Find Nearby Plumbers In Danbury, Connecticut

Foley's plumbing shows significant pricing concerns that dominate the review feedback, with multiple customers reporting overcharges, hidden emergency fees, and inflated estimates. While professionalism and technical competence are acknowledged in some reviews, the company's pricing practices severely undermine customer trust and satisfaction. One review explicitly documents a $199 charge for a 3-minute diagnostic call with no work performed, and another describes a $1,300 quote that dropped $500 when competition was mentioned. Project completion appears adequate when work is undertaken, but pricing transparency and fairness are critical weaknesses.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews (4 of 5) explicitly mention pricing issues including undisclosed emergency fees, inflated quotes, and charges for minimal/no service. This is a pattern, not isolated complaints.
• DECEPTIVE PRACTICES: Review from 2022 documents $199 charge for <5 minute diagnostic with no work performed; owner acknowledged no time was spent but justified the charge. This suggests potential systematic overcharging.
• HIDDEN FEES: Emergency pricing not disclosed until after service completion (2014 review). Weekend work automatically classified as 'emergency' without advance notice.
• QUOTE MANIPULATION: 2017 review indicates quotes drop significantly when customer mentions other bids ($1,300 reduced to $800, then customer paid $350 elsewhere), suggesting initial quotes are inflated.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most reviews are 3-10 years old (2014-2022). Only one review from 2021 is recent. Current practices may differ, but pattern is consistent across decade.
• BBB COMPLAINT UNRESOLVED: 2022 review indicates customer filed BBB complaint with no response from company.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (5 reviews) and age of most data, but the consistent pattern of pricing complaints across multiple years and the documented evidence of deceptive billing practices suggest the low score reflects genuine systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.

The review pool for this contractor is deeply polarized, with a large cluster of highly negative reviews describing serious failures across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated patterns of no-shows, unreturned calls, ignored complaints, rude receptionists, and multiple accounts of drivers behaving recklessly on public roads. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with numerous accounts of abandoned work, missed appointments with no contact, incorrectly installed plumbing in new construction homes, and warranty work that was never honored. Pricing drew significant criticism including hidden fees, double-billing, and at least one account of a customer being charged nearly $1,000 for a standard service. The positive reviews — mostly from 2018 and earlier — do describe skilled, professional, and fairly priced work, but they are outweighed in both volume and recency by the negative accounts, and several raise authenticity concerns.

• SUSPECTED IRRELEVANT REVIEWS: Two reviews (dated 2022-06-10 and 2021-06-10) clearly reference a mortgage/loan company ('Best Damn Loans', 'Nick', 'loan packages', 'mortgage brokers') and are entirely unrelated to any plumbing contractor. These were excluded from scoring.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR MISATTRIBUTED POSITIVE REVIEWS: A large cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2018-06-11 reference 'Crown Plumbing' and 'Nathan/Nate', while other reviews reference 'Advanced Plumbing' and 'David' or 'Scott'. These appear to be reviews for at least two different companies aggregated into one profile, which severely undermines the reliability of the positive review pool.
• RECENCY BIAS AGAINST CONTRACTOR: The most recent reviews (2023–2025) are almost exclusively 1-star, describing no-shows, unreturned calls, fraudulent charges, and serious workmanship failures. The positive reviews are predominantly from 2018 and earlier, suggesting a significant decline in service quality over time.
• REPEATED NO-SHOW AND NON-RESPONSE PATTERN: At least 7 independent reviews across multiple years describe the same failure mode — scheduled appointments where the technician never arrived and calls were never returned. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• RECKLESS DRIVING COMPLAINTS: At least 5 separate reviews from different dates and locations describe company van drivers driving dangerously (speeding, tailgating, illegal lane use, reckless passing). While not a direct plumbing quality indicator, this reflects on company culture and oversight.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES IN NEW CONSTRUCTION: Multiple independent reviewers describe serious plumbing defects in newly built homes plumbed by this contractor, including disconnected drain lines, failed pressure tests, incorrect hot/cold mixer settings, and unconnected pipes — suggesting systemic quality control failures.
• WAGE THEFT ALLEGATION: One review alleges the company refused to pay a worker and their son for hours worked, with HR repeatedly promising but never delivering payment. This is a serious ethical flag.
• OVERCHARGING ALLEGATION: One reviewer describes being charged approximately $1,000 for a standard sewage cleaning (alleged going rate ~$500), with the owner refusing to respond to complaints until contacted by a male family member.
• OVERALL CONFIDENCE IN POSITIVE REVIEWS IS LOW: Given the mixing of reviews from multiple companies, the suspicious clustering of 5-star reviews on a single date (2018-06-11), and the stark contrast with recent negative reviews, the positive review data should be treated with significant skepticism.

This WW Score has HIGH data confidence due to the large number of mentions across all dimensions, but the score itself should be treated cautiously because the review pool appears to contain reviews for multiple different companies, two entirely off-topic reviews, and a clear temporal decline in service quality — the score of 38.2 likely reflects the true current state of the primary contractor being reviewed, and prospective customers should weight the 2023–2025 reviews most heavily.

This contractor's review set is dominated by deeply negative experiences across all four scored dimensions, with pricing and professionalism drawing the most consistent and severe criticism. Dozens of reviewers describe systematic price gouging, flat-rate billing that bears no relationship to parts or labor costs, hidden charges, and billing after cancellation — producing one of the lowest pricing scores possible. Professionalism is similarly devastated by repeated accounts of rude staff (multiple named individuals including Jennifer Friedly, Jessica, Eleanor, and Alex), technicians who abandoned work, and an owner who hung up on customers and refused accountability. Project completion scores reflect a pattern of failed repairs, systems left non-functional after multiple visits, warranty denials, and at least one account of a unit being physically removed and never returned. Experience scores are dragged down by numerous accounts of misdiagnosis, missed obvious faults, and repairs that made problems worse — though a small number of positive reviews do describe competent individual technicians. The handful of positive reviews are largely from a different business entity (The20/MSP network) and are not relevant to the HVAC contractor being evaluated.

• MIXED ENTITY ALERT: A significant number of 5-star reviews (approximately 15-18) appear to be for a completely different company called 'The20' or 'The 20' — an IT managed services provider/MSP network — and have no relevance to the HVAC/plumbing contractor '20/20 Air' being evaluated. These reviews reference IT helpdesks, MSP memberships, and software tools. They have been excluded from dimension scoring but inflate the raw star average. This is a serious data integrity issue.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR MISATTRIBUTED REVIEWS: Multiple 5-star reviews contain zero specifics about HVAC or plumbing work, reference IT services, or consist entirely of blank text with a 5-star rating. Several blank reviews with 1-star and 5-star ratings on the same date (e.g., 2023-06-10, 2020-06-10) suggest possible review manipulation in both directions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent substantive negative HVAC reviews run through mid-2024, indicating the problematic patterns are not historical anomalies but ongoing. Positive HVAC-specific reviews are sparse and mostly pre-2018.
• PATTERN OF SYSTEMIC MISCONDUCT: Multiple independent reviewers describe nearly identical experiences — misdiagnosis followed by expensive unnecessary repairs, flat-rate billing with no itemization, rude callbacks, and refusal to honor warranties or guarantees. This consistency across many years and many reviewers strongly suggests structural business practices rather than isolated incidents.
• BBB RATING: At least one reviewer explicitly states this company had an 'F' rating with the Better Business Bureau at the time of their review.
• LEGAL CONCERN: One reviewer alleges the company stole an installed AC unit and directed victims to contact police detective divisions in Trumbull and New Milford. This has not been verified but is noted as a serious flag.
• CREDIT CARD FRAUD ALLEGATION: At least one reviewer alleges unauthorized charges to their credit card differing from the quoted price, and a company representative responded by calling the customer a 'scammer' and threatening to flag a chargeback — rather than resolving the discrepancy.

This WW Score carries HIGH statistical confidence due to the large volume of detailed, specific, and independently corroborating negative reviews spanning over a decade, but consumers should be aware that the raw review pool is contaminated by a substantial number of misattributed 5-star reviews from an unrelated IT company, and that the true HVAC contractor score would likely be even lower if those were fully purged.

Insufficient data — only 3 reviews analyzed, all from 2019 (4+ years old). While reviews praise the owner's gentlemanly demeanor, knowledge, and problem-solving ability, the sample size is too small and recency is severely compromised. No explicit mentions of project completion timelines, punctuality, or detailed pricing transparency. The reviews lack specificity about actual work scope and outcomes.

• All 3 reviews are from 2019 — no recent data within past 12 months
• Sample size of 3 reviews is below minimum threshold for reliable WW Score calculation
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise language ('absolute best', 'never fails', 'highly recommended') — limited specific detail about actual work performed
• No explicit mentions of project completion, timeliness, or communication responsiveness
• Potential survivorship bias — reviews may reflect loyal customers only

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and severe recency issues (all reviews 4+ years old). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.

With only 3 reviews spanning nearly a decade (2015–2020), this dataset is too small and temporally fragmented to produce a reliable WW Score. The reviews are sharply polarized: one 5-star account of long-term reliability versus two 1-star accounts citing unprofessionalism, poor workmanship, substandard materials, and aggressive debt collection. The oldest reviews (2015, 2018) contain serious allegations including incomplete work requiring a second contractor, unprofessional conduct, and police involvement. The single positive review is generic and provides no specific detail about recent service quality.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews total — insufficient for reliable scoring
• TEMPORAL ISSUE: Reviews span 5 years (2015–2020); most are older than 3 years. No recent reviews to assess current service quality
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: 1 five-star vs. 2 one-star reviews with no middle ground suggests either inconsistent service or potential data quality issues
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Two reviews cite incomplete work (hot water tank installation requiring electrician callback), unprofessional behavior (badmouthing customers), use of cheap materials, and aggressive debt collection (blocking driveway, police involvement)
• LACK OF SPECIFICITY: Positive review is vague ('always comes, great service') with no recent date or detail; negative reviews are highly specific and credible
• NO RECENT DATA: Latest review is from August 2020 (4+ years old); cannot assess whether issues have been corrected

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and age of data; however, the pattern of serious complaints in older reviews combined with lack of recent feedback suggests significant caution is warranted until more current reviews are available.

With only 3 total reviews, this dataset is too small to produce a reliable WW Score. All reviews are positive (5-star ratings), but they lack sufficient detail and volume to validate quality claims. Professionalism and project completion are mentioned in 2 reviews each (timely communication, on-time delivery, clean work), while pricing and experience are mentioned only once. The reviews show generic praise language and no substantive criticism, which limits confidence in the assessment.

• Insufficient review volume (n=3) — cannot calculate reliable WW Score
• All reviews are 5-star with minimal specific detail — pattern suggests potential review bias or insufficient critical feedback
• Review dates span 2023–2024; most recent is May 2024, but sample size remains too small
• Generic praise language ('amazing', 'very nice', 'very satisfied') without detailed examples of problem-solving or specific technical accomplishments

This assessment should NOT be trusted for decision-making. A minimum of 5–10 reviews with substantive detail is required to produce a meaningful WW Score. Current data is insufficient in both quantity and depth.