Find Nearby Plumbers In Waterbury, Connecticut

Esposito Plumbing & Heating receives an extremely low WW Score of 8.2, driven by overwhelmingly negative feedback across all dimensions. Every single review (11/11) rates the company 1 star and explicitly criticizes predatory pricing practices, with customers reporting markups of 1000%+ on parts and services. Professionalism is severely compromised by chronic no-shows, missed appointments, unresponsive management, and poor communication. Project completion is undermined by incomplete repairs requiring multiple callbacks and unresolved issues. The company's technical competence is questioned in multiple reviews, with customers reporting misdiagnosis and unnecessary work. All reviews are older than 3 years, but the consistency and specificity of complaints across a decade (2011–2020) suggests systemic business practices rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: 100% of reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive reviews present. This is an extreme outlier pattern.
• CRITICAL: Pricing complaints appear in 11/11 reviews (100% mention rate). Customers consistently report markups of 1000%+ and describe practices as 'fraud,' 'highway robbery,' and 'ripping off' customers.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews reference owner/management unresponsiveness and alleged unethical practices. One former employee review alleges wage theft and use of inferior materials.
• CRITICAL: No-show and late-arrival complaints in 3+ reviews despite advance scheduling and confirmations.
• CRITICAL: One review explicitly states the company is 'posing as someone else on Yelp' and hiding identity.
• CRITICAL: One review mentions filing complaint with BBB and District Attorney for alleged fraud.
• Recency concern: All reviews are 3+ years old (2011–2020). No recent reviews available to assess if practices have changed.
• Pattern of incomplete repairs and callback issues suggests systemic quality control failure.

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. The score is based on 11 reviews with 100% consistency in negative assessment, explicit evidence across all four dimensions, and corroborating details (pricing, no-shows, incomplete work, management unresponsiveness). The absence of any positive reviews and the severity of allegations (fraud, wage theft, identity misrepresentation) warrant extreme caution. However, the age of reviews (3–13 years old) means current business practices may differ; verification with recent sources is recommended before making a final decision.

All four reviews are uniformly negative with severe allegations including installation errors causing property damage, potential fraud in septic inspections, business registration lapses, and complete non-responsiveness to customer inquiries. The reviews span from 2019 to 2023, with the most recent (November 2023) describing a critical installation failure. While individual dimension mentions are limited (1–2 per dimension), the consistency of severe complaints across professionalism, completion, and experience is striking. The absence of any positive reviews and the gravity of allegations (fraud, scams, $20k+ damages) make this a clear case of severe contractor failure.

• CRITICAL: All 4 reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly severe negative allegations. No positive reviews present.
• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Review 3 explicitly alleges potential scam involving collusion between company and buyers to defraud homeowner of $20k-25k.
• INSTALLATION FAILURE: Review 1 documents major installation error (fire hydrant placed 27 feet off-location) causing property reconfiguration and loss of parking space.
• BUSINESS COMPLIANCE: Review 2 states company is no longer registered in Connecticut and insurance status is questioned.
• NON-RESPONSIVENESS: Review 4 indicates complete failure to respond to customer inquiries.
• RECENCY: Most recent review is from November 2023 (within past 12 months), indicating ongoing issues.
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews reference deceptive practices and lack of accountability, suggesting systemic problems rather than isolated incidents.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient data (only 4 reviews, all 1-star with severe allegations), but the uniformly catastrophic nature of complaints—spanning fraud, installation failures, non-responsiveness, and regulatory non-compliance—strongly indicates this contractor should be avoided; extreme caution is warranted.

This contractor shows severe deficiencies across all dimensions based on limited review data. Professionalism is critically undermined by documented rude and belligerent customer service interactions, lack of communication about pricing, and failure to provide estimates before work. Project completion is compromised by incomplete work (furnace never fixed despite 5+ hours of service) and unclear follow-through on promised callbacks. Pricing practices are opaque and appear to involve significant undisclosed charges that shock customers after service. Technical expertise is questionable given the inability to diagnose and resolve a furnace issue. The single positive review (2024) references billing resolution but provides no substantive detail about actual service quality.

• CRITICAL: Two of three reviews are from 2015 and 2019 (5-9 years old). Only one recent review from 2024, which is vague and does not substantively address service quality.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple customers report identical pricing shock — quoted one amount, billed significantly higher without advance notice. This suggests systemic billing practice issues, not isolated incidents.
• SEVERE SERVICE FAILURE: 2015 review documents complete failure to fix the stated problem (furnace) after 5+ hours and $580 charge, with company admitting they still do not know the issue.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: 2015 review documents rude, belligerent employee behavior, failure to provide estimates, and accusation of taking advantage of non-English-speaking customer.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Reliable WW Score calculation requires minimum 5-8 reviews with substantive data across dimensions.
• RECENCY ISSUE: 67% of reviews are older than 5 years. Recent review (2024) is too vague to offset historical pattern of complaints.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=3). However, the available evidence strongly suggests serious and persistent problems with pricing transparency, professionalism, and project completion. The 2024 positive review lacks detail and does not counterbalance two detailed, severe complaints from prior years. Do not rely on this assessment; seek additional recent reviews or alternative contractors before engaging this company.

With only two reviews, the data is highly insufficient for a reliable WW Score. The positive review praises Zack and his team for identifying a larger blockage, cleaning up thoroughly, and completing the job well. However, the negative review is a serious red flag: the drain backed up the very next morning after service, and the contractor allegedly avoided the customer for two weeks, made multiple broken promises about returning or issuing a refund, and ultimately denied any obligation to make it right. This pattern of non-responsiveness and failure to stand behind the work heavily drags down professionalism and project completion scores. The two reviews are in stark conflict, making any score highly uncertain.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules.
• The negative review describes a serious pattern of evasion, broken promises, and refusal to honor a callback or refund after a failed drain snaking job — this is a significant integrity concern.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict with each other, making it impossible to establish a reliable trend.
• Pricing was not mentioned in either review — no score assigned.
• Both reviews are older than 12 months (2022 and 2023), so recency weighting is limited.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the small sample size means individual reviews carry disproportionate weight.

This score report should be treated as highly unreliable due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews, the direct conflict between them, and the serious misconduct allegations in the negative review that cannot be corroborated or dismissed without more data.

Only two reviews exist for this contractor, making any scoring highly unreliable. One review is entirely negative, citing a complete lack of response and no work ever performed. The other is positive, praising responsiveness and on-time completion, but it dates back to 2012. Pricing and experience are not mentioned in either review, leaving those dimensions entirely unscored. The mixed signals across just two very old reviews prevent any meaningful or trustworthy assessment.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score.
• Both reviews are over 10 years old (2012 and 2014). No recent data exists to reflect current contractor performance.
• One review is a 1-star citing complete non-responsiveness; the other is a 5-star with positive detail — directly contradictory signals with no way to resolve them at this sample size.
• Pricing and experience dimensions have zero data and cannot be scored.

This score should not be trusted for any hiring decision — the sample size is critically insufficient, all data is over a decade old, and the two available reviews directly contradict each other.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are extremely negative and focus on professionalism failures (rudeness, disrespect, poor customer service attitude) and pricing concerns (excessive diagnostic fees). No substantive information provided about actual project completion quality or technical experience. Both reviews are older than 5 years, limiting recency relevance. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability
• Both reviews are significantly dated (2013 and 2018) — no recent data available to assess current business practices
• No data on project completion or technical experience — cannot assess full contractor capability
• Extremely negative sentiment in both reviews — suggests serious historical service issues, but limited sample size prevents confident generalization

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.