Find Nearby Plumbers In Quincy, Massachusetts

Aspinwall Plumbing & Heating receives strong praise from a large portion of reviewers for knowledgeable, courteous technicians and reliable communication tools like technician tracking and pre-arrival notifications. However, a significant and recurring cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — raises serious concerns about pricing transparency, with multiple customers explicitly describing charges as price gouging or wildly out of line with expectations. Project completion is a mixed picture: many recent reviews praise timely, thorough work, but older reviews document no-shows, abandoned jobs, missed callbacks, and at least one case of work left incomplete for months. The experience dimension scores moderately well overall, with specific technicians like Terrell, Danny, Andrew, and Jake receiving repeated praise for technical skill, though at least two reviews cite misdiagnosis or substandard workmanship. The score reflects a company with genuine strengths in its best technicians but persistent systemic issues in pricing, scheduling reliability, and follow-through that have been documented across nearly a decade of reviews.

• 10 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several short reviews ('Excellent service.', 'Very professional.', 'Excellent', 'Great service. Fast, friendly and efficient!') are generic and lack specifics. While not conclusively fake, they inflate the apparent positivity without providing scorable evidence.
• A notable pattern of 1-star reviews citing identical themes — price gouging, no-shows, and failure to return calls — appears across 2013 through 2022, suggesting these are systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.
• Pricing complaints are severe and specific: one reviewer cited $900 for 1.5 hours of basic work, another cited $275 for a misdiagnosed service call, another cited quotes of $17K–$20K vs. a competitor's $11K. These are not vague complaints and significantly suppress the pricing score.
• Several negative reviews were partially updated to positive after the owner intervened (e.g., refunds issued, callbacks made). While this reflects some responsiveness, it also confirms the underlying complaints were valid.
• Recency note: The majority of highly positive reviews are from 2024–2025, while the majority of negative reviews are from 2013–2022. This may indicate genuine improvement over time, but the older negative reviews are weighted conservatively given the volume and specificity of complaints.
• One review (2015) describes a large commercial job with unsafe conditions, slipping hazards, and a project running more than double the estimated timeline — this is a significant project completion failure.
• One review explicitly accuses the company of performing unnecessary services and substandard work (2014), and another describes a misdiagnosis that was corrected by a competing company for less money (2013).

This WW Score is based on 85 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence due to volume, but consumers should weigh the persistent pricing and reliability complaints heavily — particularly if cost transparency and scheduling dependability are priorities — as these issues are documented repeatedly across multiple years and by multiple independent reviewers.

McFarland Air Conditioning Services demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with multiple customers praising skill level and timely repairs. Pricing is competitive and transparent, with customers noting fair estimates and no hidden charges. However, professionalism is inconsistent: while most reviews highlight responsiveness and friendliness, one detailed 2017 review documents serious follow-through failures, no-shows, scheduling issues, and unprofessional behavior during a dispute resolution. A 2021 review also reports a no-show with no communication. The company's score is pulled down by these documented professionalism lapses despite strong recent positive feedback.

• Two no-show incidents documented (2021-06-02 and 2017-01-13), both involving poor communication and lack of follow-up
• One detailed negative review (2017-01-13) describes escalating unprofessional behavior including yelling and cursing at customer; however, customer later updated rating from 1-star to 3-star after partial resolution
• Most recent reviews (2023-2024) are uniformly 5-star with positive language, contrasting sharply with older reviews; however, language variation and specific details suggest authentic reviews rather than fake pattern
• Significant recency bias: 5 of 8 reviews are from 2023-2024; oldest negative incidents are from 2017-2021, suggesting possible service quality improvement over time
• Review from 2013 and 2017 are notably older and may not reflect current operations

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While recent reviews (past 12 months) are consistently positive and detailed, documented no-shows and professionalism failures from 2017-2021 indicate historical service inconsistency. The company appears to have improved, but the limited sample size (8 reviews) and age disparity between positive and negative feedback reduce overall confidence in the score's predictive reliability.

Dedham Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous behavior across multiple reviews. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and transparent, though one significant 2013 incident involved undisclosed charges and poor follow-up that severely damaged trust. Project completion is solid overall, with most jobs finished promptly and professionally, though one notable failure involved a no-show appointment and unresolved old toilet disposal. Technical skill and workmanship quality are consistently praised. The 2013 negative review is substantially older but represents a serious service failure that materially impacts the overall score.

• CRITICAL: One severe negative review from 2013 describing unprofessional behavior including undisclosed charges ($70 for toilet removal not mentioned at estimate), aggressive debt collection tactics (showing up at elderly parents' home, calling work repeatedly), and failure to complete job properly (toilet left on front porch). This represents a major service failure.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2009-2012 (10+ years old). Only 2 reviews from 2013 or later. Limited recent data to assess current service quality.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Two reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings (2015, 2003), and one review states 'See above' with 5-star rating (2012). These provide no usable data.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between predominantly positive reviews (13 five-star ratings) and one extremely detailed negative review describing serious professionalism and ethics violations. This suggests either significant service variability or a specific incident that went badly wrong.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data (most reviews 10+ years old), limited recent feedback, and one serious documented service failure that contradicts the otherwise positive pattern. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects uncertainty about whether current service quality matches the older positive reviews or the 2013 incident represents a persistent problem.

Feeley's demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently responsive communication and quick turnaround times across 8 reviews. Pricing is fair and transparent based on 4 mentions. However, project completion is a significant weakness: while most jobs are completed initially, 2 reviews explicitly document callback failures and inadequate repairs that were not remedied, dragging this dimension to 68. Technical skill is solid (85) based on 5 mentions of competent work. The 2010 commercial review is particularly damaging, showing refusal to stand behind work and poor follow-through. Recency bias favors older positive reviews; more recent data is limited.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 6 of 9 reviews are from 2014–2019; only 1 review from 2022. Limited recent data to assess current performance.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Two explicit failures documented—2020 review (drain re-leaked, callbacks ignored) and 2010 review (no-shows, refused callbacks, denied responsibility). These are not isolated complaints but pattern evidence of callback/warranty issues.
• COMMERCIAL vs. RESIDENTIAL: The 2010 commercial review shows refusal to service and blame-shifting. This suggests potential service gaps for non-residential work.
• CONFIDENCE MODERATION: While mention counts are adequate, the presence of 1-star and 2-star reviews with detailed negative specifics (not generic) reduces overall confidence from HIGH to MODERATE.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience scores are solid and based on adequate data, the documented project completion failures—particularly the 2020 callback avoidance and 2010 refusal to warranty work—indicate real service gaps that offset positive reviews. The score reflects a contractor with strong initial response but inconsistent follow-through and warranty support.

Ford Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is the weakest area (68/100), with multiple reviews citing rudeness, unprofessional behavior, and poor communication—particularly from the owner Mr. Ford. Project completion is solid (78/100), with most jobs finished successfully, though one recent experience involved unexpected hourly billing and incomplete problem-solving. Experience and technical skill are strong (82/100), with reviewers consistently praising workmanship and problem-solving ability. Pricing is moderate (65/100), with fair rates noted in some reviews but concerns about unexpected billing changes and overall cost in others. The company demonstrates strong long-term client relationships but recent reviews (2020-2023) reveal declining service quality and communication issues.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2015-2020; recent reviews (2020-2023) are predominantly negative or mixed, suggesting service quality decline
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews cite unprofessional behavior specifically from owner Mr. Ford, including rudeness, gruff communication, and accusatory behavior toward customers
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Review from 2011 documents complete failure to follow up on estimate quote; review from 2020 documents unexpected billing method change without advance notice
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE: Quality appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned (Dan praised; Brian and Steve receive mixed reviews; Mr. Ford receives consistent criticism)
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY: Shift from flat-rate to hourly billing without customer notification; inclusion of travel time and waiting time in billable hours questioned by customer

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While based on 10 reviews with adequate mention counts, the significant recency bias (positive reviews clustered in 2015-2020, negative/mixed in 2020-2023) and stark inconsistency in service quality depending on technician assignment suggest the current WW Score may overstate reliability. Recent customers should expect variable service quality and should specifically request Dan if available.

MJ Eisenhauer Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and reliable project completion, with multiple reviews praising quality workmanship and accurate diagnostics. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by two detailed negative reviews (2016) describing rude, condescending behavior from the son, contrasting sharply with praise for the father's pleasant demeanor. Pricing is consistently described as fair and transparent. The most recent positive reviews (2019, 2017) suggest possible improvement, but the pattern of interpersonal friction with one team member remains a material concern.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2010-2017). Only one review from past 12 months (2019). Recent performance may differ from historical data.
• PERSONALITY INCONSISTENCY: Clear pattern of positive feedback for father, negative feedback for son. This suggests inconsistent service quality depending on which team member handles the job.
• PROFESSIONALISM VOLATILITY: Extreme range from 5-star praise for responsiveness and professionalism (2019, 2013) to 1-star and 2-star reviews citing 'horrendous' customer service and 'rude/condescending' behavior (2016). This is not random variation but appears tied to specific personnel.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews show genuine specificity, varied detail, and authentic emotional range. Negative reviews are detailed and credible.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data and significant professionalism volatility tied to personnel. The technical competence appears solid and consistent, but customer experience risk is material if the son is assigned to your job. Recommend requesting the father or clarifying team assignment before booking.