Find Nearby Plumbers In New Brunswick, New Jersey

Karlo Brothers receives a critically low WW Score of 28.3, driven by severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Three of four reviews (75%) are 1-star ratings citing overcharging, poor workmanship, unresponsiveness, and damage to customer property. Professionalism is undermined by late arrivals, failure to follow up on promised calls, and dismissive communication. Pricing is consistently flagged as exploitative, with customers reporting 50-66% price reductions when seeking second opinions. Project completion suffers from incomplete diagnostics, unresolved leaks, and work that required redoing by competitors. The single 5-star review from 2015 praising fair pricing and informativeness stands in stark contrast to all other feedback and raises credibility concerns.

• FAKE REVIEW ALERT: One review (2015-08-27) explicitly accuses Karlo Brothers of posting fake reviews and claims the owner posts all positive reviews. This review itself appears to be a 5-star outlier contradicting all other feedback.
• EXTREME PRICE DISCREPANCIES: Multiple reviews report being quoted 2-3x higher prices than competitors for identical work (e.g., $1100 vs $550 for boiler repair; $1200 vs $400 for pipe replacement; $600 vs market rate for thawing). Pattern suggests systematic overcharging.
• QUALITY AND SAFETY CONCERNS: Reviews document incomplete work (leaks not fixed despite claims), damage to customer property (broken shut-off valve), and false assurances about diagnostic completeness.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Three of four reviews are from 2015-2019 (5-9 years old). However, the pattern of complaints is consistent across all time periods, suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• CREDIBILITY OF POSITIVE REVIEW: The single 5-star review (2015) contradicts all negative reviews on pricing (claims 'fairly priced' vs. all others citing 'outrageous' prices). Combined with explicit accusations of fake reviews in another review, this 5-star rating should be weighted with skepticism.

This WW Score of 28.3 should be trusted with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence. While the sample size is small (4 reviews), the consistency of severe complaints across multiple independent dimensions (pricing, professionalism, completion, workmanship) and time periods, combined with explicit accusations of fake reviews and documented price comparisons, creates a credible pattern of poor service. The single positive review is contradicted by the others and flagged as potentially inauthentic. This contractor presents significant risk.

This contractor's reviews are overwhelmingly negative across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of rude staff, ignored callbacks, broken promises, and dismissive responses to customer complaints. Pricing transparency is a major concern, with multiple reviewers describing overcharging, billing disputes, and charges for work that was never completed. Project completion is critically low, with documented cases of unfinished work, failure to pull permits, and lost warranty coverage due to contractor negligence. The single positive review praising quality and reasonable pricing is insufficient to meaningfully offset the volume and specificity of negative experiences described across the other five reviews.

• Only 1 out of 6 reviews is positive (5-star); the remaining 5 are all 1-star, indicating a strongly negative overall pattern.
• The sole positive review (2020) is generic and lacks specific detail about the job performed, raising mild concern about its authenticity, though it cannot be confirmed as fake.
• All reviews range from 2016 to 2021; the most recent review is from July 2021, meaning all data is over 3 years old. Current performance may differ but cannot be assessed from this dataset.
• Multiple reviewers independently describe the same pattern of ignored callbacks and unresponsive office staff, suggesting a systemic operational issue rather than isolated incidents.
• One reviewer explicitly describes a technician breaking a fixture and the company refusing a refund despite the problem remaining unresolved — a serious workmanship and ethics concern.
• Failure to obtain required permits and failure to inform customer about warranty registration (resulting in 5 years of lost warranty) represent potential legal and consumer protection violations.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to a small review pool of 6 total reviews, all of which are older than 3 years; however, the consistency and specificity of the negative feedback across multiple independent reviewers makes the low score directionally reliable.

Primary Water and Sewer receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across nearly every dimension analyzed. Professionalism is critically poor, with repeated accounts of no-shows, missed appointments without notice, unreturned calls, rude staff, bounced paychecks to employees, and an allegation that the owner is operating without a valid plumbing license. Project completion is equally alarming, with multiple reviewers describing abandoned jobs, unfinished restoration work, repeated failed callbacks, and a sewage line left backing up into a basement for weeks. Experience scores are low as well, with documented instances of a PVC pipe bursting ten days after installation, a repaired leak failing the same night it rained, and a sewer issue requiring nine snake attempts before a broken line was discovered. Pricing received limited negative mentions including an unexplained $50 charge for a no-service visit and a disputed quote that dropped significantly when challenged, suggesting inconsistent and potentially deceptive pricing practices. The single positive review, which describes a good experience across multiple visits, stands in stark contrast to the overwhelming pattern of failure across all other 14 reviews.

• SERIOUS LEGAL ALLEGATION: One former employee explicitly alleges the owner Ryan Fisher is not currently licensed to perform plumbing and is operating under someone else's license. This is an unverified claim but is a critical red flag if true.
• EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: A former employee reports bounced paychecks, unpaid wages, IRS tax irregularities, and broken promises of bonuses — suggesting serious internal business dysfunction that may affect service reliability.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: At least 6 separate reviews describe the company failing to appear for scheduled appointments without any prior notice or follow-up communication.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONED WORK: Multiple reviews describe jobs started but not completed, with restoration and follow-up work never performed despite repeated scheduled appointments.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: A PVC pipe installed on a high-pressure main water line burst within 10 days, flooding a basement. A separate repair failed the same night it rained. These suggest serious technical deficiencies.
• INSURANCE CLAIM UNRESOLVED: One reviewer documented filing a successful liability insurance claim against the company but reported receiving no reimbursement after 16+ weeks.
• POSSIBLE FRAUDULENT ASSESSMENT: One reviewer alleges a technician falsely reported third-party work to the insurance company to avoid covering a legitimate repair claim.
• SINGLE OUTLIER POSITIVE REVIEW: Only one 5-star review exists among 15 total. While it contains specific detail and appears genuine, it is dated 2022 and is completely inconsistent with the pattern of all other reviews. It does not meaningfully offset the overwhelming negative evidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews span 2018–2023, with the most recent being August 2023. The pattern of poor performance is consistent and long-standing, not isolated to a single period.
• CONTRACT LOSS: The former employee review states the company lost its contract with American Water Resources due to irresponsibility, which is corroborated by the volume of complaints from customers assigned through that same program.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews with strong dimensional coverage and a highly consistent pattern of failure across professionalism, project completion, and experience — the score of approximately 18.7 should be considered highly reliable and a serious warning against engaging this contractor.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by repeated hang-ups, missed appointments, and poor communication. Project completion is severely undermined by incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and catastrophic failures (e.g., destroying a $4,800 water heater). Pricing concerns include hidden charges and attempts to circumvent insurance coverage. Technical experience is questionable given documented incompetence in diagnosing and executing repairs. All four reviews are consistently negative with specific, detailed complaints rather than vague criticism.

• All reviews are from 2017-2018 (5-7 years old); no recent data available to assess whether performance has improved
• Pattern of abandonment: contractor left job incomplete in Review 1 and never returned; left debris and packaging in Review 4
• Ethical concerns: Review 3 suggests potential insurance fraud or deceptive practices (telling insurance pump is fine while attempting to sell replacement)
• Communication dysfunction: Review 1 explicitly documents multiple hang-ups and lack of basic courtesy (no hello/goodbye)
• Catastrophic failure documented: Review 1 shows contractor dismantled components incorrectly, destroying equipment and creating $4,800 liability

This score is highly reliable within its age constraints, but the 5-7 year gap between reviews and present day creates uncertainty about current operations; however, the consistency and severity of documented failures across all four independent reviews provides strong evidence of systemic performance problems.

Every single review is a 1-star complaint describing a contractor who takes deposits and disappears, refuses to return calls, and leaves work incomplete or done poorly. Multiple reviewers explicitly state that Jae Duncan (also operating as 'Drip Drip Plumbing' and 'Next Level') collected money upfront and never returned, which is the most severe possible failure in project completion. Professionalism scores near zero due to consistent reports of ghosting clients, refusing to answer calls, and accepting only cash. Pricing received a marginally higher score only because the core complaint is fraudulent non-delivery rather than overcharging per se, though taking deposits without performing work is effectively theft. The experience dimension is scored very low based on one reviewer explicitly describing bad workmanship and a botched installation, though the sample for this dimension is small.

• FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviewers independently describe the same scheme — contractor takes a cash deposit, performs little or no work, then disappears and stops answering calls.
• IDENTITY WARNING: Contractor appears to operate under multiple business names including 'Next Level' and 'Drip Drip Plumbing' — a common tactic used to evade negative review histories.
• EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS CONFIRMED: One reviewer references five complaints with the Better Business Bureau and at least one complaint with Consumer Affairs, corroborating the review pattern.
• PLATFORM INVESTIGATION NOTED: Porch.com was reportedly investigating this contractor and flagged positive reviews on their site as suspicious — suggesting possible fake positive review manipulation.
• CASH-ONLY DEMAND: One reviewer noted the contractor claimed his credit card machine was broken and demanded cash only — a known red flag for fraudulent contractors.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews range from 2018 to 2021. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. The pattern of behavior was consistent across this entire period.
• DO NOT HIRE: The totality of evidence across all five reviews indicates a pattern of deliberate fraud, not isolated poor performance.

This WW Score is highly reliable as a warning signal — all five reviews are independently consistent, describe specific named individuals and incidents, reference corroborating external complaints, and show no signs of being fabricated; the near-zero score accurately reflects a contractor with a documented pattern of fraud and abandonment.

This business is a plumbing supply store, not a contractor/plumber service provider. The reviews reflect retail supply operations rather than project-based plumbing work. Professionalism scores are mixed: staff demonstrate strong product knowledge but exhibit inconsistent customer service, with one reviewer explicitly noting rude and unprofessional behavior. Pricing is competitive relative to big-box retailers. Experience/inventory is a clear strength with consistently praised product availability and technical knowledge. Project completion cannot be assessed as this business does not perform plumbing projects. The WW Score cannot be reliably calculated due to the mismatch between the business model and the scoring framework designed for contractors.

• CRITICAL: This is a plumbing supply retail store, not a plumbing contractor. The WW Score framework is designed for service contractors who complete projects. This business sells parts and provides advice only.
• Professionalism dimension shows significant variance: 4 reviews praise knowledge and service, but 1 review (2013) explicitly criticizes staff as rude, unprofessional, and dismissive. This 10-year-old negative review suggests systemic customer service issues.
• Project completion dimension has zero mentions because this business does not perform plumbing work—it is a supplier.
• Review dates span 2013–2022 (9-year range). The most critical negative review is from 2013, now 11+ years old. More recent reviews (2014–2022) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement or selection bias.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews show authentic variation in tone and detail, with specific complaints and praise.

This score cannot be reliably calculated because East Brunswick Supply is a retail supply business, not a plumbing contractor, and the WW Score framework is designed for service-based contractors who complete projects. A meaningful assessment would require reviews of actual plumbing installation or repair work performed by licensed plumbers.