Find Nearby Plumbers In Boston, Massachusetts

128 Plumbing, Heating, Cooling & Electric has a large and generally positive review base, with the majority of customers praising individual technicians for being knowledgeable, courteous, punctual, and thorough — driving solid scores in professionalism and experience. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern: multiple reviewers across different years explicitly describe quotes as grossly inflated, non-transparent, and predatory, with several customers reporting they found the same work done for 40–60% less elsewhere — this single dimension dragged the WW Score down significantly. Project completion is mixed: most jobs are finished well, but there are notable failures including a 3-year permit delay, a 6-week multi-visit repair debacle, abandoned warranty follow-through, and at least two instances where customers were left without heat or a functioning system. Responsiveness and communication from office staff drew both praise and sharp criticism, with some customers reporting dismissiveness during urgent situations and one confirmed instance of a customer being blacklisted and lied to. The volume and specificity of negative pricing and completion reviews prevent this company from scoring in the upper tier despite its many positive individual technician interactions.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: At least 10 reviews explicitly describe pricing as excessive, non-transparent, or predatory. Quotes cited include $19,230 vs. a competitor's $9,000 for the same boiler job; $17,000+ to swap a unit worth $3,300; $2,300 for a $300 part; $1,000 for a spigot repair; and $800 for minor electrical switches. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: One customer documented 6 weeks and 8 visits to resolve a mini-split issue, with technicians switching refrigerant lines and refusing to acknowledge the error. A separate customer waited 3 years for permit sign-off on a $20,000 heating job. Another customer paid $400 for a toilet diagnosis that resulted in no repair and a plumber arriving over an hour past a six-hour window.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE MISCONDUCT: One reviewer credibly documented being blacklisted from future bookings and directly lied to by a receptionist after disputing an overcharge — a serious ethical flag. A separate reviewer reported a sales rep (Kevin) withholding emergency technician dispatch to pressure a same-day contract signature while the customer had no heat.
• WARRANTY AND CALLBACK FAILURES: At least two reviews describe the company refusing to honor follow-up work on recent jobs without charging new assessment fees — one involving a gas leak concern (told to wait 5 days or call National Grid), another involving a toilet flange replaced less than a year prior.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending unnecessary or excessive replacements — including a full water heater replacement for a dripping TP valve, an $18,000 drain stack quote alongside a toilet repair, and a $600 vent cover replacement for an $8 part. This pattern appears across multiple technicians and time periods.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 5 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2023–2025 and are therefore treated as current. A small number of reviews date to 2022 and earlier; these were given slightly reduced weight but remain directionally consistent with recent patterns.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: While there are many 5-star reviews, the majority contain specific technician names, job descriptions, and details. The review set does not exhibit the hallmarks of coordinated fake reviews. The volume of detailed negative reviews further supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 120 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the score should be interpreted with caution given the strong and recurring pattern of pricing complaints and select but serious project completion failures that suggest meaningful risk for customers undertaking large or complex jobs.

Boston Budget Plumbing scores reasonably well on professionalism and experience, with the majority of reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, courteous staff, and solid technical know-how across a wide range of plumbing and HVAC jobs. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension: a significant and recurring pattern of complaints describes charges that are two to three times competitor rates, opaque labor-vs-parts breakdowns, upselling of unnecessary services, and billed amounts that exceeded initial quotes — pulling the pricing score well below average. Project completion is mixed: most jobs were finished, but there are multiple credible accounts of no-shows, last-minute cancellations, and at least one case of a technician installing a smaller water heater than the one removed. The score reflects a contractor with genuine capability but a consistent and well-documented pricing and transparency problem that cannot be ignored.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers (at least 5) explicitly describe technicians refusing to itemize labor vs. parts costs, quotes increasing mid-job, and charges significantly exceeding initial estimates. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: At least 3 reviewers describe technicians recommending unnecessary additional services (HVAC cleaning, drain cap installation, full repipe) that were declined without consequence to the core repair. This suggests a structural upselling practice.
• RELIABILITY/NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 3 reviews describe confirmed appointments that were cancelled last-minute or simply not honored, with poor follow-up communication afterward.
• POTENTIAL FRAUD FLAG: One reviewer (2017) explicitly states the technician installed a 40-gallon tank in place of a 60-gallon tank and denied it until photographic evidence was presented. This is a serious integrity concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans 2011–2024. Approximately 20 reviews are from 2019 or earlier and carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2022–2024) continue to show both positive responsiveness feedback and negative pricing complaints, suggesting the pricing issue is ongoing rather than historical.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary meaningfully in tone, detail, rating, and specificity. Language is not repetitive or templated. No fake review flag warranted.

This WW Score is based on 54 reviews spanning over a decade with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the persistent and specific pricing complaints from multiple independent reviewers represent a credible and material risk that prospective customers should weigh carefully before engaging this contractor.

Merrimack Valley Plumbing receives strong praise from the majority of reviewers for punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and technical knowledge, with many technicians — particularly Anthony and Alex — singled out by name for excellent service. However, several serious negative reviews significantly temper the overall picture: one detailed 1-star review documents multiple code violations, permit failures, safety oversights, and dishonesty during a boiler installation, while other negative reviews cite no-shows, cancellations, and allegations of equipment sabotage. Pricing drew mixed signals — one reviewer praised it as cheap and fair, another explicitly called it pricey, and a third criticized the lack of transparent upfront pricing despite the company advertising 'transparent pricing.' Project completion is similarly mixed, with most jobs described as completed well but one notable case of an incomplete trench refill and the boiler installation riddled with unfinished and defective work. The high volume of blank 5-star reviews with no text also reduces overall confidence in the aggregate rating.

• 19 out of 57 reviews contain no review text whatsoever — only a star rating. These blank reviews cannot be used for dimensional scoring and inflate the apparent review count without providing verifiable evidence.
• Several reviews use very brief, generic praise ('Great job!!!!', 'My experience was very good', 'Very thorough, closed the deal') with no specific details. These may be authentic but contribute little evidentiary weight.
• One highly detailed 1-star review (2025-02-28) documents serious code violations, safety hazards, permit fraud, and dishonesty. This is a significant red flag that warrants serious weight despite being a single review.
• A 1-star review (2024-05-24) alleges technicians deliberately sabotage equipment to charge more. While unverified, this is a serious allegation.
• A 1-star review (2023-10-24) describes being canceled twice and a no-show on the day of service, indicating potential reliability issues.
• A 1-star review (2020-09-20) accuses the owner of repeated broken promises and no-shows.
• A 1-star review (2023-01-11) describes a 30-minute upsell attempt, apparent damage to a customer's faucet during removal, and the company refusing accountability via a liability waiver.
• The majority of blank and generic 5-star reviews cluster around the same dates (e.g., 2025-05-10, 2025-05-26, 2025-04-10), which may suggest coordinated or incentivized review activity. Confidence is reduced accordingly for those clusters.
• RECENCY NOTE: All negative reviews span from 2020 to 2025, including a very recent and detailed negative review from February 2025, indicating these are not isolated historical issues.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability due to a sufficient review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given the presence of multiple serious negative reviews documenting safety violations and dishonesty, a large number of uninformative blank reviews, and possible clustering of generic 5-star reviews around specific dates.

Roscia's Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise their professionalism, punctuality, and courteous demeanor, which drives their professionalism score upward. However, several serious negative reviews — including allegations of rude staff, a driver mocking a disabled customer, combative office staff, and racially charged remarks — meaningfully drag the professionalism score down and cannot be ignored. Project completion is a mixed picture: many reviews praise thorough, efficient work including emergency responses, but at least two reviews describe jobs that were not properly diagnosed or resolved, and one describes a multi-month delay with repeated errors on a sump pump installation. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable by most reviewers, with one notable outlier citing a quote nearly double a competitor's for a boiler replacement. Experience scores are moderate — most reviewers describe skilled, knowledgeable technicians, but the failure to diagnose a toilet obstruction and an inability to locate a ceiling leak in separate reviews temper confidence in consistent technical execution.

• 4 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (the 'only shower clogged' complaint, dated 2022-06-10 and 2021-12-20), suggesting a possible double-posting by the same customer. Both were counted but treated as a single incident for scoring purposes.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2023-06-10 are very brief and generic ('They do great work!', 'Always great; they come in and perform professionally. Ten!') with no specifics, raising minor concern about authenticity. Confidence was not significantly reduced as they are not identical in phrasing.
• Recency note: The most serious negative reviews (rude staff, driver mocking a disabled person) are from 2024, meaning they are recent and carry elevated weight. The racist remarks allegation is from 2016 and was weighted less heavily but still factored in.
• One review (2014 appointment cancellation complaint) describes a reliability/scheduling failure with no resolution or callback, which negatively impacts project completion and professionalism scores.
• The span of reviews covers 2010–2025, a 15-year range. Older reviews (pre-2018) were given reduced weight relative to more recent ones.

This WW Score is based on 38 reviews with usable content across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence, though the score reflects genuine polarization — a strong majority of positive experiences is offset by a meaningful cluster of serious conduct-related complaints that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

New Age Plumbing and Heating has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship across a wide range of HVAC and plumbing jobs. However, there are four significant negative reviews — spanning 2014 to 2022 — that describe a consistent and serious pattern: work completed incorrectly, followed by Tim becoming unreachable or unresponsive when customers sought resolution. This pattern of post-job abandonment meaningfully drags down both the project completion and professionalism scores. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting costs came in well below competitors. The experience dimension is mixed — many reviews praise skill and knowledge, but at least three reviews describe installations that failed or were done incorrectly, which cannot be ignored.

• RECURRING PATTERN — CALLBACK FAILURE: At least 4 reviews (2014, 2014, 2015, 2022) independently describe Tim becoming unresponsive or avoidant after a job went wrong. This is a systemic reliability concern, not isolated incidents.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES DOCUMENTED: Three reviews describe installations (AC, furnace/hot water heater, heating system) that failed or were done incorrectly, with one independent plumber confirming incorrect installation and drained refrigerant.
• UNAUTHORIZED WORK CHANGE: One reviewer (2022) reports Tim changed the agreed scope of work (two condensers to one) without informing the customer, caused property damage (ruined clothes from dust), and did not proactively address the price difference.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (2022) is a 1-star complaint. The majority of positive reviews are from 2013–2018, meaning the positive reputation may not reflect current performance. Only 3 reviews are from 2019 or later, and two of those are 1-star.
• REVIEW AGE: Most reviews are older than 3 years, and several are 7–11 years old. The WW Score should be interpreted with caution given the lack of recent positive data.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, and tone. Positive reviews reference specific jobs, names, and circumstances. No significant fake review flags identified.

This WW Score is based on a sufficient volume of reviews with high mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderated by the age of most positive reviews and a documented, recurring pattern of post-job unresponsiveness that appears across multiple independent reviewers spanning nearly a decade.

MPD Plumbing & Heating has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise Mike's technical skill, responsiveness, and fair pricing across a wide range of jobs including gas conversions, boiler replacements, and general plumbing work. However, the review set contains several credible negative reviews that meaningfully drag down all dimensions: one reviewer described aggressive, unprofessional behavior and a failure to haul away the old appliance as promised; another detailed a poor diagnostic approach involving three unnecessary wall cuts with no resolution and a $438 bill; and two separate reviewers reported that Mike committed to calling back and never did, reflecting a responsiveness failure. Pricing is mixed — multiple reviewers praised fair or under-budget billing, while at least two explicitly accused Mike of overcharging or padding bills. Project completion is similarly split, with most jobs described as finished well but at least one job left incomplete and one instance of a no-show after a verbal commitment.

• Two reviews (2013 and 2016) report that Mike verbally committed to following up or showing up and then never contacted the customer again — a recurring responsiveness failure pattern.
• One detailed 1-star review (2019) describes an incomplete job with three exploratory wall cuts, no resolution, and a $438 charge — a significant project completion and experience concern.
• One detailed 1-star review (2021) describes aggressive/bullying behavior, excessive noise, failure to haul away old appliance as agreed, and mask non-compliance — a serious professionalism concern.
• One 1-star review (2019) explicitly accuses Mike of overcharging and padding the bill, corroborating the pricing concern raised in the 2021 negative review.
• Several 5-star reviews are older than 5 years (2013–2016) and should be weighted less heavily than more recent reviews. The most recent reviews (2023) are positive, but the negative reviews span 2019–2021, suggesting a possible inconsistency in service quality over time.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, and rating, and negative reviews contain specific, credible details that support authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 17 reviews spanning approximately 10 years with a reasonable mix of positive and negative feedback, giving it HIGH data confidence, though the wide date range and inconsistent service quality across reviews mean the score should be interpreted as a moderate-reliability indicator of current performance.