Find Nearby Plumbers In Norwich, Connecticut

American Leak Detection receives consistently strong praise for individual technician professionalism, punctuality, communication, and attitude — the majority of positive reviews highlight friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable technicians by name. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down the pricing and project completion dimensions: numerous customers report being charged hundreds to over a thousand dollars for failed or inaccurate leak detection, incorrect leak location markings that led to costly unnecessary excavation, and refusal to honor warranties or return without additional charges. The experience dimension is mixed — while many technicians demonstrate impressive diagnostic skill, a meaningful minority of reviews describe technicians who failed to find leaks that competitors located quickly, used outdated methods, or caused property damage. Pricing complaints are pervasive, with customers frequently describing the service as overpriced relative to results delivered, and several noting hidden or unexpected charges. The overall score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional staff in many locations, undermined by serious and repeated failures in leak detection accuracy, warranty follow-through, and pricing transparency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from June 2025 (dates 2025-06-04 through 2025-06-09) contain identical or near-identical text repeated across different dates — e.g., 'On time got the job done' appears twice, 'Chris got right to work and diagnosed the points of the leak quickly' appears twice, 'Very professional and thorough' appears twice, 'Pool kept going down way too fast...' appears twice, 'Etienne Hogue from American Leak Detection is a master of his trade...' appears twice, 'Matt was very thorough and friendly...' appears twice, 'I'm so impressed with the work performed by Casey...' appears twice, 'Appreciate the detectives who found the source of my ceiling leak...' appears twice, 'Matt was great. Arrived on time...' appears twice, 'Christian Lopez did a fantastic job...' appears twice. These are highly suspicious and likely fake or artificially inflated reviews. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced accordingly.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY: This appears to be a national franchise with many independently operated regional offices. Review quality, technician skill, and customer service vary dramatically by location. Scores reflect the aggregate across all branches and may not represent any single local office accurately.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — FAILED DETECTION: A statistically significant number of negative reviews (estimated 60+ reviews) describe the same failure mode: ALD charges full price for leak detection but fails to locate the leak, marks the wrong location leading to costly unnecessary excavation by plumbers, and then refuses to refund or return without additional charges. This is not isolated to one branch.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — WARRANTY REFUSAL: Multiple reviews across different locations and years describe ALD refusing to honor stated warranties, citing expired 30-day windows, claiming a 'different leak' was found, or demanding additional payment to return after failed repairs.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — PRICING OPACITY: Multiple reviews describe being charged full rates ($300–$795+) for very short visits (10–30 minutes), being charged when no leak was found, and not being informed of pricing structure upfront. One review notes a contractor's license listed as 'inactive' with no liability insurance as of late 2022.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe technicians causing property damage (holes in walls, broken pipes, damaged flooring, dirty linens used as mops) with the company refusing to take responsibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 88 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) are heavily dominated by 5-star ratings, many of which are duplicates or very brief. The longer, more detailed negative reviews span 2012–2025 and represent a consistent longitudinal pattern of service failures.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the aggregate masks extreme variance between regional franchise offices, a documented pattern of fake or duplicated recent reviews inflates the positive signal, and the recurring nature of serious complaints about failed detection, warranty refusal, and pricing practices suggests systemic issues that a blended score cannot fully capture.

Advanced Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill across a wide range of jobs including water line replacements, water heater installs, and full repiping projects. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years and locations — raises serious concerns: recurring complaints include overcharging with non-itemized bills, pressure tactics, failure to return calls, incomplete or incorrect work, refusal to warranty poor workmanship, and in several cases hostile responses from ownership when customers raised concerns. Pricing is a particular weak point, with multiple reviewers citing unexpected charges, minimum fees for minimal work, and quotes dramatically higher than competitors. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs that required multiple return visits to correct errors, or work that was abandoned entirely. The positive reviews are numerous and often detailed, but the volume and specificity of negative reviews — including from experienced professionals in construction and architecture — prevent a high overall score.

• 35 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates with the same wording about being 'absolutely amazing' and 'super sharp on plumbing needs' posted under different dates (2022-09-23 and 2023-06-07). This may indicate a fake or recycled review.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates praising 'Eric and Jessica' and 'Fred' with nearly word-for-word identical text posted on different dates (2018-08-22 and 2019-06-08). This strongly suggests a fake or copy-pasted review and confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• The review corpus spans from 2010 to 2025 and appears to aggregate reviews from multiple businesses operating under the name 'Advanced Plumbing' across different states (Virginia, Florida, Oregon, Michigan, Missouri, California, Texas). Scores from geographically distinct businesses may not reflect a single contractor's performance.
• Several negative reviews describe the owner or staff becoming hostile, making harassing phone calls, or calling customers liars when complaints were raised — a significant red flag for business conduct.
• One negative reviewer with 50+ years of architectural experience describes deceptive practices including faulty leak detection, pressure to over-scope work, and an inadequate insurance report — this carries elevated credibility weight.
• A 2010 review describes a lawsuit over a billing dispute where the written estimate was $1,300 but the final bill was $4,300 — an extreme pricing discrepancy that was never resolved through mediation.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2017–2025, with the most recent cluster from 2024–2025. Older reviews (pre-2016) were given reduced weight in scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence that reviews may span multiple unrelated businesses sharing the same name, the presence of suspected duplicate/fake reviews, and a persistent pattern of serious complaints about billing practices, incomplete work, and hostile customer service responses that meaningfully offset the large volume of positive feedback.

All five reviews consistently praise Brunelli Energy's professionalism, courtesy, and communication, driving a strong professionalism score. Two reviews explicitly mention competitive oil pricing, supporting a modest but limited pricing score. Project completion is well-supported across four reviews, with mentions of jobs finished correctly, on time, and without need for repeat visits. Technical experience is referenced in three reviews through comments about correct installation, diagnosis, and workmanship quality. However, all reviews are older than three years (the most recent is from January 2021), which meaningfully reduces confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OUTDATED: The most recent review is from January 2021, and the oldest dates to May 2015. None fall within the past 12 months. These scores may not reflect the contractor's current quality or practices.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews were provided. This limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.
• UNIFORMLY POSITIVE: All 5 reviews are 5-star with no critical feedback. While not conclusively fake, the absence of any negative or mixed experience warrants caution. Reviews are sufficiently varied in detail and specificity to avoid a fake review flag, but the pattern should be noted.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review sample, uniformly positive ratings, and the fact that all reviews are more than three years old — consumers should seek more recent feedback before making a hiring decision.

Burnside Plumbing receives strong marks for professionalism, particularly around responsiveness to emergency calls, with multiple reviewers praising prompt callbacks and willingness to work weekends and during severe weather. Project completion scores well based on several accounts of jobs being seen through fully and correctly, including a notable callback to fix a defective part at no apparent issue to the customer. Experience is supported by specific mentions of technical problem-solving, forward-thinking installation practices, and clean workmanship. However, one 2-star review explicitly describes being turned away as a non-regular customer during an emergency, which meaningfully tempers the professionalism score and reflects an inconsistent service access policy. Pricing data is entirely absent from all reviews, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• No pricing information mentioned in any review — the Price Friendly dimension cannot be scored and is excluded from WW Score calculation.
• One negative review (2021) describes being refused emergency service for not being an existing customer, which contrasts sharply with the positive emergency-response experiences described in other reviews. This suggests inconsistent service policies depending on customer status.
• Several reviews are significantly dated — 5 of 8 reviews are from 2016 to 2019, and one is from 2011. Only one review is from within the past 12 months (2023). Recency weighting reduces confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.
• Review language is varied and specific enough that fake review patterns are not suspected, but the small sample size (8 reviews) limits overall reliability.

This WW Score is based on a small and largely dated review set — only one review is from the past 12 months — which meaningfully limits confidence in how accurately this score reflects Burnside Plumbing's current service quality.

Ranger Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all four scored dimensions based on the available reviews. The most detailed review provides rich evidence of technical skill, professionalism, and job completion — Dan Kleinpeter is described as knowledgeable, transparent, hardworking, and someone who honored his original quote despite a lengthy and complex job. Pricing was noted as fair in two reviews, with one reviewer explicitly stating they got their money's worth and another noting the hydro-jetting quote seemed reasonable given the equipment and confidence involved. Project completion is well-supported, with the complex driveway drain job resolved fully and a second reviewer confirming work was completed from estimate through to permit-secured finish. However, the overall score must be treated with caution given the very small number of reviews and the age of all available data.

• One review (2014-05-31) has no review text — it was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• All reviews are significantly outdated: the most recent is from 2014 (over 10 years ago) and the oldest is from 2007. These scores may not reflect current performance.
• Only 4 total reviews are available, which is a very small sample. Scores should be treated as indicative only.
• The 4-star review from 2007 contains a contradictory statement ('The work wasn't perfect, they do great work') which may indicate a poorly written review or ambivalence. This was interpreted conservatively and did not inflate scores.
• No fake review patterns detected — the detailed 2012 review in particular contains highly specific, credible narrative detail.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to only 3 reviews containing usable data, all of which are more than 10 years old — prospective customers should seek more current references before making a hiring decision.

All three reviews speak positively about Joe's responsiveness, punctuality, and communication, driving a solid professionalism score. Pricing is mentioned explicitly in two reviews, with one reviewer noting the cost was 'much less than I thought,' supporting a favorable but conservatively scored pricing dimension. Project completion is consistently affirmed across all reviews — problems were resolved same-day or as scheduled with no indication of unfinished work. Experience scores are supported by specific mentions of effective drain clearing, root removal, and preventative advice, though the small sample size limits confidence. All reviews are older than 12 months, with the most recent dating to August 2020, which meaningfully reduces reliability.

• All 3 reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent is from August 2020 and the oldest from December 2015. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• Sample size is very small (3 reviews). Scores should be treated as preliminary indicators only.
• No negative or mixed reviews are present, which may reflect selection bias or an incomplete review pool rather than a flawless track record.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and distinct scenarios, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review sample (3 reviews), all of which are over three years old, making it difficult to assess current service quality with confidence.