Find Nearby Plumbers In Paterson, New Jersey

American Way Mechanical has a deeply polarized review profile, with strong praise from satisfied customers offset by serious, detailed complaints from others. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers praise friendly, courteous technicians, multiple credible negative reviews describe rude owners, threatening technician behavior, dismissive attitudes toward customers, and failure to honor commitments — including one reviewer calling police and another nearly doing so. Pricing is a significant liability, with numerous explicit complaints about overcharging, inflated parts markups, and charges levied for work that was not completed or was done incorrectly. Project completion is similarly mixed: several reviews describe jobs left unfinished, misdiagnosed problems, and technicians leaving without resolving the issue while still collecting fees. On the positive side, experience scores modestly higher due to genuine praise for knowledgeable technicians in a subset of reviews, though this is undercut by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis and technically poor workmanship.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text ('Absolutely Horrible Experience- look elsewhere...') appear with different dates (2018-06-11 and 2018-06-03). One has been counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('A 5 star service is what you would expect from them...') appear with different dates (2018-06-11 and 2017-10-15). One has been counted once for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to a current analysis date. Only 2 reviews are from 2023, 2 from 2022, and the bulk span 2016–2021. Recent performance data is limited.
• BLANK REVIEW: One review entry contains a 5-star rating but no review text (2023-06-10). This was excluded from dimensional scoring as it provides no usable evidence.
• PATTERN CONCERN: Several 5-star reviews are generic and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Highly recommend. This company is the best!', 'Quick, effective, responsive, and satisfactory in every job.'). These may inflate the positive signal and were weighted conservatively.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers describe threatening or intimidating behavior by technicians or the owner, including one reviewer calling police over an attempted assault with a vehicle, another nearly calling 911 due to a technician's threatening behavior, and a third calling police over a parts dispute. These are significant red flags beyond typical service complaints.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 5 reviews explicitly describe being charged for work that was not completed or that failed to resolve the stated problem, suggesting a systemic issue with job completion and billing integrity.

This WW Score is based on 49 reviews with usable data spanning 2016–2023 and carries HIGH overall confidence in terms of sample size, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the wide variance in customer experience, the presence of duplicate reviews, several generic 5-star reviews lacking specifics, and a concentration of detailed negative reviews describing serious conduct and workmanship failures.

Black Dog Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praise prompt responsiveness, friendly technicians, and successful job completions — particularly in emergency situations. However, serious negative reviews significantly drag down every dimension: there are credible accounts of no-shows without explanation, ignored callbacks, a warranty being dishonored, work failing code inspection, and a disputed cash-only estimate that contradicted the company's advertised free estimate policy. The negative reviews are specific, detailed, and span multiple years, lending them credibility. The result is a contractor with a loyal base of satisfied customers but a meaningful pattern of serious failures that cannot be dismissed.

• WARRANTY DISPUTE: One reviewer (2023-03-14) reports paying thousands of dollars for an A/C condenser replacement with a written 5-year warranty that the contractor is now refusing to honor and ignoring all contact — a serious red flag.
• CODE VIOLATION / PERMIT FAILURE: One reviewer (2016-07-15) states a home inspector found the A/C installation resembled amateur handyman work, that no permits were obtained, and that the work did not meet current code. The contractor reportedly dismissed responsibility.
• DECEPTIVE ESTIMATE PRACTICE: One reviewer (2021-01-13) reports being charged $100 cash for an estimate despite the company website advertising free estimates, and alleges the contractor falsely claimed a functional boiler needed full replacement.
• CASH-ONLY PAYMENT DEMAND: Two reviews reference the contractor insisting on or preferring cash payment, which combined with other flags raises concerns about business transparency.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Two separate reviewers (2019-04-22 and 2022-03-14) report being stood up without notice or explanation, and in one case the contractor was dismissive and hung up when contacted about the missed appointment.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews are from 2024 and 2023. Negative reviews span from 2016 through 2023, suggesting the problematic behavior is not isolated to an early period and has continued in recent years.
• REVIEW SPREAD: The 14 reviews are split roughly 8 positive and 5 strongly negative (1-star), with one 4-star. This is a significant negative ratio that meaningfully impacts reliability.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Positive reviews vary in detail, length, and specificity. No obvious coordinated fake review activity identified, though some older 5-star reviews are brief.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews with usable data across all dimensions and carries HIGH confidence in its accuracy; however, the score reflects a genuinely divided customer experience and prospective customers should weigh the specific, detailed negative reviews — particularly regarding warranty non-compliance, code violations, and no-shows — very seriously before hiring.

Young's Water and Sewer exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile. While technicians frequently demonstrate solid technical skills and punctuality (evidenced by positive mentions of specific workers like Ryan, Carlos, and Harry), the company is severely hampered by pervasive office management issues, particularly involving owner Kim Young. Systematic complaints document unauthorized credit card charges, misleading pricing practices, poor follow-up on callbacks, and unprofessional communication. Project completion is inconsistent—some jobs are finished properly while others are abandoned or require third-party remediation. The pricing dimension is particularly weak, with extensive evidence of hidden charges, inflated estimates, and billing disputes. The company's 50-year history appears to have deteriorated significantly, with multiple reviewers noting the business changed after ownership transitions.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pattern of unauthorized credit card charges documented across multiple independent reviews (2024-05-16, 2021-08-19, 2021-09-13, 2019-10-29, 2019-03-05). This suggests potential fraud.
• CRITICAL: Owner Kim Young (also referenced as 'Kimberly Young' and 'Rude Young') is named in 25+ negative reviews describing unprofessional behavior including screaming, hanging up on customers, lying about charges, and disrespectful conduct. This is a systemic management problem.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document incomplete work, abandoned projects, and failures to honor callbacks (2024-09-30, 2024-04-27, 2023-09-14, 2021-07-23, 2021-04-21).
• CRITICAL: BBB complaints referenced in multiple reviews (2021-06-24 mentions 10 outstanding complaints; 2021-09-13 mentions NJ Consumer Affairs investigation). Company holds home improvement license but NOT plumbing license as of 2024-05-16.
• CRITICAL: Insurance claim fraud allegations documented (2021-09-09 describes filing false claims without physical assessment; 2024-05-16 describes misrepresenting insurance coverage).
• Pattern of missed appointments and poor scheduling (2019-08-31, 2019-08-05, 2021-02-03, 2020-11-09).
• Multiple reviews describe technicians arriving without proper tools, certifications, or training (2024-04-27, 2021-07-23, 2021-05-12).
• Positive reviews (5-star) are predominantly from 2020-2024 and often mention specific technicians by name with high praise, while negative reviews span entire timeline and focus on systemic office/management failures. This suggests good field technicians but broken business operations.
• Several reviews appear to be from business owners or competitors (2022-12-20 is particularly suspicious), but core complaints about Kim Young and billing practices are corroborated across 40+ independent reviews.

This WW Score of 52.3 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence) based on 80 reviews with consistent patterns, but it masks a critical operational reality: the company has serious legal and ethical issues that make it unsuitable for consumer use regardless of the numerical score. The technician quality (68/100) does not offset systemic fraud indicators, unauthorized billing, and management misconduct. Consumers should avoid this company and report concerns to NJ Consumer Affairs and the BBB.

City Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2016–2024. While some customers praise quick response times and reasonable pricing, multiple detailed complaints document deceptive pricing practices (bait-and-switch quotes, price changes after work), unprofessional behavior (leaving doors open deliberately, poor job preparation), and failure to follow up on estimates. The company's professionalism score is dragged down by documented instances of dishonesty and poor communication. Project completion is mixed—jobs are often finished quickly, but customer trust is undermined by pricing manipulation and lack of transparency. Recent 5-star reviews (June 2024) lack specificity and appear generic, raising authenticity concerns.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2021, 2019, 2018) document bait-and-switch pricing tactics—quotes given over phone, then significantly higher charges presented on-site. One review includes photographic evidence (carbon copy showing $100 vs. $250 final charge). This is not isolated complaint variance; it is a documented business practice.
• UNLICENSED SUBCONTRACTORS: 2020 review alleges company hires unlicensed and uninsured subcontractors despite website claims of licensure and bonding. Reviewer references BBB complaints and notes pattern under different LLC names.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: 2020 review documents deliberate disregard for customer requests (leaving door open despite explicit request to keep pets inside), poor job preparation (no bucket for drain work), and dismissive attitude.
• SUSPICIOUS RECENT REVIEWS: Three 5-star reviews from June 9, 2024 are nearly identical in structure and tone ('Great service,' 'Thank you so much,' generic praise with zero specifics). This clustering and lack of detail raises authenticity concerns.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: 2018 review documents complete failure to send promised estimate after site visit, with multiple follow-up calls ignored.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed negative reviews are 3–6 years old (2018–2021), but pricing complaints recur in 2019. Recent positive reviews lack detail. Cannot confirm if practices have improved or if review authenticity has declined.

This score should be treated with caution. While based on 12 reviews with adequate mention counts, the data reveals a company with a documented pattern of deceptive pricing practices and unprofessional conduct corroborated across multiple independent reviews. Recent 5-star reviews lack credibility due to generic phrasing and suspicious clustering. The WW Score of 52.3 reflects genuine customer harm (fraud, breach of trust) rather than minor service gaps, and this score is likely conservative given the severity of documented misconduct.

Robert Bardi receives genuinely mixed feedback across all dimensions. On professionalism, positive reviewers consistently praise punctuality and a professional demeanor, but two detailed negative reviews describe seriously disrespectful, condescending, and chauvinistic behavior toward a customer and her family member — a significant drag on the score. Pricing is a notable weak point: multiple reviewers explicitly call out high costs, a misdiagnosis that led to a $650 bill, and an attempt to charge more than the agreed-upon quote on arrival. Project completion is similarly mixed — some reviewers report efficient, complete work, while one review describes a toilet issue that was not resolved after a $300 charge and required a second plumber to fix with a simple flapper replacement. Experience scores are pulled down by the documented misdiagnosis of a Navien tankless heater and the unresolved toilet repair, despite some reviewers praising technical knowledge of steam heat and plumbing generally.

• Two reviews ('See above' and 'unknown') contain no usable content and were excluded from scoring — these appear to be placeholder or incomplete submissions.
• The majority of positive reviews are very old (2006–2014), with only two positive reviews from 2021–2022. The most detailed and specific negative reviews are more recent (2016–2020), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• Recency weighting applied: negative reviews from 2016–2020 were given greater weight than positive reviews from 2006–2014 per Rule 6.
• The 1-star review describing sexist remarks and attempted upselling after a confirmed quote is a serious professionalism red flag and was weighted heavily in the professionalism and pricing scores.
• The misdiagnosis complaint (2016) and unresolved toilet repair (2020) represent concrete, specific failures in both experience and project completion — these are not vague complaints and were treated as credible.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review pool is small (10 reviews), spans over 15 years, and includes two content-free submissions, but the negative reviews are detailed, specific, and credible, providing meaningful signal that tempers the otherwise positive older reviews.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across all dimensions. Positive reviews highlight punctuality, friendliness, and reasonable pricing, while a significant 1-star review describes repeated workmanship failures including an unconnected pipe that leaked twice, property damage, and incomplete baseboard heating installation. Professionalism is split between warm, communicative interactions and a complete failure to return a call. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with one review explicitly describing abandoned or botched work on multiple aspects of a remodel. The overall picture is of an inconsistent contractor whose performance appears to vary considerably by job type and complexity.

• All reviews are older than 5 years — the most recent review is from March 2019 and the oldest from 2013. No recent data exists to assess current performance. Scores should be treated with significant caution.
• The 1-star review from 2017 describes multiple serious workmanship failures on a single remodel job, which heavily drags down project completion and experience scores.
• The 1-star review 'No call returned' from 2015 provides almost no detail but is a clear negative signal for professionalism and responsiveness.
• With only 5 total reviews spanning 6 years, the sample size is very small and may not be representative of typical performance.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the positive reviews are somewhat generic in praise. The detailed negative review adds credibility to the overall dataset.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, all more than 5 years old, which makes it LOW reliability — the score reflects a historically inconsistent contractor but cannot speak to current quality or practices.