Find Nearby Plumbers In Trenton, New Jersey

All three reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of a contractor with serious operational and technical failures. Professionalism scored near the floor due to a forgotten appointment, chronic failure to return calls, excessive phone use on the job, and poor communication across all three reviews. Project completion was equally poor, with work left unfinished, a gas stove installed incorrectly despite repeated warnings about propane, a leaking soldered connection, and significant delays caused by the plumber's absence. Experience scored marginally above zero only because one reviewer noted neat glued pipe connections, but this was heavily outweighed by critical errors including installing the wrong stove hookups, failing to convert a stove to propane, and scratching new flooring during installation. Pricing data was entirely absent from all reviews and could not be scored.

• All three reviews are 1-star ratings — while this could reflect genuine poor performance, the absence of any positive reviews means the dataset is entirely one-sided and may not represent the contractor's full history.
• Review dates span 2010 to 2020 — the most recent review is from November 2020, which is over 4 years old. No recent data is available to assess current performance.
• The oldest review (2010) is over a decade old and should be treated with very low weight. The 2014 review is also significantly dated.
• Only 3 reviews total — this is at the minimum threshold for WW Score calculation. Results should be treated as directional only and not definitive.
• No pricing dimension data was available in any review — the WW Score is calculated on only 3 of 4 dimensions, which reduces its completeness.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are negative and the most recent of which is from 2020, making the score directionally informative but not statistically reliable — treat with caution and seek more current data before drawing firm conclusions.

This company exhibits severe systemic failures across all dimensions. The business appears to have collapsed or undergone problematic ownership changes around 2022, with multiple customers reporting inability to reach the company, unfinished work, and unresponsive management. Professionalism is severely compromised by rude staff, poor communication, and failure to honor warranties or callbacks. Pricing shows a consistent pattern of hidden fees, overcharging, and upselling unnecessary services. Project completion is critically deficient with abandoned work, incomplete repairs requiring customer follow-up, and non-functional installations. While individual technicians occasionally demonstrated adequate technical skill, the company's overall execution and follow-through are extremely poor. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated due to the company's apparent business failure and the overwhelmingly negative nature of all reviews.

• CRITICAL: Company appears to be out of business or under new ownership as of 2022. Multiple reviews reference inability to contact company, unresponsive phone lines, and full voicemail boxes.
• CRITICAL: Class action lawsuit mentioned in reviews. Multiple customers report breach of contract, lost deposits ($4,800-$6,000), and criminal investigation references.
• CRITICAL: All 8 reviews are rated 1.0 or 2.0 stars. No positive reviews present. This is not a mixed portfolio but a uniformly negative one.
• Pattern of incomplete work: Unfinished plumbing (1 year incomplete), non-functional HVAC systems, failed repairs requiring customer to hire alternatives.
• Pattern of hidden/surprise fees: Troubleshooting fees charged after service, inflated labor rates ($190/hour troubleshooting not disclosed upfront), upselling of unnecessary components.
• Pattern of poor follow-up: No response to phone calls, emails, or texts from customers with warranty issues or problems with installed systems.
• All reviews are from 2021-2022 period. No recent reviews available to assess if company has recovered or ceased operations.
• Ethical concerns: Failure to disclose COVID-positive employees to customers, pressure to upsell unnecessary work, poor quality workmanship (lumpy caulk, black mold discovery).

This score cannot be calculated reliably because the company appears to have ceased normal operations or undergone catastrophic business failure by 2022. All eight reviews are uniformly negative with ratings of 1-2 stars, describing breach of contract, abandoned work, unresponsive management, and legal action. This is not a case of mixed customer experiences but rather evidence of systemic business failure. Any engagement with this company carries extreme risk.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score. Additionally, these reviews are highly polarized (1-star vs. 5-star) with conflicting evidence on all dimensions. The 2015 review is over 8 years old and may not reflect current operations. The 2019 review documents serious follow-up failures and unprofessional conduct (no company branding, discount contingent on no receipt). The 2015 review praises professionalism and pricing but cannot be weighted equally against more recent negative experience.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation. Minimum 3 reviews required.
• RECENCY ISSUE: One review is from 2015 (9+ years old); one from 2019 (5 years old). No recent reviews within past 12 months.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: Ratings are 1-star and 5-star with contradictory claims about professionalism and follow-up responsiveness.
• ETHICAL CONCERN: 2019 review explicitly states discount was contingent on customer waiving receipt/invoice — potential red flag for accountability and record-keeping.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: 2019 review documents complete non-responsiveness to callback requests after job failure (toilet re-leaked within 6 months).
• INCONSISTENT PROFESSIONALISM: 2015 review praises technician courtesy and cleanliness; 2019 review criticizes lack of company branding and owner identity verification issues.

This score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume (n=2), extreme recency gap (oldest review is 9 years old), and contradictory evidence across dimensions. Do not use this score for decision-making without obtaining additional recent reviews.

Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism (punctuality, thoroughness, care), project completion (jobs finished completely, follow-through), and experience (technical skill, problem-solving). One review explicitly addresses pricing favorably, noting significant cost savings. However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. All dimensions show strong performance but are based on very limited mention counts (1–2 each), which constrains confidence.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Potential review quality concern: Both reviews are 5-star ratings with enthusiastic language and no critical feedback. While not definitively fake, the absence of any balanced or critical perspective is atypical and warrants caution.
• Limited recency: One review is from November 2023 (older than 12 months); one is from July 2024 (recent). Mixed recency profile.
• All dimensions based on LIMITED confidence due to mention counts of 1–2 each.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews; minimum 3 required). Individual dimension scores are based on very limited evidence and should not be used for decision-making. Collect additional reviews before relying on this contractor's performance metrics.

With only two reviews, meaningful scoring is extremely limited. The single positive review praises Angelo's skill, friendliness, promptness, and quality of work on a full home remodel, which is substantive and specific. However, the negative review raises a serious concern about responsiveness and communication — a core professionalism issue — as the reviewer reports being unable to reach anyone by phone over multiple days. These two reviews pull in opposite directions, and the small sample size prevents any reliable conclusions about consistent performance.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The positive review, while specific and detailed, is a single data point from 2019 and cannot be weighted heavily.
• The negative review explicitly flags a communication/responsiveness failure — unanswered calls over multiple days — which is a meaningful professionalism concern.
• Both reviews are from 2019, making them over 5 years old. Recency is poor; current performance is unknown.
• Insufficient data to assess pricing at all — no review mentions cost, quotes, or value.

This score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews, both dated 2019, with directly conflicting signals on professionalism and no data on pricing — treat any inferences with significant caution.

Only two reviews exist for this contractor, making any scoring highly unreliable. The positive review from 2017 praises fast emergency response, reasonable pricing, and successful completion of multiple jobs including a leak repair, water heater replacement, and appliance installations. However, the negative review from 2015 directly contradicts the advertised 24/7 emergency service claim, reporting a complete failure to respond. The conflict between these two reviews on the core promise of emergency availability is a significant concern. All scores have been kept conservative given the extremely limited data and the direct contradiction between the only two reviews available.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The 24/7 emergency service claim is directly contradicted by one of the two reviews, raising a credibility concern about advertised services.
• Both reviews are older than 7 years (2015 and 2017) — there is no recent data to assess current performance. Scores should be treated as potentially outdated.
• With only one positive and one negative review, no meaningful pattern can be established. Scores reflect a heavily averaged and conservative interpretation.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — only 2 reviews were available, both are over 7 years old, and they directly contradict each other on a core service claim.