Find Nearby Plumbers In Perth Amboy, New Jersey

All three reviews consistently praise George's professionalism, including punctuality, communication, and friendly demeanor, supporting a strong professionalism score. Pricing transparency is explicitly mentioned in two of three reviews, with customers noting upfront quotes before work began, which is a meaningful positive signal. Project completion is well-supported — all three reviews describe jobs that were fully finished, including a complex wall-opening pipe replacement, with no mention of abandoned or incomplete work. Experience is evidenced by the successful resolution of difficult clogs and pipe replacements, though the review base is very small and all reviews are older than 12 months, limiting confidence in how current this performance picture is.

• All 3 reviews are dated between December 2020 and March 2022 — none are within the past 12 months relative to a 2025 evaluation date, meaning current performance cannot be confirmed.
• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for WW Score calculation and results should be treated as preliminary only.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings. While the reviews contain specific details and varied language reducing fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings with a very small sample size warrants caution.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present across any review — this may reflect genuine satisfaction but could also reflect a non-representative sample.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are over 2 years old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be treated as a confident assessment of current or ongoing performance.

RC Mechanical shows genuine strengths in professionalism and technical knowledge, with multiple reviewers praising prompt responsiveness, patient communication, and technician education — particularly in the 2014 reviews. However, the dataset is small (6 reviews) and spans over a decade, significantly limiting reliability. Pricing is a notable concern: one reviewer disputed a billing discrepancy for time charged versus time worked, and the company refused to adjust, which materially drags down the pricing dimension. Project completion is mixed — one reviewer explicitly described repeated failed repairs and misdiagnosed issues (disconnected wires attributed to a design flaw), which is a serious workmanship and follow-through failure that cannot be ignored. The overall picture is a contractor with capable technicians but inconsistent quality control and questionable billing practices.

• All 6 reviews are from 2011–2014 — none are within the past 10 years. This score should not be treated as reflective of current performance.
• Small sample size of only 6 reviews severely limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.
• One review (1-star, 2014-04-18) describes a pattern of repeated failed repairs and a misdiagnosis that another company corrected — this is a significant project completion and experience red flag.
• One review (3-star, 2011-05-05) describes a billing dispute where the company charged for 1.5 hours on a 45-minute job and refused to adjust — this is a transparency and pricing concern.
• No reviews are available from recent years; business practices, staffing, and quality may have changed substantially since 2014.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to an extremely small and entirely outdated review set (6 reviews, all from 2011–2014); it should not be used as a current indicator of contractor quality without substantially more recent data.

Arrow Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for individual technician professionalism and technical competence — recurring plumbers like Herschel, Nick, Zach, Bruce, and Frank are praised repeatedly for courtesy, punctuality, and knowledge. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this review set, with a large and consistent volume of complaints spanning over a decade describing charges as 'outrageous,' 'shocking,' hidden fees stacked on top of dispatch fees, and quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors — often 2x to 5x the price of other plumbers. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed well and on time, but there are notable failures including a no-show appointment, a warranty dispute where the company refused to honor coverage, a job left incomplete requiring a callback, and at least two cases where the diagnosed problem was wrong and another plumber fixed it cheaply. Experience scores moderately well based on positive mentions of skill and problem-solving, but is undermined by several reviews alleging misdiagnosis, unnecessary upselling, and work that did not resolve the underlying issue. The overall WW Score of 62.4 reflects a company with capable technicians but a persistent and well-documented pattern of pricing practices that erode customer trust.

• PRICING PATTERN WARNING: An unusually high volume of negative pricing reviews spans from 2010 through 2025, indicating a systemic and long-standing business practice rather than isolated incidents. Complaints include stacked dispatch and diagnostic fees, quotes 2x–5x higher than competitors, and charges applied before work is confirmed or completed.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2025-05-10 and 2025-04-10 with no review text (rating only, all 5-star) are suspicious. Blank reviews with identical dates and maximum ratings may be padding. These were excluded from scoring but noted here. Additionally, several short generic 5-star reviews ('Great experience', 'Great service', 'Excellent Job!') with no specifics were treated as low-signal.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2024–2025 and are therefore weighted more heavily. Older reviews (2010–2016) show similar pricing complaints, suggesting the pattern is entrenched. A handful of very old reviews (2010) describe what appears to be a different or individual operator and may not reflect the current business.
• MISDIAGNOSIS INCIDENTS: At least 3 reviews explicitly describe Arrow diagnosing a problem incorrectly or recommending unnecessary work, with a second plumber resolving the issue at a fraction of the cost. This is a material concern for the experience and project completion dimensions.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: One review (2023) describes Arrow refusing to honor a stated 90-day warranty, claiming the technician 'misspoke.' Another (2019) describes a leak recurring within 24 hours with Arrow refusing to return. These are serious project completion red flags.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: One review (2025-02-09) describes Arrow failing to show up for a scheduled appointment window and never calling back despite two follow-up calls from the customer.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: One review (2020) describes a technician being rude to a customer's wife and storming out. One review (2016) describes a technician breaking a cover and not disclosing it. One review (2018) describes Arrow drivers making obscene gestures at another driver — though this is not a service review, it reflects on company culture.

This WW Score of 62.4 is based on a large review set (155 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it a reliable representation of customer experience — the score should be trusted as an accurate reflection of a company with competent individual technicians but a well-documented, long-standing pattern of aggressive and opaque pricing practices that significantly undermines overall value.

Patriot Plumbing has a strong cluster of recent positive reviews (2024) praising professionalism, communication, and responsiveness, which elevates scores in those dimensions. However, several detailed negative reviews — particularly from 2015–2020 — describe serious issues including unpermitted work that failed inspection, improper installation causing property damage, significant billing disputes, and aggressive customer service behavior. These negative reviews are highly specific and credible, pulling scores down meaningfully across all dimensions. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing feeling overcharged or misled on costs. Project completion is also notably impacted by the permit failure and improper installation complaints, which represent fundamental failures of follow-through.

• RECENCY SPLIT: The 11 positive reviews from 2024 are recent and carry more weight, but 5 of the most detailed negative reviews span 2015–2020 and describe systemic issues with billing, workmanship, and customer service that may reflect prior ownership or management practices.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews from 2024-05-06 (four reviews on the same date) use very generic language with no specific job details — 'very honest and hardworking,' 'great plumber,' 'amazing company very knowledgeable.' These may be solicited or inauthentic reviews and have been weighted conservatively.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT: One reviewer reported that Patriot failed to close a permit on a water heater installation, causing the home to fail a sale inspection and requiring $800 in remediation by another company. This is a significant professional and legal failure.
• SERIOUS INSTALLATION COMPLAINT: A water treatment system was improperly anchored and fell off a basement wall, causing over $600 in damage. Reviewer explicitly stated the installation lacked basic safety measures.
• BILLING DISPUTE PATTERN: At least two detailed reviews describe being charged significantly more than quoted or agreed upon, with one reviewer paying $390 for under one hour of minor work and another being charged $261 for no work performed.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE COMPLAINT: Multiple negative reviews describe hostile or dismissive responses from the owner/office when complaints were raised, including one incident where police were called on a customer disputing a bill.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the high volume of recent positive reviews provides meaningful signal, but the presence of multiple detailed, credible negative reviews describing permit failures, improper installations, billing disputes, and aggressive customer service, combined with suspected same-day solicited reviews, introduces significant uncertainty and warrants caution before hiring.

Master Tech shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2011–2024. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple reports of rude behavior, poor communication, and unprofessional appearance, though many reviews praise punctuality and courtesy. Pricing is a major weakness, with numerous complaints of price gouging, hidden charges, and deceptive sales practices (bait-and-switch quotes, triple-charging competitors' rates), offsetting some positive comments about fair pricing. Project completion is undermined by warranty disputes, incomplete work, failure to honor commitments, and unresolved follow-up issues. Experience and workmanship are generally praised when jobs are completed, but execution quality is inconsistent. The company's 20+ years in business is noted, yet recent reviews (2021–2024) contain severe complaints about service quality and ethics.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2023-04-29 and 2021-08-24 contain near-identical or duplicate text ('Michael and his team (Anthony) are amazing...', 'They are on time, do a great job, and clean up after themselves', 'Michael is always professional timely, courteous...'), suggesting artificially inflated ratings. Two reviews marked 'N/A' with 5-star ratings (2021-08-24) provide no substantive data.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 3–13 years old (2011–2017). Recent reviews (2021, 2024) are predominantly negative (1-star ratings with detailed complaints), indicating potential service quality decline or reputation damage.
• ETHICAL RED FLAGS: Multiple reviews document deceptive practices including bait-and-switch pricing (2015), refusal to honor warranties (2021, 2015), taking customer parts without authorization (2021), and misrepresenting pricing breakdowns (2021). One review (2013) reports the company operates from a 'junk yard' address with no legitimate office.
• INCONSISTENT COMPANY IDENTITY: Reviews reference name changes ('Carrier' to 'MasterTech') and unclear business structure, raising questions about accountability and legitimacy.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2021, 2015) document refusal to honor stated warranty terms and demands for additional payment for follow-up service on failed repairs.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE HOSTILITY: 2024 and 2021 reviews document rude, yelling customer service representatives and abrupt call terminations, contradicting professionalism claims.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 33 reviews with HIGH confidence in dimension mentions, the dataset is heavily skewed toward older reviews (2011–2017) with artificially inflated ratings, and recent reviews (2021–2024) reveal serious ethical and service quality issues including deceptive pricing, warranty violations, and hostile customer service. The presence of duplicate/fake reviews further undermines confidence. A potential customer should prioritize recent negative reviews and seek independent verification before engaging this contractor.

Metro Irrigation presents a deeply polarized review profile. Positive reviewers consistently praise Victor as punctual, knowledgeable, professional, and fairly priced, with several long-term repeat customers attesting to reliable service over multiple years. However, four negative reviews — three of which are from 2020 or later — describe serious professionalism failures including rudeness, refusal to complete work, dismissiveness toward customers, and aggressive behavior when pricing was questioned. One negative review raises a significant competence concern, alleging that a handyman easily fixed what Victor deemed unfixable and quoted $2,850 to replace. The recency trend is concerning: the most recent reviews (2021–2024) are exclusively negative, while the positive reviews are predominantly older (2014–2020), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Pricing scores are dragged down by explicit overcharging complaints and a refusal to use customer-supplied parts, despite older reviews praising fair pricing.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews from 2021 onward are 1-star negative. All reviews from 2018 and earlier are 5-star positive. This pattern suggests a meaningful decline in service quality in recent years and the older positive reviews should be weighted less heavily.
• COMPETENCE CONCERN: One review (2020) alleges that Victor declared a system unfixable and quoted $2,850 for replacement, while a handyman subsequently fixed the issue for a fraction of the cost. This raises questions about either technical competence or honesty.
• ABANDONMENT OF WORK: One review (2023) explicitly states Victor stormed off and refused to continue working mid-job after a pricing disagreement. This is a serious project completion failure.
• PRICING CONDUCT: Multiple negative reviews cite high labor rates, expensive parts markups, refusal to use customer-supplied equivalent parts, and charging for a visit that produced no repair. These directly contradict older claims of fair pricing.
• PATTERN NOTE: The 5-star reviews, while spread across different years, are somewhat generic in structure (short praise, few specific details). However, several do include specific details (8-year relationship, specific repairs, system explanation) so full fake-review flagging is not warranted. Mild caution is noted.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: With only 12 total reviews, each individual review carries significant weight. The score should be interpreted with this limitation in mind.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to consistent mention counts across all dimensions, but the score itself should be treated with caution given the stark recency divide — prospective customers should weight the 2021–2024 negative reviews most heavily as they reflect the contractor's current service behavior.