Find Nearby Plumbers In Jersey City, New Jersey

J&L Plumbing demonstrates solid technical competence and generally fair pricing, with customers praising their problem-solving ability and willingness to refund overages. However, professionalism is tempered by documented communication lapses—one customer explicitly noted they lost a job due to failure to return a callback, and another experienced a 2+ hour delay without advance notification. Project completion is generally strong with satisfactory follow-through on assigned work, though the communication issue suggests inconsistency in responsiveness. The score reflects reliable workmanship undermined by inconsistent customer service practices.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All 6 reviews are older than 12 years (2006–2016), with the most recent from 2016. No recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been addressed.
• COMMUNICATION RED FLAG: One review (2011) explicitly states the contractor 'never got back to me for a job' and 'lost a job by not getting back to me,' indicating a pattern of responsiveness issues.
• PUNCTUALITY ISSUE: One review (2008) documents a 2+ hour delay (9am scheduled, 11am+ arrival) without advance notification, though customer accepted the explanation.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total limits confidence in overall assessment; scores are based on small mention counts (2–4 per dimension).

This score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size, age of all reviews (8+ years old), and lack of recent performance data; while the available evidence suggests competent technical work, the documented communication and punctuality issues are material concerns that may or may not persist today.

A-1 Tank Service earns strong marks across most dimensions, with multiple reviewers praising Steve and his crew for precise, skilled equipment operation, thorough site cleanup, and professional conduct. Project completion scores are high, with several reviewers specifically noting that work was finished on time, permits were handled proactively, and excavation sites were left spotless. Experience scores are the highest of all dimensions, driven by repeated and specific praise for backhoe precision, careful handling of obstacles like trees and driveways, and technical competence on complex extractions. Professionalism scores are tempered slightly by one 1-star review citing a rude phone receptionist, which is a direct and credible negative data point that cannot be ignored. Pricing is rated positively but with moderate confidence, as only four reviews explicitly address cost, all describing it as reasonable or fair.

• One negative review (1-star, dated 2015-10-12) explicitly cites a rude and unhelpful phone receptionist — this is a direct professionalism concern and was factored into the professionalism score.
• Several reviews use similarly enthusiastic language (e.g., 'like watching surgery with a backhoe' appears in spirit across two separate reviews), but the reviews contain enough specific detail, unique scenarios, and varied writing styles to be considered credible. No fake review flag raised.
• Recency concern: Only 2 of 10 reviews are from the past 12 months (relative to late 2021 cutoff of provided data). Six of the ten reviews are from 2018 or earlier, with the oldest dating to 2013. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not fully reflect current service quality.
• Sample size is limited at 10 reviews. While the WW Score can be calculated, findings should be treated as indicative rather than definitive.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the core dimensions are supported by multiple specific and credible reviews, but the small total sample size, the presence of one clear negative professionalism incident, and the age of the majority of reviews (most predating 2022) limit full confidence in how accurately this score reflects the contractor's current performance.

Hutchinson demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for communication, responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous demeanor across five reviews. Pricing feedback is mixed but generally favorable, with fair rates mentioned in three reviews, though one negative review explicitly claims overcharging. Project completion shows mostly positive outcomes with jobs finished on time, though one 1-star review alleges incomplete work and inability to solve recurring problems. Technical experience is the weakest dimension, with limited mentions and one serious complaint about lack of knowledge regarding plumbing and sewer drain issues. The significant negative review from 2019 substantially impacts overall confidence.

• One highly negative 1-star review (2019-02-24) contradicts the pattern of five 5-star reviews, citing overcharging, poor technical knowledge, unreliability, and dishonesty. This outlier suggests either a genuine service failure or a dissatisfied customer, but cannot be dismissed.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years (4 of 6 reviews from 2018-2019), with only 2 reviews from 2021. Recency is limited, making it difficult to assess current service quality.
• The negative review mentions 'Byron' as the technician, while positive reviews reference 'Hutch' or 'Hutchinson.' This may indicate inconsistent service quality depending on which team member performs the work.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific details and varied language.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recency (most reviews are 3+ years old), a significant contradictory negative review that raises questions about consistency, and relatively small sample size. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects genuine uncertainty about current service reliability.

QPH receives strong praise across multiple reviews for respectful, polite, and communicative technicians, with several reviewers specifically calling out individual workers by name for going above and beyond. Project completion is generally solid — jobs were finished on time, cleanly, and as promised — but one notable negative review describes a technician who failed to perform the requested diagnostic work and charged for it anyway, which meaningfully drags down both professionalism and project completion scores. Experience scores are supported by detailed accounts of skilled technical work including complex repiping, HVAC conversion, and problem-solving under difficult conditions, though the bolt-in-pipe incident and the mask compliance complaint introduce credible negative signals. Pricing is mentioned positively in a handful of reviews with references to fair quotes and affordability, but the sample is too small to treat as fully reliable. The overall score is tempered by the age of most reviews — the majority predate 2022, with several from 2015–2018, reducing confidence in how well this reflects current performance.

• Two reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with 5-star ratings and no usable content — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no verifiable information.
• One review is dated 1999 and another 1997 — these are over 20 years old and were given minimal weight as they cannot reflect current business practices.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (most from 2015–2022), with only one review from the past 12 months (September 2022). Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• One review (1-star, 2021) specifically cites employees refusing to wear masks when asked — this is a direct professionalism and conduct concern and was weighted accordingly.
• One review (1-star, 2018) describes a technician named 'Tayler' who failed to perform the requested camera inspection, charged $150 for incomplete work, and required a second visit to resolve what should have been caught initially — this is a significant project completion and professionalism failure.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though several 5-star reviews are brief and generic. The presence of specific names, dates, and detailed narratives in the majority of reviews suggests authenticity.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the review base is small (14 total, 13 usable), most reviews are more than one year old, and two reviews contained no usable data, meaning current performance may differ significantly from what this score reflects.

Eco Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally reliable service delivery, with many customers praising quick response times, professional demeanor, and effective problem-solving. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious pricing concerns—multiple reviews explicitly describe overcharging, inflated quotes, hidden fees, and aggressive upselling tactics that undermine trust. Project completion shows mixed results with some no-shows and follow-up failures, though most completed jobs are well-executed. The wide variance between glowing 5-star reviews and scathing 1-star complaints suggests inconsistent service quality or potential review authenticity issues.

• PRICING RED FLAGS: Multiple independent reviews (2024, 2023, 2020, 2018, 2018, 2018) describe aggressive upselling, inflated quotes 4x market rate, hidden service fees, and misrepresentation of equipment age/condition. Pattern is consistent and specific, not generic complaints.
• POTENTIAL SCAM INDICATORS: 2024 review details sophisticated bait-and-switch (posing as S&B Plumbing via Google), false diagnosis without inspection, and pressure tactics. 2020 review describes similar false diagnosis (cracked tank with no evidence). These are not isolated incidents.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2022, 2022, 2018, 2018) document appointment no-shows, failure to return calls for weeks, and scheduling system failures despite online booking and phone confirmation.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between enthusiastic 5-star reviews (many from 2018-2020, some with minimal detail) and detailed 1-star complaints with specific evidence. Some 5-star reviews lack specificity or detail, raising authenticity concerns.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews cluster in 2018-2020 period. Recent reviews (2024, 2023, 2022) are predominantly negative or critical, suggesting service quality deterioration.
• TECHNICIAN VARIANCE: Named technicians (Moe/Mohammed, Ali) receive consistent praise, but unnamed technicians are associated with scam allegations and poor service, suggesting quality depends heavily on individual assignment.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the 72.8 reflects measurable data across all dimensions, the company exhibits a troubling pattern of pricing deception and communication failures that are explicitly documented in recent reviews, and the stark contrast between glowing older reviews and detailed recent complaints suggests either service deterioration or potential review manipulation. Customers should independently verify pricing and seek multiple quotes before engaging this company.

Priority Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, many reviewers praise specific technicians (Doug, Paul, Rey, Steve, Chuck) for punctuality, friendliness, technical skill, and quality workmanship — particularly on water softener and filter installations. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes no-shows, broken property that was not disclosed or repaired, overcharging, incomplete work requiring a second plumber, and outright rude or dismissive behavior from ownership. Pricing is similarly split: several reviewers call it fair or even a bargain, while others describe feeling overcharged or encountering opaque pricing. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, wrong pipe placement, unresolved callbacks, and work that caused downstream damage. The score reflects this genuine tension between a capable crew on good days and a pattern of serious service failures on bad ones.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review by 'Doug and Betty were great to work with...' (SpringWell install) appears twice with identical text on 2024-05-14, once with a timestamp and once without. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• NEAR-DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 2024-03-15 review about a Springwell water softener and carbon monoxide leak is nearly identical in language to the 2024-06-09 review. These may represent the same reviewer submitting twice or a copied review. Treated as one unique data point for scoring.
• REVIEW 'SAME AS ABOVE' (2011-10-03) and 'unknown' (2016-01-22) contain no usable content and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• SPAN OF REVIEWS IS VERY WIDE: Reviews range from 2007 to 2024. Reviews older than 2022 (approximately 35+ reviews) were given reduced weight, as they may not reflect current business practices, staffing, or ownership.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS NOTED: At least one review describes $100,000 in property damage attributed to the company's work, with the company denying responsibility (2019). Another describes employees breaking property and concealing it with silicone (2015). Another describes the owner cursing at customers (2013). These are high-severity flags that meaningfully suppress the project completion and professionalism scores.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years (2016, 2023, 2019, 2013) describe the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments or failing to follow through on estimates, suggesting a recurring reliability issue.
• MOST RECENT REVIEWS (2024) ARE PREDOMINANTLY POSITIVE AND SPECIFIC: The 2024 reviews appear genuine with specific technician names, job details, and varied language. No fake review pattern detected in recent reviews.
• OLDER NEGATIVE REVIEWS MAY REFLECT DIFFERENT STAFF OR OWNERSHIP: Several negative reviews reference 'Paul' as owner, while recent positive reviews reference 'Doug' as owner, suggesting possible ownership or staffing changes over time. This context was noted but scores were not adjusted speculatively.

This WW Score is based on 60 reviews spanning 17 years with high mention counts across all dimensions, giving it statistical breadth, but the wide time range, duplicate entries, and several high-severity negative incidents (property damage, no-shows, disputed workmanship) introduce meaningful uncertainty — the score should be treated as a fair average that masks significant variance in customer outcomes.