Find Nearby Plumbers In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Fagnelli Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 28.4, driven primarily by severe and consistent pricing complaints across 11 reviews, with customers reporting markups of 200-400% compared to competitors. Project completion issues are evident in multiple reviews describing incomplete work, missing parts (stem valves), abandoned callbacks, and delayed follow-up on promised repairs. Professionalism is compromised by poor communication, unresponsiveness to customer inquiries, and defensive behavior when questioned about work quality. While two reviews (from 2010 and 2014) praise Eric's professionalism and fair pricing on specific projects, these are vastly outweighed by 11 negative reviews spanning 2011-2024 documenting systematic overcharging, incomplete diagnostics, and customer abandonment. The company's pattern of targeting vulnerable populations (elderly customers, emergency situations, warranty work) and reluctance to provide itemized estimates or work with insurance companies suggests deliberate business practices designed to maximize charges rather than serve customer interests.

• CRITICAL: Overwhelming pattern of pricing abuse — 11 of 13 reviews explicitly cite excessive charges, with documented markups of $3,700 vs. $1,500 (HVAC compressor), $8,900 vs. $5,000 (boiler), $500+ vs. $139 (faucet installation), $420 vs. reasonable rates (tankless heater), and $600 vs. $145 (pressure regulator). This is not isolated — it is systematic.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document incomplete or negligent work — missing stem valves after AC service, zero refrigerant not detected during 'free inspection,' furnace with recurring issues after 5 years, dye test results never provided despite payment.
• CRITICAL: Predatory targeting of vulnerable customers — elderly widow during husband's terminal illness, emergency Sunday calls, warranty situations, and customers without technical knowledge.
• CRITICAL: Poor communication and unresponsiveness — customers report inability to reach technicians, managers refusing to provide information, delayed callbacks (2 weeks for boiler removal), and cancellation of promised 'free' inspections.
• CRITICAL: Resistance to transparency — no itemized estimates provided, refusal to work with insurance companies, no checklist documentation for 'free' inspections, no response to requests for materials/labor breakdown.
• CRITICAL: Defensive behavior when questioned — owner insinuating customer dishonesty, immediate apologies when caught, refusal to escalate complaints to management.
• CRITICAL: Billing irregularities — double-charging documented in at least one review, refusal to refund overcharges without extended negotiation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While 2 positive reviews exist (2010, 2014), 11 negative reviews span 2011-2024, with 6 reviews from 2015-2024 showing no improvement in practices. Recent reviews (2019, 2024) describe identical patterns of overcharging and poor follow-up.
• POSITIVE OUTLIER: Two reviews (Eric, 2010 and 2014) describe professional, fair-priced work with excellent communication. These appear to be exceptions rather than company standard, possibly reflecting individual technician quality rather than systemic practice.
• BUSINESS MODEL RED FLAG: Customer service club described as 'basically a scam' with cancelled 'free' inspections; free AC checks used as lead generation for unnecessary expensive repairs.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 13 detailed reviews with consistent, specific, and documented evidence of systematic overcharging (11 mentions), poor project completion (8 mentions), and professionalism failures (9 mentions). The pattern is not random complaints but rather a documented business model of targeting vulnerable customers with inflated quotes, incomplete work, and aggressive billing practices. The two positive reviews do not contradict this assessment but rather highlight that individual technicians (Eric) may operate differently from company standard. Any customer considering this company should treat this score as a serious warning.

This contractor's review profile is overwhelmingly negative across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is the most critically damaged dimension, with 10 of 12 reviews describing no-shows, ignored calls, unanswered texts and emails, rude or dismissive responses, and broken promises — offset only slightly by two positive reviews praising Wayne and Susie's communication and demeanor. Project completion is similarly alarming, with multiple reviewers reporting abandoned jobs, work left unfinished, failure to return for warranty callbacks, and at least one confirmed installation defect (a disconnected pipe) that caused a $352 water bill and was never remedied. Pricing drew complaints about non-itemized receipts, unexpected requests for additional money mid-job, and evaluation fees charged with no follow-through work delivered. Experience scores marginally higher due to two detailed positive reviews praising Wayne's diagnostic skill and workmanship quality, but is undercut by accounts of shoddy installation, half-finished repairs, and a leaking pipe within three months of service.

• Two 5-star reviews exist among ten 1-star reviews — the positive reviews are specific and plausible, so fake review patterns are not strongly suspected, but the extreme polarization warrants caution.
• The two positive reviews (2021 and 2023) are significantly outnumbered by negative reviews spanning 2018–2024, suggesting persistent and systemic service failures rather than isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews describe an identical pattern: initial contact and evaluation fee collected, followed by repeated broken appointment promises and then complete non-communication — this pattern across unrelated reviewers over six years is a serious reliability red flag.
• At least one review (2018) documents a confirmed installation defect causing property damage that the company refused to remedy, which may indicate liability exposure beyond poor customer service.
• The most recent review (June 2024) is a 1-star, indicating problems have not improved over time. Recency weighting further depresses confidence in any positive trajectory.
• One reviewer explicitly references the PA Consumer Protection office and the BBB, suggesting escalated consumer complaints beyond online reviews may exist.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews with strong cross-dimensional data coverage and HIGH confidence across all scored dimensions; the score of 28.4 should be treated as a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's documented service quality, and prospective customers are strongly advised against engagement based on the volume, consistency, and recency of serious complaints.

Christy Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 28.4, driven by severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Project completion is the most damaging factor, with multiple reviews documenting incomplete repairs, failed callbacks, property damage, and refusal to honor guarantees. Pricing practices are consistently criticized as unfair, with hidden charges for tools, travel time, and inflated labor rates. Professionalism is undermined by poor communication, unresponsive management, and technicians lacking proper tools and knowledge. While some technical competence is evident, it is overshadowed by systemic failures in accountability and customer care. All reviews are from 2018–2022, indicating longstanding operational problems.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document incomplete work and failed follow-up (drain issue repeated within 2 weeks; owner promised callback never occurred; incomplete faucet/disposal job)
• CRITICAL: Property damage allegation with denial of responsibility (pipe damage during snaking; water damage to ceiling and walls; company blamed customer's old pipes)
• CRITICAL: Refusal to return customer-supplied parts and overcharging for service (customer had replacement valve; charged $128 for assessment; later charged $222 for repeat service)
• CRITICAL: Hidden and excessive charges (tool surcharge of $50; travel time charges; labor rates of $98/hour for simple cartridge replacement)
• CRITICAL: Unresponsive management (owner promised callback within 1-2 days; customer had to follow up after one week with no response)
• Pattern of poor technical execution (technician disassembled wrong valve; lacked proper tools; second plumber questioned first plumber's thoroughness)
• All reviews are negative (1–3 stars); no positive reviews to balance assessment
• Oldest review is from 2018; most recent is 2022; no recent reviews to indicate improvement

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on six detailed reviews with consistent patterns of failure across all four dimensions, spanning four years with no evidence of improvement or positive counterbalance.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe severe failures across all four dimensions, with repeated patterns of no-shows, missed appointments without notice, work marked as completed when it was never performed, and outright misdiagnosis of HVAC and plumbing issues. Professionalism is critically low, with multiple reviewers citing technicians arriving late without apology, staff hanging up on customers, and complete breakdowns in communication and follow-through. Project completion is the most damning dimension: multiple reviewers describe jobs left unfinished for months, units removed and never replaced, and fraudulent reporting to insurance and warranty companies. The handful of positive reviews praising responsiveness, affordability, and quality workmanship are vastly outnumbered and do not offset the volume and severity of negative experiences. A small number of genuinely positive interactions — particularly involving technician Joshua on plumbing jobs — prevent the scores from reaching absolute zero.

• FRAUD CONCERN: Multiple reviewers independently allege that the company falsely reported work as completed to home warranty and insurance companies without performing the service, then collected payment. This is a serious ethical and potentially legal red flag.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: At least 6 separate reviews describe scheduled appointments where no technician arrived and no proactive communication was made — a systemic reliability failure.
• POSSIBLE FAKE/GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEWS: The 5-star review dated 2017-10-30 is highly generic, uses no specific details, names no technicians, and reads like a template. It is treated with reduced confidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews are from 2018–2022. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to mid-2023) are present, so current performance cannot be assessed. The most recent negative review is from July 2022.
• MISDIAGNOSIS DOCUMENTED: At least two reviews explicitly describe incorrect technical diagnoses (gas valve misdiagnosis, furnace filter blame to void warranty), suggesting a pattern of incompetence or deliberate deception rather than isolated errors.
• INSURANCE/WARRANTY MANIPULATION: Multiple reviewers allege the company exploits home warranty relationships — billing for unperformed work, providing misleading reports to void claims, and operating as the sole approved vendor in some areas, limiting consumer recourse.

This WW Score is based on 17 reviews with strong cross-dimensional coverage and HIGH confidence across all scored dimensions; the score of 28.1 is considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's documented performance, and the volume and specificity of negative reviews — including serious fraud allegations — make this assessment highly credible.

The review set for Brookline Plumber is heavily weighted toward negative experiences, with three 1-star reviews describing serious failures including property damage, incomplete work, shoddy sewer repairs, and unauthorized service charges. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by one reviewer reporting the owner hung up when called to complain, and another flagging misleading warranty practices. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with explicit accounts of half-filled excavation holes, sunken ditches after sewer repair, and covered rain conductors — all indicating poor follow-through and workmanship. The three positive reviews are older (2015–2018) and describe simpler jobs such as a valve replacement and dryer hookup, offering limited counterbalance to the pattern of serious failures on more complex projects. Pricing received a modest positive mention in one review ($125 for a valve job), but the sample is too small to draw reliable conclusions.

• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are from 2015–2022, with the most recent being November 2022. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, reducing confidence in current service quality.
• PATTERN WARNING: The three positive reviews are all for relatively minor or simple jobs (dryer hookup, valve replacement, emergency availability), while the three negative reviews all involve more complex work (drainage pipe installation, sewer repair, warranty service). This suggests a possible skill gap between simple and complex plumbing tasks.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review explicitly describes property damage (damaged neighboring property, removed $300 of landscaping stone), and another describes unauthorized work performed without client approval — both are significant red flags beyond typical service complaints.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE FLAG: One reviewer reports the owner hung up the phone when called to complain, indicating a serious breakdown in post-service accountability.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated with caution given the small sample size, though the pattern of negative feedback is consistent enough to be meaningful.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small review volume (6 reviews), the age of all reviews (none within the past 12 months), and a stark split between positive reviews on simple jobs and serious negative reviews on complex work — however, the consistency and specificity of the negative accounts lend credibility to the low scores assigned.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. Three reviews document serious misconduct including verbal abuse, sexual harassment, property damage, abandonment of work, extortion-like pricing demands, and dishonesty about agreements. One positive review from 2017 acknowledges technical competence in an emergency heating repair, but this single instance cannot offset the pattern of harmful behavior documented in three separate accounts. The contractor's willingness to hold work hostage for cash payments and deny prior agreements represents fundamental breaches of professional conduct.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (dated 2019-10-30) are nearly identical in text, structure, and detail—suggesting either a duplicate submission or coordinated reporting. However, the third 1-star review from 2021 independently corroborates the same patterns (dishonesty, overcharging, property damage, verbal abuse), lending credibility to the complaint pattern rather than suggesting fake reviews.
• PATTERN ALERT: Three of four reviews describe serious misconduct (verbal abuse, sexual harassment, extortion-like behavior, property damage, abandonment). The consistency and specificity of these complaints across independent accounts (2021, 2019, 2017) suggests systemic behavioral issues rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2017, 2019). The most recent complaint (2021) is still 3+ years old. Current contractor behavior is unknown.
• CONFLICT: One 5-star review (2017) contradicts the pattern, describing professional and expert service. This suggests the contractor may perform well in certain contexts (emergency repairs) but exhibits serious misconduct in others (permit/inspection work, customer disputes).

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews) and age of data, but the pattern of corroborating complaints across multiple independent accounts regarding dishonesty, overcharging, and misconduct is sufficiently consistent and specific to warrant serious concern. The single positive review does not mitigate the severity of documented harmful behavior.