Find Nearby Plumbers In Providence, Rhode Island

Evergreen Plumbing and Heating exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. While a small number of recent positive reviews (2024-2020) praise responsiveness and professionalism, the overwhelming majority of reviews spanning 2011-2023 document systematic problems: chronic no-shows and poor communication (professionalism score 42), egregious overpricing with markups of 300-3500% on parts and labor (pricing score 18), incomplete work and failure to honor callbacks (project completion score 35), and inconsistent technical competence with misdiagnoses and damage caused during service (experience score 48). The company's pattern of billing disputes, refund delays, customer bans, and unresponsiveness to complaints further undermines trust. Positive reviews appear isolated and may reflect exceptional circumstances rather than standard operations.

• SEVERE PRICING PATTERN: 22 reviews explicitly document extreme overcharging—parts marked up 300-3500%, labor rates $300-$400+/hour, diagnostic fees not credited as promised, and bait-and-switch pricing tactics. This is the most consistent complaint across the dataset.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: 15+ reviews report no-shows, no callbacks, ignored requests for itemized invoices, and unresponsiveness to customer complaints. Multiple customers report calling 5-10+ times with no response.
• REFUND/BILLING DISPUTES: At least 8 reviews document delayed or refused refunds, disputed charges, customers forced to contact credit card companies, and threats of collection agency action.
• QUALITY & COMPETENCE ISSUES: Multiple reviews describe misdiagnoses (unnecessary boiler replacements when simple $70 part fixes were needed), damage caused during service (scratched toilet bowls, disabled compressors), and incomplete work (forgotten garbage disposal, incorrect valve installation).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE HOSTILITY: Several reviews describe rude technicians, sexist remarks, manager refusing to speak to customers, and customers being banned from the company after disputes.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive 5-star reviews cluster in 2015-2024 (6 reviews), while negative 1-star reviews dominate 2017-2023 (35+ reviews). The recent positive reviews may reflect improved practices or selection bias, but do not offset the historical pattern.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW RISK: The 2024 5-star review is generic in praise ('so helpful and kind,' 'polite, kind, and capable') with no specific details about the work performed, which is atypical of genuine reviews. However, insufficient evidence to conclusively flag as fake.
• MEMBERSHIP/SUBSCRIPTION TRAP: Multiple reviews warn against 'ultimate membership' and annual service contracts, describing them as expensive with no corresponding value.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence) and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 50 reviews with consistent, explicit evidence across all dimensions. The overwhelming pattern of documented overpricing, communication failures, incomplete work, and customer service problems is too pervasive and specific to dismiss. While recent reviews show some improvement, the historical record and current complaints suggest systemic issues. Consumers should seek alternative providers.

This contractor's review profile is dominated by severe, detailed negative experiences across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is heavily penalized by repeated accounts of bullying, unauthorized entry into homes, lack of communication, workers behaving inappropriately, and staff hanging up on customers mid-conversation. Pricing is the lowest-scoring dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly alleging overcharging by multiples of the agreed or fair market price, billing insurance for work not performed, charging for storage of items never moved, and pursuing customers for balances after insurance settlements. Project completion is critically damaged by numerous accounts of abandoned jobs, walls and ceilings left open for months, and contractors disappearing without notice. The few positive reviews — which praise responsiveness, office staff, and workmanship — are genuine bright spots but are vastly outnumbered and outweighed by the volume and specificity of the negative accounts.

• FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple independent reviewers allege billing insurance companies for work not performed, inflating scopes of work far beyond what was needed, and pursuing customers for balances after insurance has already paid. This is a serious and recurring pattern, not an isolated complaint.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: At least four reviews describe jobs being started — walls, ceilings, and floors demolished — and then abandoned for weeks or months with no follow-through, leaving properties in worse condition than before.
• UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS: Two reviews explicitly describe workers entering homes without notification or permission, including one instance where a neighbor called the police.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews are from 2018–2020 with the exception of one positive review from 2013. The most recent reviews (2019–2020) are predominantly 1-star. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to the most recent date of 2020-12-18) are present beyond that date, limiting insight into current operations.
• POSITIVE REVIEW QUALITY: The five positive reviews are more specific and varied in language and do not appear fabricated, but they represent a small minority (5 of 16) and several reference only partial job completion or office staff rather than full project outcomes.
• BBB AND REGULATORY COMPLAINTS: At least one reviewer states they filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation and the BBB, and another references the contractor's insurance company paying out a claim for damages caused. These are significant external escalation signals.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence given the large number of mentions across all dimensions and the consistent, specific, and independently corroborated nature of the negative feedback — this score should be treated as a reliable and serious warning signal for prospective customers.

Haven Plumbing shows severe inconsistency across a very small review sample. Two highly negative reviews from 2013–2016 document critical failures in professionalism (non-responsiveness, lack of follow-up communication) and project completion (incomplete work, deceptive demonstration). A single 2011 positive review praises quick turnaround, fair pricing, and problem-solving ability. The company's performance appears to have deteriorated significantly over time, or quality is highly variable. With only 3 reviews spanning 13 years and no recent data, confidence in any score is inherently limited.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are 8+ years old (2011–2016). No recent reviews available to assess current performance or whether issues have been corrected.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Scores are not statistically reliable and should not be treated as representative of current service quality.
• SEVERE QUALITY VARIANCE: Two 1-star reviews document serious failures (non-responsiveness, incomplete work, deceptive practices) versus one 5-star review. This suggests either inconsistent service delivery or significant changes over time.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Review 2 explicitly states work was incomplete—tub does not hold water after faucet replacement, and plumber allegedly used deceptive tactics (turning off water to hide the problem). This is a critical failure.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Review 1 documents complete non-responsiveness and lack of communication despite explicit agreement to follow up. Reviewer explicitly questions 'professionalism and courtesy.'

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution and is NOT reliable for decision-making. The sample is too small (3 reviews), too old (all pre-2017), and shows extreme variance. No current performance data exists. Do not use this score to evaluate Haven Plumbing's current service quality.

The review set is heavily negative, with 5 out of 7 reviews rated 1 star and only 2 rated 5 stars. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely damaged by repeated accounts of late arrivals, rude technicians, last-minute appointment cancellations, and a technician who reportedly refused to leave a customer's home. Pricing is a consistent pain point across multiple reviews, with customers explicitly describing misleading quotes, undisclosed diagnostic fees, and a feeling of being swindled. Project completion scores slightly higher because the two positive reviews describe genuinely impressive follow-through — including a same-day emergency response, a full furnace install completed by Tuesday, and a post-job follow-up call — but these bright spots are outweighed by the negative majority. Experience is mixed: the positive reviews praise technical competence and problem-solving, while negative reviews describe technicians making unfounded assumptions, refusing work, and providing questionable diagnoses.

• REVIEW AGE WARNING: All 7 reviews span from 2012 to 2021. Only 1 review is from 2021, 1 from 2020, and 1 from 2018. The two positive reviews are from 2017 and 2011 respectively. The most recent data skews negative, and no reviews from the past 12 months relative to a 2024/2025 analysis date are present. This score may not reflect current business performance.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 7 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as directional only. A minimum of 15–20 reviews would be needed for a reliable score.
• PATTERN FLAG: Two separate reviewers (2012 and 2020) independently describe a bait-and-switch pricing pattern — a low quote given over the phone followed by an additional undisclosed fee upon arrival. This recurring pattern across different years suggests a possible systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• NO FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The reviews appear genuine. They contain specific details (names like Fred, Jeff, Nicole; specific dollar amounts like $59, $109, $70; specific scenarios like a puffback on Superbowl Sunday). No suspicious repetitive phrasing or generic praise patterns detected.

This WW Score of 34.2 is based on only 7 reviews, all older than 3 years, and should be treated as a limited but directionally meaningful signal — the consistent pricing complaints and professionalism failures across multiple independent reviews lend credibility to the low score despite the small sample size.

Two of the three reviews contain serious allegations: one accuses the contractor of charging an exorbitant markup on a boiler part, and another describes a misdiagnosis of an air conditioning unit, a charge for no real work, and an unnecessary upsell for a full replacement. The single positive review praises politeness and fair pricing but lacks any specific detail about the work performed, limiting its evidentiary weight. On professionalism, the one positive review partially offsets the negatives, but the pattern of alleged deception and a reported consumer watchdog warning drags the score down sharply. Experience and project completion scores are severely penalized by the AC review, in which a second contractor successfully completed the repair the subject contractor failed to diagnose correctly.

• Two of three reviews allege price gouging or deceptive pricing practices — one for a boiler part marked up well above retail, one for an $86 service call with no substantive work performed.
• One review explicitly states this contractor was placed on a consumer beware list (RICB), which is a significant external red flag.
• The single 5-star review is vague, contains no specifics about the job type or outcome, and stands in stark contrast to the two detailed negative reviews. Its reliability is uncertain.
• With only 3 reviews spanning 2016 to 2023, the dataset is very small. The most recent review (2023) is negative. The positive review is from 2020 and the other negative review is from 2016, meaning recency does not favor the contractor.
• The spread of ratings (two 1-star, one 5-star) with no middle-ground reviews may suggest an incomplete or polarized review profile.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with a very small dataset, two of which contain detailed and credible negative allegations — the score should be treated as LOW confidence overall and interpreted with significant caution.

Dempsey Energy receives an extremely low WW Score of 18.2, reflecting severe and systemic failures across all dimensions. The company is overwhelmingly characterized by dishonest billing practices (charging without authorization, inflated prices, hidden fees), chronic no-shows and missed appointments, poor communication and rude staff, and incomplete or incorrect work. While a small minority of reviews (approximately 8 out of 89) praise specific technicians like Tim, Ryan, and Chris for professionalism and competence, these positive experiences are vastly outweighed by consistent patterns of fraud, incompetence, and customer disrespect. The company's business model—non-refundable diagnostic fees, flat-rate pricing without itemization, and aggressive credit card charging—appears deliberately designed to extract maximum revenue regardless of service quality.

• SYSTEMIC FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple reviews document unauthorized credit card charges, charges for work not performed, and charges for work performed incorrectly. This is not isolated—it is a recurring business practice.
• CHRONIC NO-SHOWS: Dozens of reviews document missed appointments with no call or explanation. Customers report waiting hours or entire days with no contact.
• BILLING DECEPTION: Consistent pattern of quoting low initial fees ($59–$99 dispatch/diagnostic), then charging substantially higher amounts without authorization or explanation. Customers report being charged $300–$800 for simple tasks (e.g., $350 for 15 minutes of pipe snaking, $791.84 for 2–3 lbs of refrigerant).
• MISDIAGNOSIS: Multiple reviews document incorrect diagnoses leading to unnecessary expensive repairs. Other contractors later resolved issues in minutes or at a fraction of the cost.
• STAFF RUDENESS: Numerous reviews describe office staff (particularly 'Nicole') as yelling, condescending, rude, and dismissive of customer concerns.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Many reviews report work left unfinished, parts not installed, systems not tested, or problems recurring immediately after service.
• LACK OF TRANSPARENCY: No itemized invoices, no explanation of charges, refusal to provide written estimates or breakdowns of labor vs. parts.
• POOR FOLLOW-UP: Customers report unanswered calls, unreturned messages, and broken promises to call back or reschedule.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS APPEAR GENUINE BUT ISOLATED: A small number of 5-star reviews (approximately 8) praise specific technicians by name (Tim, Ryan, Chris, Mike, Don) and describe good experiences. These appear authentic but represent a tiny fraction of total reviews and suggest inconsistent service quality depending on which technician is assigned.
• OIL DELIVERY DIVISION ALSO PROBLEMATIC: Reviews of the oil delivery service (Law Fuel/Dempsey Oil) show similar patterns: missed deliveries, unauthorized charges, poor communication, and rude staff.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews are from 2018–2024, with the most severe complaints from 2024. This indicates the problems are ongoing and not historical.
• BBB COMPLAINTS MENTIONED: Multiple customers report filing complaints with the Better Business Bureau and state attorneys general, suggesting regulatory scrutiny.

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 89 reviews with extensive, specific, and consistent evidence across all four dimensions. The overwhelming majority of reviews (approximately 80 out of 89) document serious failures in professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience. The patterns are not random complaints but systematic issues: unauthorized billing, missed appointments, rude staff, misdiagnosis, and incomplete work. While a small minority of reviews praise specific technicians, these do not materially alter the overall assessment. The company's business practices appear deliberately designed to maximize revenue extraction at the expense of customer satisfaction and honesty.