Find Nearby Plumbers In New Bedford, Massachusetts

JSP Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, courteous staff, and responsive communication across 38 mentions. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished on time and follow-through honored in 28 reviews. Technical experience is well-regarded with skilled workmanship noted in 22 reviews. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with 11 explicit mentions revealing a pattern of aggressive upselling, inflated quotes, and lack of transparent itemization. Multiple customers report quotes 2-3x higher than market rates and difficulty obtaining refunds on deposits.

• PRICING PATTERN ALERT: At least 4 detailed negative reviews (Oct 2024, July 2024, June 2024, Oct 2018) describe aggressive pricing practices including bait-and-switch tactics, inflated quotes ($9000 vs $4500 market, $11500 vs $4000 competitor, $395 vs $150 market rate), and refusal to provide itemized breakdowns. This suggests systemic pricing issues, not isolated incidents.
• FOLLOW-UP SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite failure to complete promised callbacks or return to finish incomplete work (June 2024 faucet stopper installation, July 2024 capacitor service charge disputes).
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: One review (Sept 2023) reports unplugged freezer with no responsibility taken; another (Oct 2018) describes owner refusing to return calls after billing dispute.
• REVIEW COMPOSITION CONCERN: 44 of 61 reviews are 5-star with minimal detail; many are generic praise without specifics. However, the 1-2 star reviews are highly detailed and specific, suggesting authentic negative feedback rather than fake reviews. The 5-star reviews appear genuine but lack depth.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed negative reviews cluster in 2024 (June, July, Oct), suggesting recent deterioration in pricing practices or increased customer scrutiny.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 61 reviews with strong data across all dimensions. The score is pulled down significantly by a consistent, well-documented pattern of aggressive pricing and billing practices that appears systemic rather than anecdotal. Professionalism and project completion are genuinely strong, but customers should expect to negotiate pricing aggressively and request detailed itemization before committing.

Plumbing Masters has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, friendliness, punctuality, and technical competence. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spanning the full date range — raise serious concerns about pricing transparency, overcharging, no-shows, incomplete work, and rude staff behavior, which significantly temper the otherwise strong scores. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible complaints about unexplained charges, inflated quotes, non-itemized invoices, and pressure tactics, pulling that score well below the others. Project completion is generally strong but is undermined by several reviews describing unfinished work, callbacks not honored, and jobs left in worse condition than found. The experience dimension scores well overall, with many reviewers citing knowledgeable and skilled technicians, though a handful of reviews describe misdiagnoses and poor workmanship.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on consecutive dates (e.g., the Levi garbage disposal review, the Manuel Luna review, the Miguel technician review, the 'hands down awesome' slow drain review, and the Casey professional review each appear twice within 2-3 days). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or padding. Confidence has been maintained at HIGH due to overall volume but scores have been kept conservative.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their presence in bulk inflates the star average artificially.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CREDIBLE AND RECURRING: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe non-itemized invoices, charges far exceeding market rates (e.g., $466 for a cartridge replacement, $495 for a toilet install, $18,000-$35,000 for bathroom work, $300 for lighting a pilot light), and bait-and-switch advertising (e.g., $53 drain clean ad vs. $409 quote). These are not isolated incidents.
• REVIEW MANIPULATION ALLEGATION: One reviewer (February 2023) explicitly states they were called by Plumbing Masters and threatened with cancellation of service if they did not change their 1-star review. This is a serious integrity flag and suggests some positive reviews may have been coerced or incentivized.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews across different years describe technicians who never arrived, no callbacks, and wasted full days waiting. This is a recurring operational issue not offset by the volume of positive reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of reviews with substantive text are from 2022-2025, which is appropriate for weighting. Reviews from 2003-2016 are present but given reduced weight. The duplicate cluster in June 2025 is suspicious and may represent a coordinated review push.
• WORKER CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: At least two reviews describe technicians or crews behaving rudely, using profanity toward customers, playing loud music, disappearing for hours, and being dismissive — particularly toward women and elderly customers. These are serious professionalism concerns.

This WW Score of 74.2 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, an explicit allegation of review coercion, recurring pricing complaints across many years, and multiple credible no-show and incomplete-work reports — the true performance level is likely somewhat lower than the score suggests for price-sensitive or vulnerable customers.

Speedy Rooter demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual arrivals, friendly communication, and courteous technicians across 58 reviews. However, significant concerns emerge in project completion (42 mentions) with multiple reports of incomplete work, callbacks required, and follow-through failures on major jobs. Pricing feedback (18 mentions) reveals mixed sentiment—some customers praise fair rates while others report overcharging, hidden fees, and billing disputes. Technical experience (35 mentions) is generally solid with skilled diagnostics, though several reviews document incorrect problem-solving and equipment misuse. The company shows reliability on routine drain cleaning but struggles with complex jobs and accountability on larger projects.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe project completion failures documented—incomplete work requiring callbacks, damage to property (broken toilet flanges, flooring damage, sewage spills), and abandoned jobs on major installations ($50,000+ contract with permit process failure and refusal to reimburse).
• PATTERN: At least 12 reviews (13% of total) report significant quality or service failures including property damage, incomplete work, poor follow-through, and unresponsive management to complaints.
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUE: Several customers report difficulty reaching management, unresponsive to damage claims, and refusal to address billing disputes or warranty issues.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between routine drain-cleaning reviews (mostly 5-star, 2020-2025) and complex project reviews (1-2 stars, mixed dates). Suggests company excels at simple jobs but fails on larger/more complex work.
• BILLING CONCERNS: Multiple reports of being charged more than quoted, double-billing for repeat visits to fix incomplete work, and disputes over labor hours charged vs. actual time spent.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews document no-shows, failure to return calls, avoidance tactics (hanging up when recognized), and poor responsiveness to emergency calls despite advertising 24-hour service.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are predominantly positive 5-star ratings for routine drain work. Negative reviews cluster in 2014-2021 period, suggesting possible past management issues or inconsistent quality control that may or may not persist.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: At least 4 reviews explicitly document damage caused by technicians (broken toilet flanges, flooring damage, sewage spills, broken blinds) with inadequate remediation or refusal to take responsibility.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with CAUTION: while the company demonstrates competence on routine drain-cleaning work (evidenced by numerous recent positive reviews), the substantial body of evidence documenting project completion failures, property damage, billing disputes, and poor accountability on complex jobs indicates significant risk for larger or more complicated projects. The score is pulled down by legitimate concerns about follow-through and integrity, not absence of data. Customers should verify scope of work in writing, document all communications, and consider this company primarily for routine maintenance rather than major installations or emergency work.

Jim Dorsey & Son demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism in recent reviews (past 12 months), with consistent praise for punctuality, friendliness, and skilled workmanship. However, the company's overall score is significantly dragged down by a substantial pattern of negative historical reviews (2014–2023) documenting serious issues: overcharging, poor diagnostics, missed appointments, rude staff, unnecessary services, and failure to follow up on callbacks. Pricing emerges as the weakest dimension, with multiple complaints about inflated charges, unnecessary parts replacement, and aggressive upselling. While recent 5-star reviews are numerous and detailed, the historical pattern of complaints suggests systemic problems that may not have been fully resolved.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 36 of 75 reviews are 5-star with minimal or no text (blank or 1–3 words). This clustering of generic praise without specifics raises concerns about review authenticity or manipulation, particularly reviews dated 2025-06-07, 2025-06-02, 2025-05-26, 2025-05-19, 2025-04-10, 2025-03-11, and 2025-02-09.
• RECENCY BIAS: The vast majority of detailed positive reviews are from June 2025 (very recent), while detailed negative reviews span 2011–2023. This temporal split suggests either recent service improvements or a shift in review submission patterns. Caution is warranted in interpreting the high recent scores without longer-term validation.
• PRICING CONCERNS: 18 reviews explicitly mention pricing. Of these, 13 are negative, citing overcharging, unnecessary services, inflated labor rates, and aggressive upselling. Only 2 reviews mention fair/reasonable pricing. This is a critical red flag.
• PROJECT COMPLETION ISSUES: Multiple historical reviews document missed appointments, no-shows, failure to return calls, cancelled jobs, and incomplete follow-up. While recent reviews show improvement, the pattern is concerning.
• STAFF CONSISTENCY: Negative reviews cite rude, unprofessional, and condescending staff behavior (office and field). Recent reviews praise friendliness and professionalism. This suggests either staff turnover or selective reporting.
• TECHNICAL COMPETENCE VARIANCE: Several reviews document poor diagnostics, sending unqualified technicians, and incorrect problem identification. However, recent reviews praise thoroughness and expertise. Inconsistency is notable.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (past 6 months) are overwhelmingly positive and detailed, a significant portion of those reviews lack substantive text, raising authenticity concerns. The historical record (2011–2023) documents serious, recurring problems with pricing, professionalism, and follow-through that contradict the recent narrative. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects a company in transition, but without independent verification of recent service quality or evidence that systemic issues have been resolved, this score should not be considered highly reliable for decision-making. Prospective customers should request references from recent jobs and clarify pricing and warranty terms in writing before engaging.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

Precision Plumbing draws a large volume of strongly positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, punctuality, clear communication, and technical skill — these positives are consistent and span many years and locations. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15–18% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, scheduling failures, poor communication, alleged price gouging, overcharging, warranty disputes, substandard workmanship, and in at least two cases regulatory investigations by the Nevada State Contractors Board. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing fair or reasonable, a notable cluster of negative reviewers describe charges they considered grossly excessive (e.g., $528/hour, $750 for a $1.99 fix, $1,400 for a 20-minute job, $650 for a cartridge replacement). Project completion is moderately strong but is dragged down by multiple documented no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of work left incomplete for weeks. Experience scores well overall given the volume of praise for diagnostic skill and quality workmanship, but is tempered by a handful of reviews describing incompetent diagnosis or dangerous substandard work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., multiple identical 'Fast, affordable, friendly, and super reliable' reviews on 2018-02-22; identical 'Great family business' reviews on 2022-09-08; identical 'Will hire again' reviews on 2022-09-12; identical 'Great and quick service' and 'Excellent customer service' reviews on 2022-09-06; identical 'He did a good job and was nice to work with' reviews on 2022-10-20; identical 'Friendly service, great job' reviews on 2022-10-01; identical 'Kieth was very easy to work with' reviews on 2022-10-22; identical 'Very high quality work promp service' reviews on 2023-01-24; identical 'The young man did an expert job' reviews on 2022-12-16; identical 'Precision Plumbimg is a great Company' reviews on 2020-10-24 and 2020-10-25). This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or system duplication and reduces confidence in the raw positive review count.
• REGULATORY FLAG: At least two reviews (dated August 2024) allege that Precision Plumbing (dba aaa Precision Plumbing, Las Vegas) was under investigation by the Nevada State Board of Contractors for substandard work, failed city inspection, a life-threatening gas leak, and deceptive practices. These are serious allegations that, if accurate, represent significant safety and integrity concerns.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference multiple distinct businesses operating under the 'Precision Plumbing' name across different geographic markets (Las Vegas NV, Bay Area CA, Michigan, South Carolina, California Central Valley, etc.) as well as references to 'Plumbing Squad' and 'Budget Water Heaters.' Scores may reflect an aggregation of different companies rather than a single contractor, which limits the reliability of any single composite score.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS PATTERN: A recurring pattern of pricing complaints exists across multiple reviewers and years — including allegations of price gouging against elderly or disabled customers, charges not matching quotes, refusal to provide itemized receipts, and hourly rates described as $600+ per hour for simple jobs. This is not isolated and depresses the pricing score significantly.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and failure to return calls. This is a consistent pattern affecting the project completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2019 through mid-2025, with the most recent cluster from May–June 2025. Reviews from 2025 are predominantly positive and recent, which is a positive signal, but the negative regulatory and safety reviews from mid-2024 are also recent and carry significant weight.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 40–50 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules, but their volume inflates the apparent star average.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting possible manipulation, multi-entity ambiguity across geographic markets, serious unresolved regulatory allegations from 2024, and a consistent minority pattern of pricing, scheduling, and workmanship complaints that cannot be dismissed as outliers.