Find Nearby Plumbers In Paterson, New Jersey

Triple P Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with stark contrasts between highly satisfied customers and severely dissatisfied ones. Positive reviews praise knowledgeable work, reasonable pricing, and efficient completion; however, critical reviews cite overcharging, broken repairs, warranty disputes, poor communication, and unprofessional behavior. The company demonstrates technical competence when work is completed, but professionalism and project completion are undermined by communication failures, unresolved callbacks, and alleged quality issues. The 2022 review alleging breach of warranty and refusal to honor promises is particularly damaging and recent.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2020–2021; only two recent reviews (2022 and 2018). The most recent review (April 2022) is a severe 1-star complaint alleging overcharging, broken repairs, warranty breach, and rude behavior by owner Tony.
• POLARIZED PATTERN: Reviews are heavily polarized (two 5-stars, two 1-stars, one 4-star). This suggests either inconsistent service quality or inconsistent customer expectations. No middle-ground reviews.
• UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS: The 2022 review mentions legal action and unresolved warranty disputes, suggesting systemic issues with follow-through and customer care.
• COMMUNICATION RED FLAG: Multiple reviews mention poor communication (voicemail issues, call disconnections, difficulty reaching the company), which directly impacts professionalism scoring.
• CASH-ONLY PAYMENT: The 2022 review flags cash-only payment as a red flag, raising transparency concerns.

This score should be treated with caution. While the MODERATE confidence reflects adequate mention counts, the severe polarization of reviews and the recent damaging complaint about warranty breach and overcharging suggest the company's actual reliability may be lower than the calculated score indicates. Potential customers should prioritize the recent 2022 complaint and communication issues as serious risk factors.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with strong positive feedback on punctuality and responsiveness offset by serious concerns about quality, pricing transparency, and follow-through. Multiple reviews praise prompt service and willingness to help, but critical negative reviews document failed inspections, unapproved upselling, property damage, and poor communication. The 2019 review detailing extensive code violations and damage is particularly damaging and recent enough to carry substantial weight. While some customers report satisfaction, the pattern of complaints about dishonesty, disorganization, and substandard workmanship suggests systemic issues that undermine overall reliability.

• MAJOR RED FLAG: One detailed 2019 review documents failed town inspection on pool electrical work, extensive property damage (ductwork, walls, electrical panel), code violations, and alleged deceptive pricing practices (bait-and-switch estimates). This is not a minor complaint.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2019, 2018) mention significant upselling and price discrepancies—customer paid 2x estimated amount due to deliberate low-ball estimate strategy.
• COMMUNICATION ISSUE: 2019 review explicitly states language barrier ('do not speak English'), difficulty reaching contractor, and being hung up on during follow-up calls.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising quick response and 1-star reviews documenting poor workmanship, corner-cutting, and code violations on same contractor.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH PROBLEM: 2020 review states contractor 'disappeared for 3 days' mid-job and blocked customer phone calls.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most positive reviews are from 2020-2021; most damaging review is from 2019. However, the 2019 review is detailed and specific, not generic praise.

This score should be treated with caution. While the contractor demonstrates punctuality and emergency responsiveness, serious documented failures in quality control, pricing transparency, and professional conduct create substantial risk. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects genuine inconsistency rather than a reliable mid-range performer—this is a contractor with both loyal customers and severely dissatisfied ones, suggesting high variability in outcomes.

Rivers Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across the reviews that contain usable content. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is significantly dragged down by multiple explicit complaints of rudeness, impatience, and unwelcoming attitude — including one reviewer left without heat in winter and another who described a dismissive hang-up during a quote request. Positive professionalism mentions do exist and are genuine, but the negative ones are specific and credible. Pricing is a serious concern: one reviewer explicitly described being charged nearly $400/hr for labor, attempted overcharging of $1,200 before negotiating down to $900, and warned others to get written estimates — this review appears twice (likely a duplicate), but the complaint is substantive. Project completion and experience scores are more favorable, with several reviewers noting jobs were finished thoroughly, cleanups were performed, and technical problems were resolved. However, the large volume of blank or near-blank 5-star reviews severely undermines confidence in the overall picture.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — HIGH SUSPICION: 25 of 45 reviews have completely empty review text with only a 5-star rating. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or incentivized ratings with no genuine content.
• EXPLICIT INCENTIVIZED REVIEW: One reviewer (2025-06-03) openly stated 'I just wanted paid 4 the survey' — confirming at least one review was submitted in exchange for payment, which is a direct violation of review integrity.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The negative pricing complaint ('Get a written estimate first or they'll rob you') appears word-for-word twice under different dates (2020-06-10 and 2019-11-15). This was counted once for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The vast majority of blank 5-star reviews are clustered in May–June 2025, suggesting a recent coordinated effort to boost ratings. All substantive reviews (both positive and negative) are from 2018–2022.
• RATING INFLATION: The overall star average is heavily skewed by the 25 blank 5-star reviews and the incentivized review. Stripping these out, the substantive review pool shows a much more divided picture with multiple 1-star complaints.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Several short positive reviews ('Best business around', 'great people!!!', 'Quality Service!') lack any specific detail about the work performed, which reduces their evidentiary value.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW-to-MODERATE trust: the presence of confirmed incentivized reviews, 25 content-free 5-star ratings, and a duplicate negative review make it impossible to assess the contractor's true performance from ratings alone — only the 20 reviews with substantive text were used for scoring, and those reveal a genuinely mixed track record.

Dipasqua Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all measured dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (92/100) and experience (90/100). Frank and his team are consistently praised for punctuality, responsiveness, honest pricing, and quality workmanship. However, the WW Score of 68.2 is significantly depressed by a critical recency issue: all seven reviews are between 6–11 years old (2013–2018), with no recent data to validate current service quality. This historical-only dataset creates substantial uncertainty about whether these standards are maintained today.

• CRITICAL RECENCY ISSUE: All 7 reviews are from 2013–2018 (6–11 years old). No reviews from past 12 months. Current service quality cannot be assessed from this data.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language. While not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical feedback or mixed experiences is atypical and limits confidence in the score.
• Small sample size (n=7) limits statistical reliability despite high individual mention counts per dimension.

This score should be treated with caution. While historical reviews are uniformly positive and suggest strong past performance, the complete absence of recent data (all reviews >6 years old) means this score does not reliably reflect current service quality or operational standards.

Bobby Van's receives strong praise from two satisfied repeat customers who highlight honesty, reliability, and skilled problem-solving — particularly from a technician named Mark. However, the single 1-star review raises a meaningful concern about responsiveness and communication, with a customer reporting no callback after more than a week. This directly drags down the professionalism score, which is the highest-weighted dimension. Pricing feedback is notably positive, with one reviewer crediting the company with saving them over $10,000 compared to a competitor's recommendation. Overall, the score is tempered significantly by the very small review pool, which limits confidence across all dimensions.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution.
• All reviews are from 2020–2021, meaning no data exists from the past 12 months. Business quality may have changed.
• The two positive reviews are genuine and specific (named technician, specific savings amount, repeat usage), reducing fake review concern. No fake review pattern detected.
• The 1-star review specifically flags a failure to return a call within a week — a concrete professionalism concern that should not be dismissed despite the positive majority.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 2 years old, and should be considered a preliminary signal only — not a reliable representation of current service quality.

The three reviews present a mixed picture. One reviewer praised fast response time (within 20 minutes) and effective resolution of a plumbing issue, and another noted friendly service, good prices, and post-job cleanup. However, a 1-star review describes a complete failure to follow up after a customer provided contact information for an urgent job, which is a significant professionalism and project completion concern. Pricing received a positive mention in one review but is based on too little data to be reliable. With only three reviews total, confidence across all dimensions is low and the score should be treated with caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as highly unreliable.
• One review (1-star, June 2023) describes a complete non-response to an urgent service request, which meaningfully drags down professionalism and project completion scores.
• The 5-star reviews are relatively brief and lack granular detail, which limits the ability to score dimensions with confidence.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the small sample size makes any pattern analysis inconclusive.
• All reviews are from 2023 and within the past 12 months relative to mid-2023, so recency is not a concern, but volume remains a significant limitation.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with mixed signals and should be considered highly preliminary — do not rely on it as a definitive assessment of this contractor's quality.