Find Nearby Plumbers In Hartford, Connecticut

Advance Plumbing & Heating receives overwhelmingly negative feedback across nearly all dimensions. Pricing is the weakest area, with multiple reviewers expressing shock at quotes — including $520 labor-only for a faucet swap, $350 for a 30-minute drain job, and nearly $500 to connect a fridge waterline — making this a consistent and serious concern. Professionalism is also heavily criticized, with reports of a no-show appointment, an 8-hour callback failure, a rude and condescending technician, and one technician wearing excessive cologne. Project completion is poor, with multiple instances of work not resolving the original problem, a furnace that remained broken after six visits, and a drain unclog that failed within hours. Experience scores slightly higher due to a handful of positive reviews praising specific technicians like Chris and Devon, and one detailed positive account of an oil-to-gas conversion with strong follow-through, but these bright spots are clearly the exception rather than the rule.

• Most reviews are from 2015–2021, with the most recent being January 2021. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, so current service quality is unknown and scores may not reflect the contractor's present state.
• The positive reviews (5-star) tend to be specific and credible with named technicians and detailed scenarios, reducing fake review suspicion for those entries. However, the volume and consistency of negative reviews across pricing, professionalism, and completion lend strong credibility to the critical feedback.
• One reviewer noted the business had four different addresses in the Newington area and no prior reviews at the time, which may suggest operational instability or attempts to reset reputation.
• The ratio of 1-star to 5-star reviews is approximately 8:5, with the 1-star reviews containing significantly more specific, verifiable detail — this pattern increases confidence in the negative signals.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews spanning 2013–2021 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable, but the absence of any reviews from the past 12 months means current performance cannot be confirmed and consumers should seek more recent references before hiring.

The review set is small (3 reviews) and paints a deeply mixed picture. One positive review from 2019 describes a smooth bathroom remodel with prompt, courteous, and knowledgeable staff and timely completion. However, this is heavily offset by two damaging reviews: one describing a years-long failure to pay a subcontractor (a serious financial integrity issue flagged under professionalism and project completion), and another detailing significant billing deception, poor communication, and a rude owner response. The pricing dimension is particularly damaged, with one review describing inflated invoices, undisclosed emergency surcharges, and a disputed resolution. Experience scores modestly because the physical workmanship in the 2016 review was noted as acceptable, and the 2019 reviewer was satisfied with results, but this is undermined by the broader pattern of business conduct failures.

• VERY LOW REVIEW COUNT: Only 3 reviews total. The WW Score cannot be considered reliable with this sample size. Treat all scores as highly provisional.
• SERIOUS FINANCIAL INTEGRITY CONCERN: Review dated 2023-11-27 alleges the company owner (Jim Whitney) admitted to receiving payment for a 2017 subcontract job but failed to pass payment to the subcontractor, citing a bad year in 2020 as justification. This is a significant red flag regarding business ethics and financial trustworthiness.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY FAILURE: The 2016 review describes an invoice for 14 hours of work when approximately 5.5 hours were performed, undisclosed emergency call surcharges, and a rude owner who pressured the customer before settling at a reduced amount. This suggests a pattern of opaque or deceptive pricing practices.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The one positive review is from 2019 (over 5 years old). The two negative reviews are from 2016 and 2023. The most recent review (2023) is negative and involves a serious non-payment allegation. There is no recent positive data to counterbalance this.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews reference direct interactions with the owner (James/Jim Whitney) that were described as rude, dismissive, and financially irresponsible. This is a consistent pattern across independent reviews.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: The three reviews are stylistically distinct, contain specific details, and span different years. No artificial inflation is suspected, though the single 5-star review is notably generic compared to the detailed negative reviews.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 7 years and should be treated as highly unreliable for decision-making purposes; the serious non-payment allegation and billing misconduct described across two independent reviews are significant red flags that prospective customers and partners should investigate thoroughly before engaging this contractor.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe serious failures across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is the most heavily criticized area, with multiple reviewers citing rude, combative, and dismissive office staff, a manager who denied accountability for a clear technician error, and a technician who disregarded COVID mask protocols. Pricing received the lowest score of any dimension, with multiple independent reviewers describing deceptive pricing practices, unexpected mid-contract price hikes, and deliveries timed to exploit higher oil prices. Project completion scores slightly higher only because a handful of jobs were technically finished, but recurring themes of abandoned follow-through, unresolved callbacks, and contract violations drag the score down significantly. Experience scores modestly higher due to one long-term satisfied customer and one reviewer praising competent technical staff, but these are heavily outweighed by accounts of a technician leaving a fusible link off a newly installed oil tank and an A/C unit emitting a high-pitched whine immediately after a $550 service call that was never followed up on.

• The two positive reviews (5-star ratings) are notably generic in their praise and lack specific detail compared to the highly detailed negative reviews, raising mild concern about their authenticity.
• One of the positive reviews is from 2015 and the other from 2019, making them both older than 5 years at time of analysis; they should be weighted less heavily than more recent feedback.
• Six of the nine reviews are 1-star ratings, and the pattern of complaints is highly consistent across independent reviewers spanning multiple years, suggesting systemic rather than isolated issues.
• The most recent reviews (2020) continue to reflect the same problems described in reviews from 2010, indicating no meaningful improvement in customer service or business practices over a decade.
• Multiple reviewers independently describe the same office staff member as rude and combative, which corroborates those accounts and increases their credibility.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews with strong cross-dimensional coverage and a high degree of corroboration across negative accounts, making it a moderately reliable signal of poor contractor performance, though the small total review count limits full statistical confidence.

Every single review is a 1-star rating describing severe and consistent failures across all four dimensions. Professionalism is catastrophically low: multiple reviewers describe verbal abuse, no-shows, repeated cancellations (one reviewer documented 23 cancellations over 6 months), workers appearing intoxicated or on drugs, and one owner allegedly filing a false police report against a customer. Project completion is equally dismal, with reviewers explicitly stating work was never finished, jobs were abandoned mid-project, and at least one customer had to hire another company to redo the work entirely. Pricing concerns are prominent, with multiple reviewers noting large upfront deposits taken with no work delivered, workers soliciting additional cash from clients, and at least one reviewer pursuing legal action to recover their deposit. Workmanship quality, where it could be assessed at all, was described as messy, incomplete, and requiring remediation by a third party. The pattern across all reviews is strikingly consistent and corroborated by specific, detailed accounts spanning from 2021 to 2023.

• ALL 6 reviews are 1-star — this is a severe and consistent negative signal, not a statistical anomaly.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain highly specific, individualized details (names, timelines, incident descriptions) that indicate genuine customer experiences.
• Two reviews dated 2021-07-04 may be related (one reviewer references a friend who also wrote a review), but both contain distinct, credible details and are counted separately.
• Reviews span from January 2021 to July 2023 — the most recent reviews are over 12 months old as of a 2024/2025 evaluation date, but the pattern is consistent across the entire date range with no improvement over time.
• Legal action mentioned in at least one review (small claims suit filed), and a police report allegedly filed by the contractor against a customer — these are serious red flags beyond typical service complaints.
• Allegations of workers under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs on job sites represent a significant safety and liability concern.
• Vulnerable customer exploitation noted: one reviewer describes her terminally ill mother being subjected to verbal abuse and contractor negligence.

This WW Score carries HIGH reliability — all six reviews are detailed, specific, and independently corroborate the same severe failures, making the near-zero score an accurate reflection of this contractor's documented performance.

All four reviews are uniformly negative with ratings of 1.0 stars, describing serious failures across multiple dimensions. Professionalism issues include poor communication, unresponsiveness to emails and calls, and lack of follow-through. Pricing concerns center on unauthorized rate increases, overcharging, and excessive diagnostic fees without transparency. Project completion failures are severe: incomplete repairs, abandoned work, refusal to honor warranty obligations, and failure to resolve issues properly. Experience gaps are evident in inadequate technical diagnosis and inability to perform basic plumbing tasks correctly. The consistency and specificity of complaints across all four reviews suggests systemic operational problems rather than isolated incidents.

• All four reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive reviews to balance assessment
• Review dates span 2017–2024, indicating persistent problems over multiple years
• One review (2017) is over 6 years old; however, the 2024 review shows issues continue
• Multiple reviews describe explicit refusal to take responsibility and honor commitments
• No fake review patterns detected; complaints are specific, detailed, and substantiated with examples

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient total reviews (n=4), but the uniformly severe negative feedback across all dimensions and multiple years strongly suggests serious operational and service quality problems that warrant extreme caution.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 of 3 reviews contain substantive information. The two usable reviews mention responsiveness/reliability (professionalism) and honest pricing practices, but the evidence base is extremely thin. All reviews are from June 1997—over 26 years old—making recency assessment impossible and relevance highly questionable. The third review contains only the word 'NO' and provides no usable data.

• CRITICAL: All three reviews are dated 1997-06-10 (26+ years old). No recent data available.
• Review #3 contains only the word 'NO' — unusable data.
• Extremely small sample size (n=2 usable reviews) insufficient for reliable scoring.
• Generic phrasing in reviews #1 and #2 with no specific project details or examples.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with minimal substantive detail — pattern consistent with placeholder or legacy data.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient usable data (only 2 substantive reviews), extreme age of all reviews (1997), and lack of recent performance information. Any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.