Find Nearby Plumbers In Clifton, New Jersey

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a statistically meaningful WW Score. Both reviews are extremely negative (1-star ratings from 2021 and 2019), citing severe professionalism failures (abusive behavior, lack of respect, poor communication), incomplete project work (multiple unfinished repairs, misdiagnosis, missing parts), and questionable experience claims (work farmed out to third parties). No pricing dimension data was mentioned. The recency of these reviews is also a concern—the most recent is from November 2021, over 2 years old.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review is from November 2021 (2+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• EXTREME NEGATIVITY: Both reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed complaints. No positive reviews present to balance assessment.
• POTENTIAL BUSINESS MODEL CHANGE: First review (2021) concerns oil delivery payment terms; second review (2019) concerns HVAC/heating services. Unclear if same business or service line.
• LIMITED CONFIDENCE ON ALL DIMENSIONS: All scored dimensions based on only 2 mentions each, warranting conservative interpretation.

This assessment is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. The sample size is too small (2 reviews vs. minimum 3 required), both reviews are extremely old (2019–2021), and no positive data exists to provide balanced perspective. A minimum of 5–10 recent reviews is needed to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Both reviews describe serious failures across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is critically low: the contractor stopped returning calls, was described as 'extremely unprofessional,' and repeatedly failed to show up with only last-minute notice. Project completion is near zero in both cases — work was abandoned after large deposits were collected, with one reviewer forced to terminate the agreement and hire replacement contractors after more than three months of delays. Pricing received a marginally higher score only because one reviewer noted prior jobs were 'priced reasonably,' but the pattern of taking large prepayments and then failing to perform severely undermines any pricing fairness. Experience received a limited positive signal from one reviewer who noted two prior jobs were done with 'good quality,' but this is heavily outweighed by the subsequent failures described.

• Only 2 reviews are present — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews describe a pattern of taking large deposits (50% prepayment in one case, described as a 'big deposit' in the other) and then abandoning the work — this is a serious financial misconduct flag.
• One review explicitly alleges fraud: 'Anas Plumbing and Heating is fraud.'
• The first review contains an embedded rebuttal-style statement ('The person that left this review is not the company we hired') which appears to be an attempt by the business to dispute the review within the review text itself — this is unusual and warrants caution.
• Both reviews describe non-responsiveness (not returning calls/messages) and repeated no-shows, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• Review dates span 2021 to 2023 — the most recent review is from July 2023, which is over 12 months old depending on evaluation date. Recency weighting is limited.
• No positive reviews are present in the dataset. While this may reflect genuine poor performance, the absence of any counterbalancing reviews means the score is based entirely on negative experiences.

This score report has very low reliability due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews, both of which are 1-star complaints describing serious misconduct including deposit fraud, work abandonment, and chronic non-responsiveness — prospective customers should treat this contractor with extreme caution.

Both reviews are severely negative with 1-star ratings. The first review criticizes poor workmanship, lack of knowledge, and use of recycled parts charged as new. The second review, from 2020, documents serious professionalism issues including code violations, billing disputes, threatening behavior, and poor communication spanning from 2014 to 2020. While the contractor completed work, quality and ethical concerns are substantial. With only 2 reviews total and both extremely negative, confidence in any calculated score is severely limited and unreliable.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Step 4 rules
• Both reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive reviews to balance assessment
• Second review documents serious ethical and legal concerns: threatening small claims court, poor bookkeeping practices, aggressive communication style, and code violations with upcharging
• First review alleges fraudulent billing (charging for new parts when recycled parts were used)
• Second review is dated 2020 (4+ years old); recency is limited
• No reviews from past 12 months available for analysis
• Extreme negativity across all dimensions suggests either genuine serious problems or potential selection bias (only dissatisfied customers reviewed), but given documented specifics in second review, credibility appears high

This assessment cannot be considered reliable. With only 2 reviews, both 1-star and both dated 2020 or earlier, there is insufficient data to calculate a trustworthy WW Score. The severe and specific allegations (code violations, billing threats, fraudulent parts) warrant serious concern, but a proper evaluation requires a larger, more recent review sample.

Only 2 reviews are available, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation. The reviews are contradictory: one 1-star review from 2020 criticizes the company's attitude and treatment of a customer, describing dismissive behavior and lack of respect; one 5-star review from 2017 praises professionalism and timeliness. Pricing is mentioned positively in both reviews. No substantive data on project completion or technical experience is provided. The extreme polarity and small sample size make any aggregate scoring unreliable.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per protocol
• Extreme polarity between reviews (1-star vs 5-star) suggests inconsistent service or customer experience variance
• Review dates are significantly dated (2017 and 2020) — no recent data within past 12 months
• Second review (5-star) is generic and lacks specific detail about work performed, quality, or scope
• First review is detailed and specific but focuses heavily on interpersonal/attitude issues rather than technical competence or work quality
• No reviews mention project completion, timeline adherence, callbacks, or technical skill level

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required). The two available reviews are dated, contradictory, and lack sufficient detail on core dimensions like project completion and experience. Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews are strongly negative and together paint a concerning picture of this contractor. The first review alleges deliberate upselling and price gouging of a vulnerable elderly customer, with the reviewer's plumber friend confirming the work was unnecessary and the actual fix was minor. The second review, while indirect, describes unprofessional and inconsiderate behavior by a company driver at 1am. No positive experiences were mentioned in any dimension, and no evidence of quality workmanship, fair pricing, or professional conduct was found. Scores are extremely low across all measured dimensions, though confidence is limited due to the very small review sample.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated between 2010 and 2012, making them over 10 years old. These reviews may not reflect current business practices.
• The first review contains highly emotional and repetitive language, which may indicate bias, but the specific details provided (plumber friend verification, boiler upsell narrative) lend it some credibility.
• The second review is based on indirect observation of a driver, not direct service experience, and should be weighted accordingly.
• No positive reviews were present in this dataset — it is unknown whether this sample is representative of the contractor's full review history.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over a decade old, and should be considered highly unreliable as a current assessment of this contractor's quality or practices.

Only one review was available for analysis, which severely limits scoring reliability. The reviewer noted a 2-hour response time and spoke positively about the service on two separate occasions, suggesting reasonable professionalism and responsiveness. The clogged drain issue was resolved without problems, indicating adequate project completion. However, no information was provided about pricing, workmanship quality, or technical skill, leaving two dimensions entirely unscored. Scores assigned are conservative given the single-review basis.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Pricing and Experience dimensions have zero data and cannot be scored.
• Single review provides limited specifics about workmanship quality or technical ability — scores should be treated with caution.
• Cannot assess fake review patterns with only 1 review available.

This score is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable indicator of overall contractor quality — significantly more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.