Find Nearby Plumbers In New Britain, Connecticut

This contractor shows significant inconsistency in service delivery. Positive reviews highlight excellent technical skill, fair pricing, and courteous service from staff member Scott. However, critical failures in responsiveness and project follow-through severely undermine overall reliability. Two reviews document serious professionalism issues: one customer waited 6 hours with an appointment and was refused service, while another called four times over four days with no callback for a non-functional hot water heater. The three positive reviews are older (2016–2020) and may not reflect current operations. The WW Score reflects this volatility: strong experience and pricing where service is delivered, but weak professionalism and completion metrics due to documented communication and responsiveness failures.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are 4+ years old (2016–2020). No recent data available to assess current service standards.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Extreme variance between 5-star and 1-star reviews suggests operational instability or inconsistent staff performance.
• RESPONSIVENESS RED FLAG: Two separate reviews document severe callback and appointment-keeping failures, indicating systemic communication issues.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews limits statistical reliability; scores should be treated as preliminary indicators rather than definitive measures.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, age of reviews, and extreme inconsistency in reported experiences; the contractor appears capable of quality work but has documented serious professionalism and responsiveness gaps that warrant direct verification before engagement.

Rutkowski Plumbing shows mixed performance across limited review data. Professionalism is consistently praised across 4 reviews, with staff described as friendly, helpful, and professional. However, project completion is severely undermined by one 1-star review detailing a failed shower repair with ongoing leaks and temperature control issues, directly contradicting positive completion claims in other reviews. Pricing receives minimal mention (1 review citing 'reasonable' rates). Experience is moderately supported by references to quality workmanship and repeat business. The stark contrast between the 1-star and 5-star reviews raises concerns about consistency and reliability.

• CRITICAL: Severe contradiction between reviews — one 1-star review (2018) reports catastrophic failure (shower leak, temperature malfunction) while multiple 5-star reviews praise the same company. This suggests either inconsistent service quality or potential fake positive reviews.
• Review dates are very old (2015–2019); no reviews from past 12 months. Current performance cannot be assessed.
• First review (2019) appears to be about a supply store, not plumbing services — likely misclassified and excluded from scoring.
• Limited sample size (4 usable reviews) makes score unreliable for decision-making.
• Project completion score heavily penalized by documented service failure; this is explicit evidence, not assumption.

This score should be treated with significant caution due to very limited and outdated review data (oldest reviews from 2015), a critical contradiction between positive and negative experiences, and insufficient recent evidence to assess current service quality.

The reviews for Alternative Plumbing Solutions and owner Philip Rhoades paint an overwhelmingly negative picture across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is catastrophically low, with 9 of 10 reviews describing chronic no-shows, ignored calls and texts, broken promises, and a pattern of disappearing after receiving payment. Project completion is nearly non-existent in the negative reviews, with multiple customers reporting abandoned jobs, failed inspections, and work that was never finished or corrected despite repeated attempts to re-engage the contractor. Experience scores are also very poor, with reviewers citing failed city inspections due to improper installations, mediocre workmanship requiring multiple rounds of correction, and one confirmed instance of the owner performing work while his plumbing license had expired. Pricing scores are low because while some customers noted competitive quotes, the recurring pattern of collecting full payment upfront and then failing to complete or correct work represents a severe breach of value and transparency. Only one review (5-star, 2018) was positive, and it lacks specific detail, raising authenticity concerns.

• STRONG PATTERN OF PAYMENT FRAUD: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2018–2023) describe the same behavior — owner collects full or partial payment upfront, then becomes unreachable or fails to complete the job. This is a consistent and serious pattern.
• EXPIRED LICENSE FRAUD: One reviewer (April 2019) documented that Philip Rhoades performed plumbing work in November 2018 while his Texas plumbing license had expired on October 31, 2018. This constitutes potential fraud and unlicensed contracting.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW: The single 5-star review (November 2018) is vague, contains no specific details, and stands in stark contrast to all other reviews. It uses generic praise ('amazing,' 'best price,' 'excellent customer service') with no verifiable specifics. Confidence in this review is very low.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative review is from August 2023, confirming the problematic behavior pattern has continued for at least 5 years with no apparent improvement.
• GHOSTING AFTER PAYMENT: At least 7 reviews explicitly describe the owner becoming unresponsive (full voicemail, read-but-ignored texts, unanswered calls) specifically after payment was received — a hallmark of predatory contractor behavior.
• OVERALL CONFIDENCE REDUCTION: The single positive review is likely not genuine based on its generic content and the overwhelming consistency of negative experiences. It was given minimal weight in scoring.

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted — it is based on 10 reviews spanning 5 years with a remarkably consistent pattern of serious misconduct, and all four dimensions are supported by multiple independent accounts.

This contractor exhibits severe and irreconcilable inconsistency across reviews. One detailed 1-star review documents systematic failure: multiple no-shows over 10 months, unresponsiveness to 50+ communications, unauthorized work, and a failed inspection with no remediation. Two older 5-star reviews (2018, 2021) praise professionalism and workmanship, but the 2021 positive review predates the catastrophic failure documented in the April 2022 complaint. The extreme polarity and temporal pattern suggest either a dramatic operational collapse or fundamental reliability issues that emerged after initial positive experiences. With only 3 reviews and conflicting evidence, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• CRITICAL: Extreme review polarity (1-star vs 5-star) with temporal clustering suggests operational failure or deterioration over time
• The positive 2021 review (June 28) was written during the same period as the documented no-shows and failures (June-July 2021), raising questions about review authenticity or timing
• The detailed 1-star review provides extensive documentation of specific failures (dates, counts of no-shows, inspector involvement, water line removal) while positive reviews lack comparable specificity
• Insufficient review volume (n=3) to establish reliable scoring; two reviews are 4+ years old and may not reflect current operations
• The 2022 review documents ongoing non-completion and unresponsiveness as of April 2022 with no evidence of resolution

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient data (3 reviews) and extreme internal contradiction; the detailed failure documentation in the 1-star review substantially outweighs generic praise in older reviews, but confidence in any aggregate score is critically low and should not be used for decision-making without additional recent independent verification.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 3 reviews are available, with 1 containing no usable text. The two substantive reviews are extremely old (2006 and 2014), predating the past 12 months by over a decade. While both reviews praise professionalism, pricing, and workmanship, the limited mention counts (1–2 per dimension) and extreme age of the data prevent confident scoring. Project completion is not explicitly addressed in any review.

• CRITICAL: All reviews are older than 10 years. Most recent review is from December 2014. No recent data available to assess current performance.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 total reviews, with 1 containing no text. Minimum 5–10 recent reviews recommended for reliable scoring.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Review 2 contains repetitive, non-specific language ('excellent,' 'wonderful,' 'awesome,' 'best') with minimal concrete detail about work performed. Review 3 is entirely in caps with generic trust/honesty language. Both lack specificity typical of detailed customer feedback.
• NO PROJECT COMPLETION DATA: Neither substantive review explicitly mentions on-time delivery, job completion, callbacks, or follow-through.
• POTENTIAL BIAS: Review 2 explicitly states the contractor is the reviewer's neighbor, introducing potential personal relationship bias.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient recent data (all reviews >10 years old), minimal sample size (n=2 usable), and generic language patterns suggesting limited substantive feedback. Any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.

With only 3 reviews available, reliable scoring is not possible. The data shows severe contradictions: two reviews (2012, 2014) describe critical failures in professionalism (no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication), project completion (incomplete work, failed inspections, installation defects), and workmanship quality (improper furnace installation with multiple code/design violations). One review (2009) praises service and customer care. The extreme age disparity (2009 vs. 2012–2014) and conflicting narratives prevent confident assessment. The company appears to have experienced significant service degradation or inconsistency over time.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews total — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY ISSUE: Reviews span 2009–2014 (9–14 years old); no recent data available
• EXTREME CONTRADICTION: One 5-star review vs. two 1-star reviews with detailed complaints; suggests either inconsistent service quality or different service lines
• DETAILED TECHNICAL FAILURES: 2012 review documents specific HVAC installation defects (improper exhaust angle, blocked air filter access, frozen drain lines, poor cleanup) indicating workmanship issues
• PROFESSIONALISM FAILURES: 2014 review documents repeated no-shows, missed appointments, lack of communication, and failure to deliver promised reports
• COMPANY TRANSITION: 2014 review explicitly mentions service degradation after acquisition by 'Solve It home solutions' — suggests organizational change may have impacted quality
• NO PRICING DATA: No reviews mention cost, value, or pricing transparency

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and extreme age of data (9–14 years old with no recent reviews). The contradictory narratives and apparent service degradation over time further undermine confidence. Any decision should await more recent and voluminous feedback.