Find Nearby Plumbers In Brockton, Massachusetts

Anderson Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily penalized dimension, with multiple explicit complaints about rudeness from the owner Dave Anderson, a rude receptionist, and repeated failures to return calls or follow through on scheduled appointments — these are not isolated incidents but a recurring pattern across many reviews spanning years. Pricing drew significant criticism as well, with one reviewer paying for ineffective work and being asked to pay again for a callback, another feeling overcharged relative to a competitor, and a first-quote-vs-manager-quote discrepancy suggesting inconsistent or inflated initial pricing; a few positive mentions of reasonable pricing and money-saving suggestions from Dave prevent the score from being lower. Project completion is mixed: several long-term customers report reliable, timely service and completed jobs, but at least two reviews describe work that failed within 24 hours or was never followed up on, and one reviewer was never scheduled at all. Experience scores moderately, with some reviewers praising technical competence and fast problem-solving, while one job required a competitor to redo the work in 30 minutes after Anderson spent two hours and failed to fix the issue.

• Multiple reviews contain only 'unknown' or blank text with 5-star ratings (3 such reviews detected: July 2016, January 2016, December 2014). These provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring.
• Several reviews are extremely brief and generic ('They did an excellent job.', 'it went very well', 'Went fine') with no specifics — these were treated as low-information and given minimal weight.
• The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with most dating from 2011–2016. Only one review (August 2022) is within the past 3 years. The recency of data is poor and the current state of the business may differ significantly from what these reviews reflect.
• A clear pattern of non-responsiveness (no call-backs, ignored emails, missed appointments) appears independently across at least 5 separate reviews from different years, suggesting a systemic operational issue rather than isolated incidents.
• The single most recent review (2022) is a 1-star complaint about overpricing and a rude technician, which is consistent with older negative patterns and suggests issues have not been resolved over time.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while the mention counts are sufficient to generate HIGH confidence on all four dimensions, the overwhelming age of the review data (most reviews are 7–13 years old with only one review from the past 3 years) and the presence of several content-free 5-star reviews significantly limit how well this score reflects the contractor's current performance.

This contractor exhibits severe inconsistency across reviews, with stark polarization between highly positive and deeply negative feedback. Two reviews (2023, 2022) document serious failures in project completion, licensing violations, non-payment issues, and complete communication breakdown. Conversely, four older reviews (2020, 2019, 2018) praise professionalism, punctuality, technical skill, and fair pricing. The professionalism score is heavily dragged down by documented avoidance, no-shows, and unprofessional conduct. Project completion is critically compromised by explicit abandonment and non-completion requiring customer intervention. Experience scores remain moderate-to-high based on positive technical feedback, but this is overshadowed by operational failures.

• CRITICAL: Severe review polarization suggests either dramatic business deterioration or potential identity/ownership confusion. Two recent reviews (2023, 2022) allege serious legal violations (operating without plumbing license, using unlicensed permit-puller), non-completion of $14,000 job, and 4-month communication avoidance. Four older reviews (2018-2020) are uniformly positive with specific details.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 3-6 years old (2018-2020). Most recent reviews (2022-2023) are severely negative, suggesting significant deterioration in service quality or business practices.
• LICENSING RED FLAG: Review from 2023 explicitly states contractor operating without plumbing license and using another person (Steve) to pull permits. This is a serious legal/regulatory violation.
• FINANCIAL RED FLAG: $14,000 job abandoned with 95% payment collected; customer forced to hire another plumber to complete work.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: 2022 review documents 4-month period of avoided calls and texts after no-show appointment.
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS CHANGE: Reviews may reference different business entities or ownership changes (mentions of 'Sweet Tee's Plumbing' vs 'Terrence' vs 'HVAC owner'), creating ambiguity about whether all reviews reference the same contractor.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. The extreme polarization between recent negative reviews (documenting serious legal violations, non-completion, and communication failure) and older positive reviews suggests either significant business deterioration or potential data quality issues. The WW Score of 52.3 reflects the severe drag from documented project abandonment and professionalism failures, but the overall reliability is compromised by review inconsistency and recency concerns. Do not rely on this score alone; investigate the licensing allegations and business history independently before engaging this contractor.

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning 4+ years. Two older positive reviews (2018, 2020) praise responsiveness, professionalism, and quick service, while a 2022 review documents serious quality failures (improper fasteners, leaking fixtures, faulty shutoffs) combined with complete non-responsiveness to multiple contact attempts. The stark contradiction between glowing older testimonials and the recent detailed complaint of both poor workmanship and communication breakdown suggests either significant service degradation or potential reliability issues. The single pricing mention was positive, but insufficient data on this dimension. Overall score is heavily depressed by the recent project completion and professionalism failures.

• CRITICAL: Severe recency concern — most positive reviews are 2–4 years old (2018, 2020), while the most recent review (2022) documents serious failures and non-responsiveness. This suggests possible service quality decline.
• CONTRADICTION: Two 5-star reviews praise responsiveness and communication; the 1-star review explicitly states refusal to respond to texts, messages, and emails. This is a major red flag for inconsistency or potential fake reviews among the positive testimonials.
• QUALITY ISSUES: The 2022 review documents multiple technical failures (non-stainless fasteners in wet area, leaking faucets, faulty shutoffs) — these are basic plumbing errors suggesting skill gaps.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE: Only 3 reviews total limits confidence in any dimension. Recommend collecting more recent data before making hiring decisions.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, significant time gaps between reviews, and a stark contradiction between older positive reviews and a recent detailed complaint of both poor workmanship and non-responsiveness. The 2022 review is the most recent and most detailed; it should carry more weight than older testimonials.

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans nearly a decade, making any score highly unreliable. The single negative review is detailed and serious: it describes a misdiagnosis of the problem, improper workmanship (a hole drilled too large for the plug), a resulting leak causing property damage, and an inadequate emergency response — all of which heavily penalize project completion and experience. The two positive reviews are vague and lack specific detail, which limits their ability to offset the documented failure. Professionalism scores slightly higher because two reviews mention it positively, but the negative review's account of dismissive communication ('it's just water') drags the score down significantly.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.
• The two positive reviews (2015 and 2022) contain generic praise with no specific job details, raising mild concern about their evidentiary value.
• The oldest review dates to 2015 and the negative review to 2018 — the majority of reviews are more than 5 years old, significantly reducing recency relevance.
• No reviews mention pricing at all — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• The 1-star review describes a serious pattern: misdiagnosis, improper repair, property damage, and refusal to respond to an emergency callback — this is a significant red flag for both workmanship and accountability.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 7+ years, with no pricing data and limited specifics in the positive reviews — it should not be considered a reliable indicator of current contractor quality.

Carmark Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across reviews spanning nearly a decade. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is significantly dragged down by two serious negative accounts: one describing combative behavior during a pricing dispute and another from a vendor describing missed appointments and unpaid invoices. Project completion receives moderate marks, with some customers praising reliability and follow-through, but the vendor review raises concerns about follow-through in business dealings more broadly. Pricing is a clear weak point, with one reviewer explicitly stating the quote was double what a competitor charged, and another acknowledging the service is not cheap. Experience scores modestly positive based on limited mentions of quality work and good advice, but there is insufficient evidence to score it with confidence.

• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2017-01-20) contains only the text 'unknown' and provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• Review corpus spans 2014–2023 with only one review from the past 12 months (2023). Most reviews are older than 3 years and may not reflect current business practices.
• The most recent review (2023) is a 1-star complaint about combative behavior and significantly inflated pricing — this is given elevated weight due to recency.
• Small sample size of 6 total reviews (5 usable) means individual reviews have outsized influence on scores. Results should be treated with caution.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the mix of very old 5-star reviews and more recent negative reviews may suggest a decline in service quality over time.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample, a wide date range spanning nearly 10 years, one unusable review, and significant contradictions between positive older reviews and more recent negative experiences.

The reviews for Alpha Omega Plumbing and Heating paint an overwhelmingly negative picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple accounts of rude behavior, a no-show appointment, blocking a customer's number, and dismissive attitudes when questioned — with only 3 of 12 reviews offering positive remarks on courtesy. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with numerous reviewers citing dramatically inflated charges, undisclosed emergency fees, minimal labor time billed at extreme rates, and quotes that were far above competitors — only a small handful of older reviews describe pricing as reasonable. Project completion is mixed but leans negative, with documented cases of work being abandoned mid-job, problems being made worse after the technician's visit, and a refusal to honor a callback seven months after service. Experience scores low due to multiple accounts of poor technical judgment, incorrect diagnoses, damage caused during service, and cutting corners — though a few positive reviews do credit Sam with competent, timely repairs.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: The 5-star reviews (2015–2019) are notably brief, generic, and lack specific detail compared to the highly detailed negative reviews. Phrases like 'arrived right on time,' 'very professional,' and 'highly recommend' appear across multiple positive reviews with little unique context.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2022 and 2023) are both 1-star and describe serious overcharging and potential deliberate sabotage of equipment. The positive reviews are all from 2019 or earlier, suggesting a significant decline in service quality over time.
• PATTERN OF OVERCHARGING: At least 5 independent reviews describe being charged excessive rates for minimal labor (under 10–45 minutes of work), with parts costs verified to be a fraction of what was billed. This is a consistent and credible pattern.
• ALLEGED DELIBERATE DAMAGE: One 2022 reviewer explicitly states the technician made their AC problem worse after the diagnostic visit, suggesting possible intentional sabotage to drive a larger sale. This is a serious allegation supported by circumstantial detail.
• ABANDONED WORK: One reviewer describes the technician melting pipes into the condenser and then abandoning the job while still charging $200. This directly impacts the project completion score.
• CUSTOMER BLOCKING: One reviewer states Sam blocked their number after refusing a callback 7 months post-service, indicating a pattern of avoiding accountability.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, and the score of 34.2 should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of serious, consistent service quality concerns — particularly around pricing transparency, professionalism, and workmanship integrity.