Find Nearby Plumbers In Newark, New Jersey

Robert Sessa receives strong praise across professionalism, pricing, and technical skill from the majority of reviewers, with recurring themes of punctuality, honest communication, and fair pricing. His experience as a Master Plumber is highlighted multiple times, including a notable review describing precise diagnostic work that avoided unnecessary wall damage. However, two significant negative reviews meaningfully drag down the scores: one describes a boiler installation that was not up to code and not filed with the city, causing serious regulatory consequences, and another describes a frustrating experience with the answering service's data-collection policy that prevented the customer from even booking a job. The incomplete job situation in the boiler review — where Sessa was contacted for follow-up and never called back — is a serious project completion concern. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2013–2021, which limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are more than 2 years old, with only 1 review from 2023 and 2 from 2021. Current performance may differ significantly from what is reflected here.
• SERIOUS COMPLETION CONCERN: One review (2020) describes a boiler installation that was not installed to code and not filed with the city, resulting in National Grid shutting off gas and removing the meter. Follow-up contact with Sessa went unanswered. This is a significant workmanship and accountability failure.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: One review (2023) describes an answering service policy requiring a full home address before passing along a message, which the reviewer found unacceptable. This reflects a systemic intake process issue, not just a one-off interaction.
• POTENTIAL ENTITY SPLIT: Multiple reviews reference 'Robert Sessa' personally (with a direct phone number 718-309-5644) as distinct from 'Sessa Plumbing' the company. One reviewer explicitly states Robert is 'no longer affiliated with Sessa Plumbing.' Scores may reflect the individual plumber more than the business entity.
• MILD GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several older reviews (2013–2016) are very brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Professional, courteous, clean and prompt. You can always count on Sessa.' and 'Bob is the epitome of professionalism. You won't find anyone better.'). These contribute limited evidentiary weight and may inflate older sentiment.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural reliability due to sufficient review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given the age of most reviews, a serious unresolved code-compliance complaint, and an unresolved follow-up failure — consumers should seek more recent references before hiring.

Russo Bros & Co demonstrates strong professionalism (82.5) with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and knowledgeable technicians across 187 mentions. Technical expertise (81.0) is well-documented with 142 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, pricing is a critical weakness (52.0) based on 156 explicit mentions—customers repeatedly report charges 2–5x higher than competitors for identical work, with many describing the pricing as exploitative or a 'scam.' Project completion (78.5) shows solid execution but is tempered by occasional callback issues and incomplete initial diagnoses. The company's core service quality is undermined by widespread perception of price gouging, which significantly depresses the overall WW Score.

• PRICING PATTERN: Extremely consistent and severe complaints about overcharging across 156 reviews spanning 2008–2025. Customers report identical services costing 50–500% more than competitors. This is not isolated—it is systemic and deliberate.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (50+) describe aggressive upselling of unnecessary parts, system replacements, and add-on services. Technicians often recommend expensive upgrades not requested by customer.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE ABUSE: Repeated complaints (20+) about $49–$179 diagnostic fees that are non-refundable even if customer declines service, and fees charged again for follow-up visits on same issue.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: 15+ reviews report technicians sent back to redo work, contradictory advice from different Russo Bros technicians, and incomplete initial repairs requiring callbacks.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 40–50 reviews (mostly 5-star, dated 2025-04-07 and 2025-06-09) contain near-identical phrasing ('very professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'friendly,' 'excellent service') with minimal specific detail. Many lack substantive information. However, these are interspersed with detailed negative reviews, suggesting they are not entirely fabricated but may be incentivized or template-based.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025) skew heavily positive (5-star) with generic praise. Older, detailed reviews (2008–2020) contain more specific complaints and balanced criticism. Recent positive reviews lack the specificity of older reviews.
• WARRANTY & GUARANTEE DISPUTES: 10+ reviews report Russo Bros refusing to honor warranties or guarantees on parts/labor, citing technicalities (e.g., customer touched a part, work was outside warranty period).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple complaints (15+) about rude staff (especially receptionist 'Maureen'), refusal to call back, dismissive attitudes toward long-term customers, and unwillingness to negotiate or remediate overcharges.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable but heavily qualified: Russo Bros delivers competent, professional service with skilled technicians and strong punctuality, but the company systematically overcharges customers by 50–500% compared to competitors for identical work. The HIGH confidence in all dimension scores is based on 412 reviews with consistent patterns, but the overall score is depressed by a pervasive pricing problem that dominates customer dissatisfaction. Customers should expect excellent workmanship but should obtain multiple competitive quotes before engaging Russo Bros, as their pricing model appears designed to extract maximum revenue rather than provide fair value.

Plumbing Doctor has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising individual technicians by name for punctuality, communication, courtesy, and professionalism — driving a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension: a substantial and recurring pattern of complaints across many years and many reviewers describes charges perceived as grossly inflated, lack of itemized invoices, pressure tactics, and quotes that were significantly higher than competitors, pulling the pricing score well below average. Project completion is generally strong — most jobs are reported as finished same-day or next-day — but a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, return visits for the same problem, abandoned jobs, or work that created new problems, preventing a high score. Experience scores are similarly mixed: many technicians are praised as skilled and knowledgeable, but a notable cluster of reviews describes misdiagnosis, incorrect repairs, and technicians who were out of their depth, which tempers the score. The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine service strengths undermined by persistent and credible pricing and quality-control concerns.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Pricing complaints are among the most consistent and specific in the entire review set, spanning from 2006 through 2025. Multiple reviewers independently report being charged 2x–5x competitor rates for identical work, with specific dollar amounts cited (e.g., $306 for a toilet flapper, $280 for a wax seal, $972 to tighten a gas valve, $1,006 for a toilet, $650 for a valve cartridge). This is not a pattern of isolated dissatisfaction — it is a systemic and recurring issue.
• PROJECT QUALITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians misdiagnosing problems, performing unnecessary work, creating new leaks or damage during repairs, or failing to resolve the original issue. Examples include flooding a bathroom during a water heater install, failing to clear a drain clog and charging anyway, replacing a water heater unnecessarily, and leaving a sump pump without a check valve.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN — NEGATIVE OUTLIERS: Several reviews describe specific technicians as rude, dismissive, or aggressive toward customers, including one detailed account of a crew mocking and verbally abusing a homeowner, and another describing a technician yelling at a customer. These are serious outliers against an otherwise largely positive professionalism picture.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: A significant number of reviews are blank (rating only, no text) or contain only 1–2 generic sentences with no specifics. While not conclusive, the volume of no-text 5-star reviews slightly inflates the apparent rating. These reviews were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2006 to June 2025. Reviews from 2025 and 2024 are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement in recent years. However, pricing complaints persist into 2024–2025, so this concern has not been resolved. Older negative reviews (2006–2018) were weighted less heavily but were included as they reveal long-standing patterns.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2023-11-29 appear to be near-identical copies of the same complaint (same date, same content, same rating). One was treated as a single data point to avoid double-counting.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2024-09-12 and 2024-08-19 appear to be near-identical in content from the same reviewer about the same experience. Treated as a single data point.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-THROUGH CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe verbal warranties not honored, return visits charged again for the same problem, and a specific complaint about a 6-month verbal warranty being denied and replaced with a 30-day policy. Customers are advised to obtain all warranties in writing.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a very large review set (277 reviews) spanning nearly two decades, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it one of the more statistically reliable scores possible — however, consumers should weight the pricing dimension heavily in their decision-making, as it represents the most consistent and specific area of documented customer harm.

R&R Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across its review history. Recent reviews from approximately 2023–2025 are overwhelmingly positive, with customers consistently praising named technicians (Brandon, Raffi, Cristian, Javier, Tyler, Daniel, Berto) for punctuality, clear communication, technical skill, and fair pricing. However, a substantial volume of older reviews — particularly from 2015–2019 and largely tied to Lowe's subcontracted appliance installations — describe severe failures in communication, repeated no-shows, abandoned jobs, and rude or incompetent technicians. Project completion is the most penalized dimension because no-shows, abandoned installs, and unresolved callbacks are explicitly documented across dozens of reviews. Pricing scores moderately well overall, with several recent reviewers praising fair or competitive rates, though at least two reviews explicitly flag overpricing. The experience dimension scores higher than completion because when technicians did show up in recent years, workmanship was generally praised.

• TEMPORAL SPLIT WARNING: The review corpus spans 2005–2025. Reviews from 2015–2019 are predominantly 1-star and describe a fundamentally different operational profile (Lowe's subcontract work, chronic no-shows, no callbacks, abandoned jobs, property damage). Reviews from 2023–2025 are predominantly 5-star and describe a high-quality plumbing service. These may represent two distinct business eras or operational contexts and should not be averaged without caution.
• POSSIBLE DUAL-ENTITY ISSUE: Several negative reviews reference Lowe's appliance installation subcontracting (dishwashers, microwaves, cooktops), while positive reviews reference direct plumbing service calls. It is possible this is the same company operating in two different capacities, or that the Yelp/Google profile aggregates reviews for related but distinct service lines.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-08 (approximately 10 reviews within 2 days) contain very brief, generic praise with no specifics ('Friendly and reliable service', 'Good work and professional!', 'Great service, thank you', 'A++'). Several are blank text with only a 5-star rating. This pattern is consistent with review padding. Confidence in the most recent cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 15 reviews explicitly describe technicians failing to appear for scheduled appointments without notice, or abandoning jobs mid-completion. This is a significant project completion risk signal, though concentrated in the 2015–2019 period.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE REPORTED: At least 2 reviews describe property damage caused by technicians (flooded cabinets, cracked toilet, holes in drywall) with disputed or no resolution. This is a serious workmanship and liability flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive, detailed reviews are from 2023–2025 and fall within the past 12–24 months. The majority of negative reviews are from 2015–2019, now 5–10 years old. The WW Score reflects the full corpus but recent performance appears substantially improved.

This WW Score carries MODERATE-to-HIGH reliability for recent plumbing service engagements (2023–2025), but should be treated with significant caution due to a large volume of historically severe negative reviews from the 2015–2019 Lowe's subcontract era, suspected review padding in the most recent cluster, and documented instances of property damage and job abandonment that meaningfully depress the project completion dimension.

Aumenta Plumbing receives strong praise across a large volume of reviews for responsiveness, technical skill, and completing jobs thoroughly — often same-day or next-day. However, a meaningful and recurring pattern of negative reviews spanning multiple years raises serious concerns: multiple customers independently describe the owner (Carmine Sr.) as rude, prone to hanging up on customers, no-showing appointments, and refusing to honor warranty callbacks. Pricing is a genuine split issue — many customers praise fair or reasonable pricing, while a notable minority describe overcharging, undisclosed consultation fees, and post-Hurricane Sandy price gouging. Project completion scores are tempered by several credible accounts of work that failed shortly after completion with no remedy offered. The score reflects a business with genuine technical capability and loyal long-term customers, offset by a documented pattern of customer service failures and pricing inconsistency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 reviews appear to be posted twice on different dates (June 2 and May 30, 2025) with identical text — 'Joe' review, 'Aumenta Plumbing has done work for me' review, and the outdoor spout/Navien review. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform duplication. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews from 2024-2025 are extremely generic ('Amazing service', 'Great service and wonderful plumbing', 'Nice gentleman and wonderful sons', 'Professionals! Trust worthy and always reliable!') with no specific job details, names, or context. These may be solicited or fabricated reviews.
• RECURRING NEGATIVE PATTERN — OWNER RUDENESS: At least 8-10 independent reviewers across multiple years (2012–2020) describe the owner Carmine Sr. as rude, hanging up on customers, refusing callbacks, and being verbally abusive. This is too consistent and specific to dismiss as isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviewers cite undisclosed $150 consultation fees, overcharging post-Hurricane Sandy, and a $1,400 boiler repair that failed shortly after. These are specific, credible, and recurring.
• WARRANTY/CALLBACK FAILURES: At least 3 reviews describe work that failed within weeks or months with the company refusing to return or charging again for the same issue. This directly impacts the project completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are from 2012–2020. Reviews from 2021 onward are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement in operations or a change in who handles customer interactions (Ben and Carmine Jr. are consistently praised; Carmine Sr. is the source of most complaints). Score reflects the full historical record.
• ONE REVIEW (2020-06-07, 2-star) explicitly states the company could not diagnose a heating system issue after 3 visits, and another (2016-12-16, 1-star) describes a 7-hour boiler repair that failed shortly after — both directly impact experience and project completion scores.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (120 reviews) spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, generic 5-star reviews suggesting possible manipulation, and a well-documented pattern of owner-level customer service failures that appear to have improved in recent years but are not fully resolved.

Paramus Plumbing has a deeply polarized review history. A large volume of older reviews (2013–2018) paint Brett as a highly skilled, honest, responsive, and fairly priced plumber who routinely went above and beyond — including late-night emergency calls and transparent diagnostics. However, a consistent and serious pattern of negative reviews spanning 2017 through 2024 reveals a recurring failure in communication and follow-through: missed appointments, unreturned calls for weeks or months, unresolved warranty work, and at least one case of a gas leak resulting from shoddy installation. The project completion score is significantly dragged down by multiple reviews describing abandoned or incomplete work, failed guarantees, and one instance of a heating system that did not function through an entire winter. Pricing scores are mixed, with many praising fair rates but at least two reviews citing overcharging or astronomical estimates. The most recent reviews (2021–2024) skew heavily negative, suggesting a meaningful decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2021–2024) are predominantly 1-star and describe serious failures including a gas leak from shoddy installation, months of non-responsiveness, and an unresolved sewage backup situation lasting months. This strongly suggests a decline in service quality in recent years.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('Brett, and his staff of pros at Paramus Plumbing have done many jobs for me...') appear with different dates (2023-07-10 and 2021-09-28). This is a likely fake or copy-pasted review and has been discounted in scoring.
• PATTERN OF COMMUNICATION FAILURE: At least 7 separate reviews across multiple years (2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2024) independently describe the same core failure — unreturned calls, missed appointments, and no-shows. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY/GUARANTEE FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2016, 2017, 2019, 2024) describe Brett explicitly promising guaranteed work or follow-up and then failing to honor those commitments, including one case involving a gas leak and another involving a non-functional heating system through winter.
• BLANK REVIEW: One review entry contained no text and only a 1-star rating dated 2024-06-09. This was excluded from dimensional scoring but noted as a negative signal.
• OLDER POSITIVE REVIEWS MAY REFLECT A DIFFERENT OPERATIONAL PERIOD: The bulk of glowing 5-star reviews are from 2013–2018. Given the documented decline in responsiveness and quality in later years, these older reviews should be weighted with caution when assessing current service quality.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (67 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but consumers should place significantly more weight on the 2020–2024 reviews, which consistently describe serious failures in communication, follow-through, and workmanship quality — suggesting the contractor's current performance is materially worse than the historical average reflected in this score.