Find Nearby Plumbers In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Gillece Services receives an extremely low WW Score of 18.5, driven by catastrophic performance across all dimensions. The company exhibits severe systemic failures in project completion, with 56 reviews documenting chronic no-shows, cancellations, and broken appointments—often occurring multiple times per customer. Pricing is the most damaging dimension (score: 12.0), with 67 reviews detailing predatory pricing practices, including quotes 3-10x higher than competitors for identical work, bait-and-switch tactics, and aggressive upselling of unnecessary services. Professionalism is compromised by poor communication, dismissive attitudes, and high-pressure sales tactics. While a small subset of reviews (approximately 8) praise individual technicians for technical competence and honesty, these positive experiences are vastly outweighed by evidence of systemic fraud, misdiagnosis, and exploitation—particularly targeting seniors and vulnerable customers.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of predatory pricing across 67 reviews—quotes consistently 3-10x market rate for identical services
• CRITICAL: Chronic no-show and cancellation pattern documented in 56 reviews; customers report 2-4 cancellations per appointment cycle
• CRITICAL: Evidence of deliberate misdiagnosis and unnecessary upselling (e.g., recommending $10k furnace replacements when $200 repair sufficed; $9k gas line quotes vs. $1.8k market rate)
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews reference Pennsylvania Attorney General investigation for bait-and-switch tactics and fraud
• CRITICAL: Exploitation of vulnerable populations explicitly documented—seniors, homeowners in emergency situations, and uninformed customers targeted with inflated estimates
• CRITICAL: Commission-based compensation model explicitly mentioned as incentive for unnecessary upselling
• CRITICAL: Warranty fraud documented—company denies coverage explicitly stated in written contracts
• CRITICAL: Work quality issues—multiple reports of incomplete repairs, callbacks required, and damage caused by technicians
• CRITICAL: Deceptive advertising—$49-$99 promotional offers used as bait; actual charges 4-8x advertised price
• CRITICAL: Lack of transparency—refusal to provide itemized quotes, detailed estimates, or copies of agreements
• CRITICAL: Poor follow-up—customers report 10+ unanswered calls and weeks without response to complaints
• POSITIVE OUTLIERS: Approximately 8 reviews (5-star) praise individual technicians (Justin Daley, Steven Thompson, Jacob Taylor, Scott Christian, Mike Dimperio, Eric, Tiffany, Ed) for honesty, professionalism, and fair pricing—suggesting individual technician integrity exists but is systematically undermined by company policies
• RECENCY: Negative reviews span from 2016-2024 with consistent patterns, indicating systemic issues are not recent aberrations but long-standing business model
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Low—the 8 positive reviews contain specific technician names, detailed service descriptions, and acknowledge company-level scheduling issues, suggesting authenticity; negative reviews are highly detailed with specific dollar amounts, competitor quotes, and follow-up actions

This WW Score of 18.5 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 42-67 mentions each). The score is supported by overwhelming, consistent, and detailed evidence spanning 8+ years of customer complaints documenting identical patterns of predatory pricing, no-shows, misdiagnosis, and exploitation. The company is actively under investigation by the Pennsylvania Attorney General. This score should be trusted as a strong warning against using this contractor.

Nussbaumer Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with the vast majority of the 125 reviews describing serious, repeated failures. Professionalism is devastated by dozens of accounts of unreturned calls, rude office staff, threatening behavior by technicians, no-shows within scheduled windows, and outright hostile interactions with the owner. Project completion is perhaps the most critically scored dimension, with scores of reviewers describing jobs left unfinished, problems made worse after visits, months-long delays, and the company falsely reporting jobs as complete to home warranty companies to collect fees without doing work. Pricing is flagged heavily for unjustified out-of-pocket charges, inflated quotes for unnecessary work, and a consistent pattern of using home warranty assignments to extract maximum fees while delivering minimal service. Technical experience scores marginally higher only because a small number of positive reviews describe competent individual technicians, but this is vastly outweighed by accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong parts, broken fixtures left in worse condition, and work that failed within days or weeks. The few positive reviews (approximately 18 out of 125) are largely brief, generic, and heavily concentrated in older date ranges (2016-2017), while the overwhelming volume of detailed, specific negative reviews spans 2018 through mid-2025.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR SOLICITED POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Amazing company to work with!', 'Very professional company and great to work with! This is the one to call!', 'great work', 'Very well.') with no specific details, names, or job descriptions. Three such reviews appear on the same date (2024-09-11) with identical generic praise, which is a strong indicator of review manipulation.
• ONE REVIEW EXPLICITLY STATES the company begged for a 5-star rating with a $50 drawing incentive, directly confirming solicitation of fake positive reviews.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 4 pairs of near-identical or fully identical reviews were submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., the two 'Do not use these company. they are a scammer' reviews dated 2024-09-16 and 2024-10-11; the two detailed March 24 shower timeline reviews dated 2024-05-17; the two Nussbaumer AHS vanity sink reviews dated 2022-10-23; the two horrendous toilet service reviews dated 2021-03-24; and the two 2021-08-10/11 gas line reviews). These duplicates were counted as single unique incidents for scoring purposes.
• BBB F-RATING CORROBORATED: Multiple independent reviewers across different years reference Nussbaumer Plumbing's F rating with the Better Business Bureau, lending external credibility to the pattern of complaints.
• SYSTEMIC FRAUD PATTERN: A large number of reviews describe a consistent scheme of misdiagnosing covered warranty claims as non-covered, fabricating reports to warranty companies, charging service fees without performing work, and upselling unnecessary parts and services. This pattern is too consistent and specific across too many independent reviewers to be coincidental.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024-2025) are almost entirely 1-star and describe the same systemic issues, indicating no improvement over time. Positive reviews are disproportionately older (2016-2017) and brief.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviewers describe the owner Todd Nussbaumer personally yelling at customers, threatening to remove installed equipment unless paid immediately, and responding to negative reviews with attacks on customer character rather than resolution.

This WW Score of 18.4 is based on an exceptionally large volume of detailed, specific, and independently corroborated reviews and should be considered highly reliable; the score accurately reflects a contractor with systemic, documented failures across all measured dimensions, and the small number of positive reviews show strong indicators of being solicited or fabricated.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by chronic no-shows (5+ instances documented), missed appointments without notification, late arrivals, unprofessional behavior including screaming at staff and customers, and poor communication. Pricing is a major complaint with 20 reviews citing excessive charges, bait-and-switch tactics, hidden fees, and overcharging relative to market rates—often 2-3x typical pricing. Project completion is severely hampered by abandoned work, incomplete callbacks over months, unfinished installations, and failure to honor commitments. While a few reviews acknowledge acceptable workmanship quality, the overwhelming pattern shows poor technical execution, misdiagnosis, and damage caused by negligent installation. The company's repeated invocation of "Christian ownership" while engaging in deceptive practices is explicitly noted as hypocritical by multiple reviewers.

• CRITICAL: 26 of 28 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints. Only 2 positive reviews (5-star) exist, both brief and generic. This is NOT a fake review pattern—it is a genuine pattern of severe customer dissatisfaction.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple independent reviewers report identical issues: no-shows without notification, promised callbacks never occurring, excessive pricing relative to market, and incomplete work. These are not isolated incidents but systemic failures.
• ETHICAL CONCERN: Company advertises as "Christian owned business" while multiple reviews document deceptive pricing practices, unauthorized work, threats, and refusal to honor commitments. This contradiction is explicitly flagged by customers.
• LEGAL EXPOSURE: At least 3 reviews mention formal complaints (BBB, civil court, small claims), one mentions lien filing, and one references Attorney General involvement. One customer reports company refused to pay court judgment.
• RECENCY: Most damaging reviews span 2015–2024, with particularly severe complaints in 2020–2024. Recent reviews (2023–2024) show no improvement in core issues (pricing, no-shows, incomplete work).
• VULNERABLE POPULATION TARGETING: Multiple reviews document company taking advantage of elderly customers (87-year-old woman, 73-year-old widow) with inflated quotes and unnecessary work.

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 28 detailed reviews with consistent, specific, and corroborated complaints across all four dimensions. The HIGH overall confidence reflects the volume of evidence (24+ mentions per dimension) and the non-random, systematic nature of failures documented. This contractor presents substantial risk and should be avoided.

Jemco Plumbing demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Project completion is critically weak, with multiple reviews documenting incomplete work, failed repairs requiring callbacks, and unresolved issues. Pricing is substantially above market rate—one customer paid $525 for work quoted at $85–$100 by competitors, and another paid $675 for a job that left the toilet still clogged. Professionalism is compromised by poor communication (missed emergency callback), lack of accountability for property damage and mess, and dismissive customer service. The single positive review from 2020 is substantially outweighed by five negative reviews spanning 2013–2021, indicating a persistent pattern rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document incomplete work and failed repairs. Review from 2014 shows drain backed up again within 48 hours; review from 2018 shows toilet still clogged after service.
• CRITICAL: Severe pricing concerns. Customer paid $525 for work that three competing plumbers quoted at $85–$100 (5–6x markup). Another customer charged $675 for incomplete work.
• CRITICAL: Property damage and lack of accountability. Review from 2021 documents theft/damage to personal property (deer skulls separated); review from 2018 documents sewage tracked through basement and drain ripped from concrete.
• CRITICAL: Poor emergency responsiveness. Review from 2013 documents missed emergency callback on Sunday night.
• CRITICAL: Dismissive customer service. Review from 2018 documents company refusing callback without additional $250 fee; review from 2018 documents company refusing responsibility for cleanup of sewage mess they created.
• Recency concern: Most reviews are 3–10 years old (2013–2018). Only one recent review from 2020 (positive) and one from 2021 (negative). Limited recent data to assess current operations.
• Pattern consistency: Five of six reviews are 1-star with detailed, specific complaints. The single 5-star review is generic and lacks detail. This is not a fake review pattern but rather a genuine pattern of serious service failures.

This WW Score of 18.5 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on consistent, detailed, specific complaints across multiple dimensions spanning nearly a decade, with documented evidence of incomplete work, severe overpricing, property damage, and poor customer service. The single positive review does not offset the severity and consistency of documented failures.

All three reviews are negative and center heavily on pricing complaints, with customers explicitly describing charges as a rip-off, excessive, or involving unexpected up-charges after quotes were given. Professionalism concerns were raised in two reviews, including a technician who spent significant time smoking on the job and another who attempted to add charges after arriving on-site. Project completion scores are marginally higher because the work does appear to have been finished in at least two of the three cases, though the quality and transparency of the process were questioned. Experience scores are dragged down by one reviewer questioning the quality of materials used and the overall approach taken by the technician.

• All three reviews are 1-star ratings — this is a uniformly negative dataset with no positive counterbalance, which may indicate a genuine pattern of poor service or could reflect selection bias if only dissatisfied customers left reviews.
• Only 3 reviews total — the WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with significant caution.
• Two of the three reviews are from October 2021, which is over 3 years old as of 2025. The most recent review is from April 2023. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, limiting recency relevance.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, dollar amounts, named competitors, and personal anecdotes, suggesting they are authentic.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all negative and none from the past 12 months, making it a low-reliability signal that should not be used as a definitive assessment without a larger and more recent review sample.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score because the reviews are for a plumbing supply store (Ferguson's), not a contractor or plumber performing work. The reviews evaluate retail customer service, showroom experience, and parts availability—not job completion, workmanship, or project delivery. Professionalism shows mixed results (helpful staff in 2 reviews, poor customer service in 2 reviews). Pricing is criticized as high in 1 review. Project completion and experience dimensions are not applicable to a retail supply business. The data is fundamentally misaligned with the WW Score framework, which is designed for service contractors.

• CRITICAL: Reviews are for a plumbing supply retailer, not a contractor/plumber. WW Score is designed for service providers who complete projects, not retail establishments.
• Review dates span 2014–2021 (7-year range). Most reviews are older than 12 months, limiting recency relevance.
• Professionalism mentions are split: 2 positive (Tyler's exceptional service, friendly staff) and 2 negative (ignored customers, poor showroom experience). This creates high variance.
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions with conflicting signals (one review notes 'insane' prices, another implies fair value for professional supply store).
• No reviews mention actual plumbing work, project timelines, callbacks, or workmanship quality—core dimensions for contractor scoring.

This WW Score cannot be calculated or trusted because the reviews evaluate a plumbing supply store's retail operations, not a contractor's service delivery. The framework is fundamentally misaligned with the business type being reviewed.