Find Nearby Plumbers In New Bedford, Massachusetts

American Well & Pump presents a deeply mixed picture across only 4 reviews spanning nearly a decade. Two positive reviews highlight same-day responsiveness, courteous technicians, reasonable pricing, and successful pump replacements, which is genuinely strong performance. However, two negative reviews describe serious failures in follow-through and communication — one customer waited 5 months without service, and another was left without water for 5 days after the owner failed to return calls as promised. These failures directly undercut the project completion and professionalism scores. The small review pool and wide date range (2015–2024) make it difficult to draw reliable conclusions about current performance.

• Very small review pool (4 reviews) — WW Score carries low statistical reliability.
• Reviews span nearly 9 years (2015–2024); older reviews may not reflect current business practices. The two negative reviews are from 2016 and 2019, while the two positive reviews are from 2015 and 2024.
• The 2024 review is the most recent and is positive, but a single recent review is insufficient to confirm a trend of improvement.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with significant date spread and should be treated as highly preliminary — do not rely on it as a definitive assessment of this contractor's current quality.

This contractor has a sharply divided review profile across only 3 reviews. Two positive reviews highlight strong responsiveness, willingness to go beyond the original scope, and reasonable pricing. However, the single negative review is severe: the contractor allegedly left a job incomplete without checking for leaks, causing significant property damage (destroyed ceiling, flooded basement), and responded to the complaint with profane, hostile language and a refusal to return. This single incident heavily penalizes both professionalism and project completion scores. With only 3 reviews total, no dimension can be scored with high confidence, and the negative review carries substantial weight given the seriousness of the alleged conduct.

• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Scores and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable until more reviews are available.
• SEVERE NEGATIVE INCIDENT: One review alleges the contractor caused property damage by not verifying repair success before leaving, then responded with profanity and refused accountability. This is a significant red flag regardless of positive reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review is from January 2023. The two 2021 reviews are over 3 years old. No reviews exist from the past 12 months, limiting insight into current performance.
• POLARIZED RATING PATTERN: Reviews are either 5-star or 1-star with no middle ground, which can indicate inconsistent service quality or selective clientele experiences.

This WW Score is LOW RELIABILITY due to only 3 reviews, a wide rating split, the presence of a serious unresolved complaint involving property damage and unprofessional conduct, and no reviews within the past 12 months.

This contractor shows a stark divide in performance. One detailed 5-star review from 2022 praises superior workmanship, quality products, and long-term reliability across multiple project types (heating, water heaters, bathrooms, kitchens). However, two 1-star reviews from 2018 reveal critical failures: non-responsiveness to an emergency pipe leak and a pricing dispute involving an unauthorized hot water tank replacement. The professionalism score is dragged down by the complete failure to return a callback during an emergency. Pricing concerns are evidenced by a complaint of inflated quotes. Project completion is undermined by the emergency callback failure and the unauthorized work issue.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two negative reviews are from 2018 (5-6 years old), while the positive review is from 2022. Older reviews may not reflect current operations, but the pattern of non-responsiveness is serious.
• EMERGENCY RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: One review explicitly states the contractor did not call back regarding an emergency water leak. This is a critical professionalism and project completion failure.
• PRICING DISPUTE WITH UNAUTHORIZED WORK: The 2018 review indicates the contractor quoted and apparently performed work (hot water tank replacement) that the customer explicitly said should not be done. This suggests poor communication and potential billing integrity issues.
• SAMPLE SIZE VERY SMALL: Only 3 reviews total limits confidence in any score. The positive review is detailed and credible, but two serious failures from the same year (2018) create significant concern.

This score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and the age of two critical negative reviews. However, the pattern of non-responsiveness and unauthorized work in 2018 represents genuine service failures that cannot be ignored, even if they may not reflect current performance. Additional recent reviews are needed to determine if the contractor has improved.

This contractor demonstrates severe professionalism deficits, with 8 reviews explicitly documenting rude behavior, abrupt hang-ups, poor communication, and no-shows. While 5 reviews acknowledge technical knowledge and experience (particularly from YouTube viewers and one satisfied customer), this expertise is severely undermined by consistent unprofessional conduct. Project completion is compromised by multiple documented no-shows and service refusals. Pricing data is minimal (2 mentions), with one reference to 'reasonable cost' offset by refusals to provide quotes. The single positive service experience (2021) is outweighed by numerous negative interactions spanning 2014–2023.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2023-10-12 and 2021-05-16) appear to be from YouTube viewers praising the contractor's online content rather than actual service experiences. These lack specificity about actual work performed and may not reflect real customer service quality.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (2019, 2018, 2014) document identical behavior—rude dismissal, impatience, and abrupt hang-ups during initial phone consultations. This consistent pattern suggests systemic professionalism issues, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 3 reviews (2023-11-14, 2022-01-08, and implied in others) document no-shows or failure to arrive as scheduled. This is a critical project completion failure.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While older reviews (2014–2018) are present, recent reviews (2023) show the same problematic behavior persists, indicating no improvement over time.
• SAMPLE BIAS RISK: Negative reviews may be overrepresented, but the consistency and specificity of complaints across 9 years suggests genuine systemic issues rather than isolated dissatisfied customers.

This WW Score of 32.8 is reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is grounded in HIGH-confidence data across professionalism and experience dimensions, with consistent negative patterns documented across multiple years. The contractor should not be recommended for service based on this evidence.

This contractor has a deeply concerning review profile dominated by two highly negative reviews against one positive review. Professionalism and project completion scores are severely dragged down by a no-show appointment with no callback and a pattern of not returning phone calls at all. The one positive review from 2015 mentions punctuality, politeness, and reasonable pricing, but it is nearly a decade old and carries minimal weight against the more recent negative experiences. The shoddy workmanship complaint — including an A/C installation with no filters and repeated property damage — drives the experience score to a very low level. Overall, the data paints a picture of a contractor with serious reliability and quality issues.

• RECENCY WARNING: The only positive review is dated 2015, making it approximately 9+ years old. The two negative reviews are from 2018. No reviews from the past 5+ years are present, making it impossible to assess current performance.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as directional only and not definitive.
• PATTERN OF NON-RESPONSIVENESS: Two separate reviews independently cite failure to return phone calls, suggesting a systemic issue rather than an isolated incident.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One review explicitly describes property damage occurring twice due to shoddy work and a completed installation missing required components (A/C filters), indicating a serious quality control failure.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: The reviews appear genuine — they contain specific details, varied language, and a mix of ratings consistent with authentic customer experiences.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to only 3 reviews available, all dated between 2015 and 2018, with no recent data to confirm whether performance has improved or worsened.

This contractor's review profile is overwhelmingly negative across all four scored dimensions. Pricing is the most consistently criticized issue, with six of eight reviewers explicitly describing overcharging, hidden fees, inflated labor hours, and marked-up parts — in several cases customers documented specific dollar discrepancies. Professionalism scores are severely dragged down by multiple accounts of rude, dismissive, and condescending behavior from the owner and staff, including one reviewer being told the owner 'didn't need their business.' Project completion is partially salvaged by a small number of positive reviews noting jobs were finished, but is undermined by reports of leaking installations, unresolved boiler issues spanning years, and technicians arriving unprepared. Experience scores reflect documented instances of technicians lacking training on the equipment they were servicing, improper installations, and an inability to diagnose electronic systems.

• Two positive reviews (2019 and 2020) are notably brief, generic, and lack any specific detail about the work performed — these should be treated with low confidence and may not reflect genuine customer experiences.
• Six of eight reviews are 1-star ratings with highly specific, detailed complaints — this pattern is consistent with genuine negative experiences rather than coordinated review bombing.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with the most recent negative review dated July 2024 and the most recent positive review dated May 2020. The recency trend does not favor the contractor.
• Multiple reviewers independently documented the same pattern of inflated labor hours and marked-up parts, which suggests a systemic billing practice rather than isolated incidents.
• One reviewer reported security system timestamps contradicting billed labor hours — a serious allegation of fraudulent billing that significantly impacts the pricing and professionalism scores.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence given that 8 reviews provided usable data across all four dimensions, the negative patterns are specific, independently corroborated, and span multiple years, and the two positive reviews lack the detail needed to meaningfully offset the documented complaints.