2024, suggesting ongoing systemic problems rather than historical issues.
• Two positive 5-star reviews (2024-02-09, 2023-07-18) lack specific detail and appear generic; however, insufficient evidence to classify as fake reviews.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 50 reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific complaints spanning 13+ years. The company's deficiencies in project completion (no-shows, abandonment) and professionalism (verbal abuse, unresponsiveness) are documented across dozens of independent customer accounts with corroborating details. While the company demonstrates occasional technical competence, the systemic failures in customer service, communication, and ethical business practices make it unsuitable for most customers.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe a contractor with severe, consistent failures across every dimension. Professionalism is critically low, with repeated reports of no-shows, unanswered calls, full voicemail boxes, dishonest communication, and outright unresponsiveness even after failed work. Project completion is the weakest area: jobs were routinely left unfinished, incorrectly installed, or abandoned entirely, with callbacks promised but never honored across multiple independent reviewers spanning several years. Pricing drew sharp criticism, with multiple customers reporting gross overcharging, bait-and-switch tactics, and in one detailed case, an alleged fraudulent diagnosis designed to sell an unnecessary $4,000 system replacement. Technical experience was repeatedly called into question, with faulty installations, incorrect diagnoses, and work that failed within days or weeks of completion cited across HVAC, plumbing, and refrigeration jobs. The two positive reviews are isolated, lack specific detail, and are significantly outweighed by 15 highly detailed negative accounts.

• 15 out of 17 reviews are 1-star or 2-star, indicating a deeply problematic service record.
• Multiple reviews allege deliberate fraud: fabricating a refrigerant leak to sell a $4,000 system, charging for services never rendered (chimney sealing), and accepting cash via Cash App to avoid chargeability.
• A pattern of abandoning incomplete work and then becoming unreachable is reported independently by at least 6 different reviewers across different years and job types.
• The two positive reviews (5-star) are vague, lack specific job details, and stand in stark contrast to the volume and specificity of negative reviews — possible authenticity concern.
• Reviews span 2018–2024, indicating these are not isolated incidents but a sustained pattern of behavior over at least 6 years.
• One review notes the company was removed from HomeAdvisor for unethical work practices, which is a significant external red flag.
• One review alleges a worker physically ran past the customer and disposed of removed parts (coils) before they could be inspected, suggesting possible concealment of evidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to show the same negative patterns, indicating no improvement over time.

This WW Score is based on 17 reviews with strong data across all four dimensions and HIGH confidence; the score of 18.9 is considered highly reliable and accurately reflects a contractor with a documented, multi-year history of unprofessionalism, incomplete work, overcharging, and alleged fraudulent practices.

Cannot calculate WW Score due to fundamental data integrity issues. The review set contains evidence of two distinct service providers operating under similar or identical business names (Joe Madenaro as individual vs. Infinite Services as company), with dramatically contradictory performance patterns. Two reviews (2019-12-13, 2019-12-10) describe severe project abandonment, fraud, and unprofessional conduct by Joe Madenaro. Three reviews (2019-11-20, 2019-10-26, 2019-10-21) praise Infinite Services with generic language and no specific details. This inconsistency prevents reliable scoring.

• CRITICAL: Possible identity confusion or fraudulent review injection. Reviews reference both 'Joe Madenaro' (individual, negative reviews) and 'Infinite Services' (company, positive reviews). These may be different entities or the same entity operating under multiple names.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: The three positive reviews (5.0 ratings from Oct-Nov 2019) use suspiciously generic praise ('amazingly fast response', 'very professional manner', 'will not be disappointed') with minimal specific detail about actual work performed. Language is formulaic and lacks the concrete specificity present in negative reviews.
• SEVERE CONDUCT ISSUES: Two detailed negative reviews document project abandonment after full payment, non-responsiveness to 10+ contact attempts, property damage (marble counters, walls), and potential fraud (misrepresented faucet quality to seniors). These are not minor complaints.
• TEMPORAL CLUSTERING: All reviews are from October-December 2019 (4+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess current business practices or whether issues were resolved.
• MISSING DOCUMENTATION: Negative reviews explicitly note absence of licenses, invoices, receipts, and work orders—red flags for unlicensed or unaccountable operation.

This score cannot be calculated reliably. The review set appears compromised by either identity confusion between two service providers, fake positive reviews, or both. The documented project abandonment and fraud allegations in negative reviews are severe and specific, while positive reviews are generic and potentially fabricated. No WW Score should be assigned until review authenticity is verified and the business identity is clarified.

This contractor exhibits severe and irreconcilable contradictions across reviews that prevent reliable scoring. Two detailed 1-star reviews from 2020-2021 document unlicensed operation, fraud, abandonment of projects, disappearance after deposits, and alleged scams. Two 5-star reviews from 2020 praise professionalism and service quality. The pattern suggests either fabricated positive reviews or a business that fundamentally changed operations. The fraud allegations, licensing violations, and abandonment documented in the negative reviews are serious enough to override any positive claims. No WW Score can be calculated when core trustworthiness is in question.

• CRITICAL: Severe contradiction between reviews — two detailed fraud/abandonment complaints (2020-2021) versus two glowing 5-star reviews (2020). This suggests either fake positive reviews or a business with serious integrity issues.
• LICENSING VIOLATION: First review explicitly states contractor is not licensed to perform plumbing or HVAC work in Philadelphia and is operating illegally.
• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews document scam behavior, disappearance after deposit collection, and deceptive business practices. One review mentions ongoing lawsuits from other homeowners.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: Two reviews document incomplete work and contractor disappearance after payment received.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: The two 5-star reviews use unusually effusive language ('million stars,' 'moved mountains,' 'out of this world') with minimal specific technical detail, while negative reviews are highly detailed and specific. Positive reviews may be fabricated.
• RECENCY: All reviews are from 2020-2021 (3-4 years old). No recent reviews available to assess current operations.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to fundamental contradictions and serious fraud allegations that undermine the credibility of the entire review set. The documented licensing violations, abandonment of projects, and fraud complaints in detailed negative reviews present material risk that outweighs any positive claims. This contractor should not be hired without independent verification of current licensing and references.

Only 3 usable reviews were available for analysis, which is below the minimum threshold of 5 reviews needed for reliable scoring. The data shows extreme polarization: one 5-star review from 2014 praising punctuality and workmanship, one 1-star review from 2018 citing major plumbing failures and lack of warranty responsibility, and one 2-star review from 2021 complaining about high pricing. The reviews span over 20 years with significant recency gaps, making trend analysis unreliable. No consistent pattern of evidence exists across dimensions.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 usable reviews — below minimum threshold for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY ISSUE: Reviews span 2014–2021 with a 7-year gap between first and second review; most data is older than 3 years
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: Ratings range from 1.0 to 5.0 with no middle ground, suggesting either highly variable service or different customer expectations
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPECTED: One review marked 'unknown' with 5-star rating from 2001 — appears to be placeholder or corrupted data; excluded from analysis
• SERIOUS QUALITY CONCERN: 2018 review alleges repeated major plumbing failures (main water line broke twice in <2 years) in a 5-year-old house, suggesting potential workmanship or design issues
• PRICING COMPLAINT: 2021 review cites $225 for <1 hour work as excessive, but insufficient pricing data to establish pattern

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3, minimum required=5) and extreme temporal gaps in the data. The conflicting evidence and serious quality allegations in the 2018 review warrant caution; any decision should be based on additional recent reviews and direct verification of warranty practices.