Find Nearby Plumbers In Perth Amboy, New Jersey

This contractor has a deeply mixed and concerning review profile across only 4 reviews. Professionalism is significantly damaged by a detailed account of the owner (Vinny) talking over a customer, bullying her, and hanging up on her — a serious red flag that drags the professionalism score down substantially, partially offset by one positive mention of responsiveness and one glowing endorsement. Project completion is similarly mixed: one reviewer praised same-day emergency service, but another describes a warranty dispute where work was done but the customer was wrongly charged and had to involve an attorney to recover funds, and a third reviewer describes being denied a warranty service appointment entirely. Pricing receives a very low score due to the explicit account of a $480 charge for work that was confirmed to be under a 5-year manufacturer warranty. Experience scores modestly positive based on two reviews praising Vinny's research and product knowledge, but this is based on limited data and cannot offset the serious service and conduct issues documented elsewhere.

• Most reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent review is from January 2019, meaning all reviews are over 5 years old. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable due to very small sample size.
• Serious misconduct allegation: one reviewer describes the owner being verbally aggressive, talking over her, and hanging up on her during a legitimate warranty dispute.
• Warranty fraud concern: one reviewer was charged $480 for work confirmed to be under a 5-year manufacturer warranty. The customer required legal intervention to recover funds.
• One reviewer describes selective availability — willing to send someone same-day only if the job is billable, but refusing to schedule warranty service appointments. This suggests a pattern of avoiding warranty obligations.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the two 5-star reviews are generic and lack specific detail compared to the detailed negative reviews, which reduces confidence in the positive scores.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 4 reviews, all older than 5 years, a small sample that includes serious documented misconduct, and no recent data to indicate whether service quality has improved or declined.

This contractor has a deeply mixed and largely negative review profile across all four dimensions. Two of the three reviews describe serious workmanship failures including loose connections, improper gas lines not up to code, and unauthorized cutting of structural beams — dragging the experience score down significantly. Project completion is a major concern, with one reviewer explicitly stating the owner ignored calls and left work unfinished for over five months. Professionalism scores are similarly low, with two reviewers describing the owner as dismissive, unresponsive, and complaint-prone, though one positive review does highlight two specific plumbers as professional and respectful. Pricing received only one mention, describing charges as astronomical with pushback on reasonable requests, warranting a low and limited-confidence score.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as low reliability due to small sample size.
• Reviews span from 2016 to 2019 — all reviews are older than 5 years and none fall within the past 12 months. Current performance cannot be assessed.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific names, job details, and varied sentiment, suggesting authenticity.
• One review explicitly mentions safety and code violations (gas lines, loose connections) — this is a serious red flag beyond scoring and may warrant consumer caution independent of the WW Score.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 5 years old, and should be considered very low reliability — it reflects a limited historical snapshot and cannot be used to confidently assess the contractor's current quality or practices.

This contractor's review profile is overwhelmingly negative across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of rude, dismissive, and threatening behavior from both the owner (Chris) and technicians, with one reviewer describing the owner as telling a customer he did not want to hear their complaints and another reporting a technician hung up on them. Pricing concerns are pervasive, with multiple reviewers alleging they were quoted far higher prices than what second-opinion contractors charged, and one reviewer noting the company refused to itemize a bill. Project completion is critically low, with documented cases of abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, improperly installed equipment left in disrepair for months, and a pattern of the owner becoming unreachable after full payment. Technical experience scores marginally above the floor only because one positive review exists, but it is heavily outweighed by detailed accounts of incompatible equipment installation, shorted electrical terminals, reversed condensation pipes, and improper filter placement confirmed as incorrect by the manufacturer itself.

• 12 out of 13 reviews are 1-star; the single 5-star review (2024-08-29) is vague, brief, and contains no specific technical or project details beyond a mention of shoe protectors, which raises authenticity concerns relative to the volume and specificity of negative reviews.
• Multiple reviews independently allege the same technician (Scott) recommended unnecessary full-unit replacements when minor repairs were sufficient, suggesting a possible systemic upselling or fraud pattern.
• Multiple reviews allege the owner (Chris) becomes unresponsive or hostile after receiving full payment, a recurring pattern across reviews spanning 2016 to 2023.
• One review alleges the technician deliberately cut wires and removed a motor from a unit after a pricing dispute, which if accurate constitutes potential criminal conduct beyond a standard service complaint.
• One review alleges work was performed without permits being pulled, which may represent a licensing or code compliance issue.
• Reviews span 2016 to 2024, indicating this is not an isolated incident pattern but a sustained multi-year trend of complaints.
• The single positive review should be treated as LOW confidence given the overwhelming volume and specificity of negative reviews surrounding it.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence and is considered a reliable representation of this contractor's service quality, supported by 13 reviews with detailed, specific, and independently corroborating accounts across all four scored dimensions over an eight-year period.

Every single review is a 1-star complaint describing serious, recurring failures across all dimensions. The contractor is repeatedly accused of taking deposits or full payments and then disappearing without completing required permit sign-offs or follow-through work. Communication is described as non-existent — calls, texts, and messages went unanswered for months and even years. At least one reviewer pursued and won a Small Claims Court judgment, which remained unpaid. The pattern across all five reviews is strikingly consistent: money taken, work abandoned, and no accountability.

• ALL 5 reviews are 1-star — this is a uniformly negative dataset with no positive outliers.
• Multiple reviews describe the same pattern: payment accepted in full or as deposit, followed by complete abandonment of the job and loss of contact. This suggests a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• At least two reviews explicitly mention failure to obtain Department of Buildings permit sign-offs, which may constitute a legal or licensing violation.
• One reviewer reports winning a Small Claims Court judgment that went unpaid as of October 2015, indicating potential fraud or financial insolvency.
• The contractor reportedly blocked a customer who left an honest review and accused them of harassment — a significant red flag for accountability and professionalism.
• All reviews are dated between 2015 and 2017. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current business status and behavior cannot be confirmed from this data alone.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews are specific, detailed, and independently describe distinct incidents with named individuals, dates, and dollar amounts, lending them high credibility.

This WW Score is based on 5 reviews, all of which are highly specific and credible, and the score of approximately 8 should be treated as a reliable and serious warning against hiring this contractor.

The reviews available paint a consistently negative picture across all scored dimensions. One reviewer describes a contractor who accepted payment for a service visit but never returned to complete the repair, leaving a tenant without heat or hot water for a week during winter — a severe failure in both professionalism and project completion. A second reviewer reports multiple faulty installations including a dishwasher, water heater, vanity, and toilet, all installed incorrectly, indicating serious deficiencies in workmanship and technical skill. Pricing received a very low score because the one mention involves a $150 charge for a visit that produced no results and was never followed through. The first review, describing a driver's dangerous behavior on the road, was noted but contains no actionable data about the contractor's actual work quality.

• One review (1-star, dated 2020-05-05) is based solely on observing a vehicle on the road and contains no direct experience with the contractor's services. It was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable workmanship or service data.
• All three reviews are 1-star ratings, which is a strong negative signal, but the small sample size (3 reviews total) limits statistical reliability.
• The most recent review is from 2020 and the oldest from 2016. All reviews are more than 3 years old, meaning current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• With only 3 reviews and all predating 2021, this score should be treated with significant caution. Business practices may have changed since these reviews were written, but there is no positive data to offset the negative record.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are over 3 years old and all rated 1 star, making the score directionally informative but statistically unreliable — treat with caution and seek more current references before making a hiring decision.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, with critical recency and consistency issues. The single positive review from 2021 is generic and lacks detail. Two highly negative reviews from 2015–2016 cite severe failures in project completion (generator installation abandoned after nearly 2 years) and professionalism (owner stopped returning calls, ignored warranty obligations). The company's responsiveness and follow-through are explicitly questioned across negative reviews. Pricing dimension has no explicit mentions.

• CRITICAL RECENCY ISSUE: Two of three reviews are from 2015–2016 (8–9 years old). Only one review from past 12 months. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for reliable scoring.
• SEVERE NEGATIVE PATTERN: Two 1-star reviews cite abandonment of major projects and failure to honor commitments. These are not minor complaints.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE SCOPE: Reviews mention plumbing, LED lighting, and electrical work (generator). Unclear if same team or different contractors.
• POSITIVE REVIEW LACKS SPECIFICITY: 2021 review is vague ('pleased with their work') with no detail, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and severe recency bias (67% of reviews older than 8 years). The two detailed negative reviews raise serious concerns about project completion and professionalism, but current operational quality cannot be assessed from this data alone. Do not rely on this analysis for decision-making.