Find Nearby Plumbers In Jersey City, New Jersey

AABC Plumbing's review set is dominated by strongly negative experiences across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and the most damaging: multiple reviewers independently describe rude, dismissive, and even hostile behavior from office staff and management, including being hung up on, yelled at, and called a liar. Pricing is a consistent concern, with reviewers citing inflated bills, inconsistent quotes, and charges that felt fabricated or dishonest, though a small number of positive reviewers found prices reasonable. Project completion is mixed — several jobs were left in worse condition than before, with at least one documented case of a recurring leak requiring multiple callbacks, while a handful of reviewers praised efficient turnaround. Experience scores low overall due to multiple accounts of sloppy workmanship, forgotten tools, unnecessary delays, and a plumber who refused basic tasks, though a few positive reviews do credit specific technicians with skilled and efficient work.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 1 year relative to a current 2024 analysis date. Only one review (July 2024) is recent. Most reviews date from 2009–2021, significantly limiting the reliability of this score as a reflection of current business quality.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW FLAG: Two 1-star reviews posted on the exact same date and minute (2016-12-12 12:49) describe nearly identical experiences with the same individual (Danny), using similar phrasing. These may represent a single reviewer submitting duplicate reviews or coordinated negative reviews. Their content has been treated with reduced individual weight but retained as they describe a plausible shared experience.
• PATTERN OF CONCERN: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years consistently describe the same behavioral patterns — rudeness from office/management, inconsistent pricing, and poor workmanship — suggesting these are systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CONCERN: Several 5-star reviews are vague, short, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Professional! Very clean and on time.' and 'Rude people' contrast sharply). The positive reviews that do contain detail are older (2013–2021) and may not reflect current operations.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: With only 15 reviews spanning approximately 15 years, the sample size is small and the time distribution is uneven, which limits the statistical reliability of any dimension score.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence in direction — the contractor scores poorly — but MODERATE reliability in precise score values due to the small total review count, the age of most reviews, and two potentially duplicate negative submissions.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by documented ghosting, non-responsiveness, verbal abuse, and failure to honor commitments. Project completion is severely hampered by incomplete work, no-shows lasting months, and abandoned projects after final payment. Pricing appears deceptively low but results in poor value due to defective workmanship requiring costly corrections (documented $15K loss in one case). Technical experience is undermined by installation errors confirmed by independent inspectors and repeated failed repair attempts. The overwhelming majority of reviews (7 of 10) are recent (2021-2023) and provide detailed, specific evidence of misconduct.

• CRITICAL: Strong pattern of project abandonment after final payment received across multiple reviews (reviews dated 2022-03-21, 2021-07-16, 2018-08-28)
• CRITICAL: Multiple documented instances of non-responsiveness and ghosting after payment (reviews dated 2022-03-21, 2021-11-12, 2018-08-28)
• CRITICAL: Documented verbal abuse and unprofessional conduct toward customers (review dated 2018-08-28 includes specific quotes of profanity and threats)
• CRITICAL: Technical incompetence confirmed by independent National Wood Flooring Association inspector report documenting incorrect installation both initially and on attempted repairs (review dated 2021-07-16)
• CRITICAL: Breach of written contract terms (failure to remove trash, refusal to honor cost-savings refund promise) documented in multiple reviews
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Three positive 5-star reviews (2019-12-21, 2019-03-23, 2019-03-22) are notably older, use similar generic praise language ('fantastic,' 'wonderful,' 'very happy'), lack specific problem details, and contrast sharply with 7 recent 1-star reviews with extensive specific evidence. Reviewer explicitly alleges Houzz filters negative reviews and that positive reviews may be paid/curated.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One review (2018-08-28) alleges contractor license number belongs to different entity (JJ LL General Construction LLC) and questions legitimacy of HKB's licensing
• RECENCY BIAS TOWARD NEGATIVE: 7 of 10 reviews are from 2021-2023; only 3 positive reviews are from 2019. Recent pattern shows deterioration or consistent problems becoming more visible over time

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 10 reviews with extensive specific evidence across all dimensions, with 7 recent detailed accounts (2021-2023) documenting systematic failures in professionalism, project completion, and workmanship quality. The three positive reviews appear potentially curated or filtered, as explicitly alleged by multiple reviewers regarding Houzz's review moderation practices. The negative reviews provide corroborating patterns of behavior (ghosting, non-responsiveness, incomplete work, verbal abuse) across independent customers with no apparent coordination, and include third-party verification (inspector report, security footage). This score reflects a contractor with severe and documented deficiencies.

This contractor receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions. Pricing is the most consistently criticized issue, with multiple reviewers describing charges as exorbitant, deceptive, or outright scam-like — including a $2,199 water heater swap-out quote and a $950 faucet installation. Project completion is severely undermined by at least one instance of abandoned work, a failed city inspection, and a refusal to honor warranty on a repair that failed within 10 days. Professionalism scores are critically low due to reported sneaky pricing tactics, dismissing paying customers mid-repair, and mocking job applicants on social media. Technical experience is also questioned, with reviewers citing unknowledgeable staff and work that failed inspections.

• All reviews are negative (1–2 stars), which is unusual but consistent in detail and specificity — does not appear to be a fake review pattern; rather, a genuine pattern of poor service.
• One review (2018-08-29) is about employee treatment and social media conduct by management, not a customer service experience — it was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no data on plumbing service quality.
• All reviews are dated between 2011 and 2018 — the most recent review is over 6 years old as of 2024. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data. Scores may not reflect the company's present state.
• Recency warning: No reviews from the past 12 months (or past several years). This significantly limits the reliability of the WW Score for current hiring decisions.
• Deceptive pricing tactic explicitly described in one review: dispatcher was instructed to leave the customer's presence before pricing was communicated, suggesting a deliberate strategy to obscure pricing rationale.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to sufficient mention counts across dimensions, but the score's real-world reliability is significantly reduced by the age of all reviews — none are more recent than 2018 — meaning this report should not be used as a sole basis for current hiring decisions without seeking more recent customer feedback.

Three of four reviews are strongly negative, describing serious misconduct including alleged fraudulent repair estimates, extortion mid-job by demanding double the agreed price, and failure to return customer calls. One long-term customer (since 2004) gave a 5-star review praising responsiveness and care, but this is a single older review (2018) that cannot offset the weight of the documented misconduct. The pricing dimension is particularly alarming, with one reviewer alleging a fraudulent $5,000 quote resolved by another plumber for $250, and another describing mid-job price doubling under coercion. Technical competence is also called into serious question, with one reviewer explicitly stating the plumbers did not know what they were doing and misdiagnosed a working pipe as dead.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer alleges the company reported their boiler to the city after they declined an inflated repair quote — this describes retaliatory and potentially illegal behavior.
• EXTORTION ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly states the company demanded double the agreed price mid-job and refused to complete work without a signed agreement and new payment.
• PRICE FRAUD CONCERN: A $5,000 quote was allegedly resolved by a different plumber for $250 — a 20x discrepancy that strongly suggests fraudulent or grossly inflated pricing.
• TECHNICAL INCOMPETENCE FLAG: Two plumbers misdiagnosed a functional pipe as dead; the issue was resolved trivially by a different plumber.
• NON-RESPONSIVENESS: At least one reviewer reported the company never returned calls after a dispute.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews are from 2016–2021. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current business practices cannot be confirmed.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 4 reviews total. The single positive review is from 2018 and is outweighed by three detailed negative accounts. Score confidence is LIMITED overall.

This score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 2016–2021, and while the negative reviews are detailed and credible, the small sample size and absence of recent data mean this score should be treated as a serious warning signal rather than a definitive rating.

All three reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of a contractor with serious deficiencies across every dimension. Professionalism is severely undermined by repeated no-shows, missed time windows spanning an entire day, defensive and dismissive customer service, and management that was unavailable or unwilling to resolve complaints. Pricing concerns are explicit and damning: one reviewer documented being charged $600 for a part that cost ~$60 wholesale and was replaced again within four months, while another was quoted roughly double the market rate for refrigerant. Project completion is critically poor, with jobs either not completed at all, requiring immediate re-service, or technicians being redirected away from scheduled appointments without notice. Experience and workmanship are also called into question, with one reviewer's subsequent contractor finding that the installed part was a cheap generic brand that failed prematurely, and another reviewer discovering a simple switched-off unit that the technician apparently missed entirely.

• All three reviews are 1-star; while this is a red flag for the contractor, there is no indication of fake reviews — each review contains specific, detailed, and independently verifiable complaints with distinct scenarios.
• Reviews span 2016 to 2018; all are older than 5 years at time of analysis. No recent reviews were provided, so current performance cannot be assessed.
• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution due to small sample size.
• Pricing gouging pattern detected: $600 charged for a ~$60 part in one review; refrigerant quoted at ~double market rate in another. This suggests a systemic pricing integrity issue, not isolated incidents.
• Technician competence concern: one reviewer found a simple off-switch that the technician apparently failed to identify, suggesting a possible pattern of unnecessary upselling or inadequate diagnostics.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are negative and dated between 2016 and 2018, making it a LIMITED but internally consistent signal — the score should be treated as directionally accurate but not statistically robust due to the small and dated sample.

Unable to calculate a reliable WW Score due to insufficient substantive data. All six reviews are uniformly 5-star ratings with generic praise and no specific details about pricing, project completion timelines, or concrete examples of workmanship. The reviews lack the granular information required to independently assess the four scoring dimensions.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with suspiciously generic language and no specific details or examples
• PATTERN DETECTED: Repetitive phrasing across reviews ('Highly recommended', 'Great service', 'professional') suggests potential review manipulation
• NO PRICING DATA: Zero mentions of cost, quotes, or value assessment across all reviews
• NO PROJECT COMPLETION DETAILS: While one review mentions 'timely work', no reviews provide specific project timelines, deadlines met, or follow-through examples
• VAGUE PROFESSIONALISM CLAIMS: Terms like 'friendly', 'professional', and 'knowledgeable' are stated without supporting examples or context
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2020 and 2022; only one from 2023. Dataset is aging

This score cannot be calculated reliably. The review set exhibits characteristics consistent with fake or manipulated reviews (all 5-star, generic praise, no specifics), and contains insufficient substantive data to independently verify claims across any of the four scoring dimensions. Do not rely on this contractor based on these reviews alone.