Find Nearby Plumbers In Trenton, New Jersey

Gold Medal Services exhibits a deeply polarized customer experience. While individual technicians frequently demonstrate strong professionalism, technical knowledge, and courteous behavior (earning high marks for experience and professionalism), the company is severely undermined by systemic issues in pricing practices and project completion reliability. Extensive evidence documents aggressive upselling, inflated estimates (often 2-10x market rates), and widespread appointment no-shows and cancellations. The Inside Edition scandal regarding fraudulent diagnostics appears repeatedly across reviews, suggesting a pattern rather than isolated incidents. Despite positive individual interactions, the company's business practices—particularly around pricing transparency and follow-through on commitments—create a fundamentally untrustworthy customer experience.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews reference Inside Edition exposé documenting the company charging $1,736 for a loose wire—this scandal is mentioned in at least 8 separate reviews and appears to be a documented public incident, not isolated complaints
• PATTERN OF FAKE REVIEWS DETECTED: Approximately 40-50 reviews show nearly identical positive language, generic praise without specifics, and suspiciously clustered 5-star ratings from June 2025 and May 2025. Examples include repetitive phrases like 'very knowledgeable,' 'professional,' 'answered all my questions' with minimal detail. These appear concentrated in specific date ranges (5/7/2025, 6/5-6/9/2025) suggesting potential review manipulation
• SYSTEMIC PRICING FRAUD: At least 45+ reviews document egregious overcharging: $1,100 for a thermostat (market rate ~$350), $1,400 for a simple valve (market rate ~$300), $2,750 for 6 smoke detectors (market rate ~$600), $589 to replace one light fixture, $17,000 HVAC estimate vs. $9,100 from competitor for identical unit. Pattern is consistent across years and technicians
• NO-SHOW AND CANCELLATION EPIDEMIC: 60+ reviews document missed appointments, last-minute cancellations, failure to call customers, and broken 'same-day guarantee' promises. Many customers report taking time off work only to be stood up with no communication
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY CRISIS: Service contract holders report being deprioritized; emergency appointments cancelled in favor of paying customers; 3+ month wait times for maintenance despite paid memberships
• FOLLOW-UP SERVICE FAILURE: 35+ reviews report inability to reach company for warranty work, follow-up repairs, or issue resolution. Customers report 20+ phone calls with no callbacks, emails ignored, and being transferred endlessly without reaching decision-makers
• INSTALLATION QUALITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews document poor installation practices (ductwork blocking attic access, improper drainage causing ceiling leaks, debris left in attic, exposed wires, improperly installed components)
• MEMBERSHIP PROGRAM DECEPTION: Customers report paying $250-$300 for 'priority service' memberships that provide no actual priority; dispatch fees still charged despite membership; automatic renewal without clear disclosure
• RECENCY CONCERN: While older reviews (2017-2019) show more balanced feedback, reviews from 2021 onward show dramatically increased complaints about pricing, reliability, and follow-up service, suggesting company-wide deterioration
• BBB COMPLAINTS REFERENCED: Multiple reviews mention filing complaints with Better Business Bureau and state attorneys general, suggesting formal regulatory scrutiny

This WW Score of 52.3 should be treated with caution due to apparent review manipulation inflating the professionalism and experience scores, but the score accurately reflects a company with serious systemic problems in pricing practices and project completion reliability despite individual technician competence. The extensive documentation of pricing fraud, appointment failures, and follow-up service breakdowns across hundreds of independent reviews spanning multiple years suggests these are not isolated incidents but rather company-wide operational failures. Customers should expect high-quality individual technician work but should be extremely cautious about pricing transparency, appointment reliability, and warranty service follow-through.

This review set is a composite of two distinct contractors — ASAP Plumbing (Phoenix/Tempe, AZ) and Rubber Duck Plumbing (New Jersey) — whose reviews appear to have been mixed together, severely complicating analysis. ASAP Plumbing reviews (predominantly 2025, mostly positive) describe responsive technicians, fair pricing, and completed work, while Rubber Duck Plumbing reviews (spanning 2011–2024, overwhelmingly negative) describe chronic no-shows, non-communication, fraudulent warranty reporting, upselling, and rude behavior. When scored as a combined dataset, the volume and severity of Rubber Duck's failures — including abandoned jobs, no-shows across dozens of reviews, and alleged fraud — drag all four dimensions sharply downward. Professionalism and project completion are particularly devastated by Rubber Duck's pattern of missed appointments, unreturned calls, and incomplete work. Pricing scores are mixed: ASAP Plumbing drew some overcharging complaints but also praise for fair rates, while Rubber Duck drew complaints of upselling and billing for work never performed.

• CRITICAL: Reviews appear to belong to TWO DIFFERENT COMPANIES — ASAP Plumbing (AZ) and Rubber Duck Plumbing (NJ). These should not be scored together. Results are unreliable until reviews are separated by contractor.
• Rubber Duck Plumbing shows a severe and consistent pattern across 30+ reviews spanning 2012–2024: repeated no-shows, failure to return calls, abandoned jobs, and alleged fraudulent reporting to home warranty companies. This is not isolated — it is a systemic pattern.
• Several Rubber Duck reviews describe potential fraud: billing for work not performed, cashing checks after credit card payment, and coaching customers that insurance would cover work it did not cover.
• ASAP Plumbing has a cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-26 all with 5-star ratings and minimal detail ('Good company.', 'Saul was great!', 'Super fast and friendly.'). This pattern is consistent with possible review padding or solicited reviews and should be treated with caution.
• Two reviews in the dataset contain no text (only a 5-star rating and date). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review (2024-10-05) references 'Rubber Duck Plumbing' installing a furnace — outside the scope of plumbing — and describes the owner screaming a homophobic slur at a customer. This is an extreme professionalism failure.
• Recency note: All ASAP Plumbing reviews are from 2025 (within 12 months). Rubber Duck Plumbing reviews span 2011–2024, with the majority of negative reviews from 2016–2023. The most recent Rubber Duck review is from 2024.
• The Rubber Duck owner has threatened legal action (slander/defamation) against reviewers in multiple public responses, which is itself a red flag for business conduct.
• DO NOT USE THIS COMBINED WW SCORE for decision-making. The score must be recalculated separately for each contractor before it has any practical value.

This WW Score is NOT reliable for evaluating either contractor individually, as the review dataset contains reviews for two entirely separate businesses operating in different states; the score should be considered invalid until the reviews are properly separated and each contractor is scored independently.

Pricing is the dominant and most damaging theme across this review set, with 15 of 17 reviews explicitly mentioning excessive, opaque, or exploitative charges — including multiple accounts of targeting elderly or vulnerable customers with inflated bills and no itemized invoices. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by repeated reports of deceptive behavior, such as placing promotional stickers on appliances he was not hired to service, attempting to upsell unnecessary replacements, and refusing to provide written estimates or itemized bills. Project completion scores are moderate, as several reviewers acknowledge the work was technically finished, but the context of overcharging and manipulation undermines the value of that completion. Experience and workmanship receive some genuine praise from long-term customers, but these positive signals are outnumbered and outweighed by the volume and specificity of negative reports. The overall picture is of a technically capable plumber whose business practices — particularly around pricing transparency and treatment of vulnerable customers — are a serious and well-documented concern.

• PRICING EXPLOITATION PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers explicitly describe targeting of elderly or vulnerable customers with inflated charges and no itemized billing. This is a serious and recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• NON-TRANSPARENT BILLING: At least 4 reviews specifically mention refusal or inability to provide itemized bills, which is a significant consumer protection concern.
• DECEPTIVE UPSELLING: At least 2 reviews describe attempts to sell unnecessary replacements (water heater, toilet) to customers who did not need them.
• STICKER PLACEMENT INCIDENT: One reviewer noted contractor placed promotional stickers on appliances he was not hired to service — flagged as a sleazy and unprofessional business tactic.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: The positive reviews (5-star) are notably generic in praise ('impeccable work,' 'highly recommend') and lack the specific detail present in negative reviews. One negative reviewer explicitly suggests family members may have written positive reviews. Confidence in positive signals is reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2022–2024) are predominantly negative and pricing-focused, suggesting conditions may have worsened over time. Positive reviews are concentrated in 2017–2019. More weight has been given to recent reviews per scoring rules.
• DATE RANGE: Reviews span 2011–2024. Several reviews are older than 3 years and have been weighted accordingly, with 2022–2024 reviews treated as primary signals.

This WW Score is based on 17 reviews with strong cross-dimensional data and is considered HIGH reliability overall; however, the score should be interpreted as a serious warning signal given the consistent, specific, and multi-year pattern of pricing exploitation and non-transparent billing practices documented across the majority of reviews.

The two positive reviews (2024) highlight individual technicians — Brenden and Louis — as professional, communicative, and skilled, with Louis specifically praised for camera work and cleanup. However, the two negative reviews introduce serious concerns: one describes rude and deceptive customer service from a scheduler named Patty, excessive and opaque fees totaling $700 with no resolution on a pool leak, and a claim that the company admitted they are 'not leak experts.' The second negative review describes a plumbing repair that was grossly overpriced, done incorrectly, and then not honored under warranty without additional payment. The mixed record across professionalism, pricing, and project completion pulls the overall score down significantly. The two older negative reviews, particularly the 2019 plumbing review, may reflect past practices, but the 2023 negative review is recent enough to carry meaningful weight.

• RECENCY CONCERN: One negative review is from 2019 and may not reflect current practices; however, the 2023 negative review is within the past 12–18 months and remains relevant.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURE: The 2023 review explicitly names a scheduler (Patty) as rude, argumentative, and deceptive about management — this is a significant professionalism red flag at the organizational level, not just technician level.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: The 2023 review describes multiple unexplained $200 add-on fees, suggesting a lack of transparent upfront pricing.
• WARRANTY VIOLATION: The 2019 review describes a warranty being effectively voided unless additional payment was made — a serious project completion and ethics concern.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. Scores are based on very limited data and should be treated with caution. The WW Score cannot be considered reliable at this sample size.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and date — no signs of coordinated or fabricated reviews.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 5 years, making it statistically unreliable — treat it as a directional signal only, not a definitive assessment of this contractor's quality.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 4 reviews spanning 2014 to 2022. Three reviews offer generic praise for professionalism and quality, but lack specific detail, raising concerns about their reliability as evidence. The single negative review is highly detailed and damaging, describing deceptive hourly billing practices, incomplete work (AC left non-functional), and a threatening physical altercation with the owner including property damage to a customer's vehicle. The negative review alone significantly drags down professionalism, pricing, and project completion scores. Given the small review pool and the severity of the documented incident, no dimension can be scored with high confidence.

• SUSPECTED LOW-QUALITY POSITIVE REVIEWS: Three of the four positive reviews use vague, generic praise ('top notch', 'best quality', 'highly recommend') with little to no specific detail about the work performed. This pattern is consistent with potentially inflated or low-effort reviews.
• SEVERE NEGATIVE INCIDENT: One review documents fraudulent billing (charging travel and shop time without disclosure), incomplete work (AC non-functional after service), owner threatening behavior, and deliberate property damage (dent kicked into customer's car). This review also states the matter became a police issue.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only one review is within the past 3 years (2022). Two reviews are over 4 years old, and one is from 2014. The review base is stale and may not reflect current business practices.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total. The WW Score carries very low statistical reliability and should be treated with significant caution.
• LIFETIME LABOR GUARANTEE CLAIM: One review mentions a 'lifetime labor guarantee' — this is an unverified marketing claim repeated in a review and cannot be confirmed from available data.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with a wide date range spanning nearly a decade, a pattern of generic positive reviews, and one severe and highly specific negative incident — the score should be considered very low confidence and prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional verified references before hiring.

This contractor's review record is dominated by serious reliability failures. Three of four reviews explicitly describe repeated no-shows across multiple scheduled appointments, which severely drags down both professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is flagged negatively in one review (cash-only, higher cost) and positively in one older review, resulting in a low but mixed score. The single positive review is detailed and credible, praising promptness, cleanliness, fair pricing, and effective problem-solving, but it is heavily outweighed by the pattern of negative experiences. Overall, the data paints a picture of a contractor who is unreliable and difficult to depend on for follow-through.

• Three out of four reviews explicitly describe repeated no-shows and appointment failures — this is a strong and consistent pattern of unreliability.
• The one positive review (dated 2013) is the oldest review in the set and predates all negative reviews; it may reflect a different period of business operation and should be weighted accordingly.
• One review mentions a cash-only payment requirement, which may indicate non-standard business practices and warrants caution.
• Review volume is very low (only 4 reviews total), spanning from 2013 to 2018. No reviews are within the past 12 months relative to the most recent date provided, reducing confidence in current performance.
• With only 4 reviews, no WW Score should be considered reliable — treat this result as directional only.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning several years, with no recent data, and should be treated as LOW reliability — the directional signal (poor performance) is consistent, but the score cannot be considered statistically robust.