Find Nearby Plumbers In Woburn, Massachusetts

Addario's presents a deeply polarized review profile: a large cluster of recent 5-star reviews (predominantly from mid-2024 through mid-2025) praise individual technicians as courteous, knowledgeable, and punctual, while a substantial and detailed body of 1-star reviews spanning 2016–2024 documents serious, recurring failures across every dimension. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers independently describing hidden fees, bait-and-switch consultation charges, wildly inflated quotes (sometimes 2–5x competitor prices), and billing for work not performed. Project completion is severely undermined by multiple accounts of abandoned or incomplete jobs, unresolved callbacks, broken promises, and work that caused additional damage (flooding, incorrect installations, severed pipes). Professionalism scores are dragged down by widespread reports of no-shows, repeated appointment cancellations, unresponsive management, rude office staff, and in several cases aggressive or intimidating sales tactics. Technical experience is mixed: individual technicians are sometimes praised, but multiple detailed reviews describe misdiagnoses, incorrect installations, and failures that required other companies to correct Addario's work.

• SUSPECTED REVIEW CLUSTERING: The majority of 5-star reviews are heavily concentrated in a narrow window (April–June 2025) and many lack specific detail, using generic praise such as 'Excellent service,' 'Great job, as usual,' 'Awesome great service,' and 'Exxcellent' with no job context. Twelve reviews in this dataset contain no review text at all — only a 5-star rating. This pattern is consistent with a coordinated review campaign or incentivized reviews.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 6 reviews contained no text whatsoever, only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: Nearly all negative reviews predate 2025, while nearly all 2025 reviews are 5-star. This sharp bifurcation may reflect genuine improvement, but the volume and specificity of negative reviews — combined with the generic nature of recent positives — warrants caution.
• PATTERN OF UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same failure modes: management refusing to return calls, disputed billing, incomplete work, and warranty refusals. This suggests systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.
• PRICING DECEPTION PATTERN: At least 10 independent reviewers describe a consistent pattern of being quoted a low consultation or visit fee ($80–$150) and then being charged significantly more upon arrival, without prior disclosure. Several reviewers used the words 'scam,' 'bait and switch,' or 'fraud.'
• INSTALLATION QUALITY CONCERNS: Multiple detailed reviews describe major installation errors including incorrect mini-split placement, refrigerant leaks in new systems, severed water mains, improperly secured motors, and systems that failed inspection multiple times. These are not minor complaints.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Several reviewers independently describe the owner as dismissive, hostile, or belittling when complaints were raised, and refusing to honor warranties or agreed refunds.

This WW Score of 42.1 is based on a high volume of reviews with strong data across all four dimensions and should be treated as a reliable signal of significant, systemic service quality problems — the low score is not a statistical artifact but reflects consistent, detailed, and independently corroborated negative experiences, partially offset by genuine positive feedback from individual technician interactions.

Tyler Plumbing's review set is heavily polarized: a cluster of older 5-star reviews praising low prices, punctuality, and friendliness is directly contradicted by several detailed, credible negative reviews describing serious failures. The two most damaging reviews describe a botched boiler installation with dangerous CO levels, fire code violations, asbestos exposure, and a year-long refusal to return and fix the work — ultimately resulting in a small claims court judgment against the contractor. A third negative review describes a no-show, price increase, and unresponsiveness. Project completion and experience scores are severely penalized due to documented abandoned work, unsafe installations, and lack of follow-through. Pricing scores a moderate positive because multiple reviewers acknowledged low bids, though the low-bid pattern is itself flagged as a risk factor given the outcomes.

• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: One detailed review documents a boiler installation with 300 PPM carbon monoxide exhaust (safe threshold is under 10 PPM), improper fire clearance, and asbestos disturbance — all attributed to this contractor.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe Tim Tyler agreeing to return and fix incomplete work, then becoming unresponsive for months or over a year.
• COURT JUDGMENT: One reviewer reports winning a small claims court judgment against the contractor and describes difficulty collecting payment.
• NO-SHOW / BAIT-AND-SWITCH: One reviewer describes an agreed appointment that was not honored, a substitute worker sent without notice, and a subsequent price increase via email.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are from 2007–2015. The most recent review is from November 2015. No reviews from the past 9+ years are present. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: The 5-star reviews are notably brief, generic, and lack specific detail compared to the negative reviews. The 1-star reviews contain extensive, verifiable specifics (invoice amounts, names, technical details, court records). This asymmetry slightly reduces confidence in the positive reviews.
• ONE REVIEW CONTAINS NO TEXT: The review dated 2015-11-27 has no review text and only a 5-star rating. It was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a meaningful number of mentions across all dimensions, but the extreme age of all reviews (none within the past 9 years) and the presence of serious, well-documented safety and completion failures mean this score should be treated as a historical warning signal rather than a current performance assessment.

Addario's receives deeply polarized reviews, with a large cluster of recent brief 5-star reviews contrasted against a substantial and detailed body of 1-star reviews spanning many years. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: dozens of reviewers independently describe hidden fees, bait-and-switch diagnostic charges (a $149 dispatch fee followed by an undisclosed $293-$370 troubleshooting fee), and quotes that were two to five times higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion is severely undermined by repeated accounts of no-shows, missed deadlines, jobs abandoned mid-project, promised callbacks never delivered, and at least one multi-month bathroom renovation disaster. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple credible accounts of rude customer service staff, dispatchers hanging up on customers, aggressive sales tactics, failure to return calls, and in some cases alleged fraudulent practices such as forged signatures and purchasing competitors' phone numbers to intercept their customers. Experience scores are mixed: individual technicians are often praised as friendly and knowledgeable, but multiple reviews describe incorrect installations, work that failed inspection, and systems left non-functional after service visits, preventing a higher score.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: A large number of reviews dated 2025-04-10 through 2025-06-08 are extremely brief (e.g., 'Excellent service. Very knowledgeable.', 'Exxcellent', 'Great job, as usual.', 'Awesome great service. Very Knowledgeable.', 'excellent service.', 'Jason and Brandon were great'), many with no substantive detail. Several reviews in this cluster are completely blank with only a 5-star rating. This pattern — high volume, near-identical dates, generic praise, no specifics — is a strong indicator of artificially inflated reviews. Confidence in these positive reviews is significantly reduced.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least three reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (the 'SCAM' hidden fee review dated 2024-06-13, the 'terrible experiences' review dated 2024-06-19, and the bathroom renovation disaster review dated 2018-12-21). These duplicates were counted once each for scoring purposes.
• HIDDEN FEE PATTERN: At least 12 independent reviewers across multiple years describe the same deceptive pricing structure — a low advertised dispatch fee followed by an undisclosed and much larger diagnostic/troubleshooting fee presented only after the technician is on-site. This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• ALLEGED FRAUDULENT PRACTICES: Multiple reviewers allege serious misconduct including: forging a customer's digital signature on an invoice (2019), purchasing competitors' phone numbers to intercept their customers (2012, 2013), signing customers up for loans without consent (2019), and deliberately delaying refunds past credit card dispute windows (2023).
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are dominated by the suspected fake review cluster. The most detailed and credible negative reviews span 2016–2024. Positive detailed reviews exist but are outnumbered approximately 3-to-1 by detailed negative reviews when blank and generic reviews are excluded.
• FORMER EMPLOYEE REVIEW: One review (2022-08-17) claims to be from a former employee and alleges internal instructions to 'bill customers repairs til their sick and replace the system,' illegal drug testing, and photographic evidence of customer property damage. While unverifiable, this is consistent with the pattern of complaints from customers.
• BBB AND REGULATORY COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviewers state they filed or intended to file complaints with the Better Business Bureau, the Massachusetts Attorney General, and the Department of Consumer Affairs. This suggests a pattern of conduct that has attracted regulatory attention.

This WW Score of 38.2 is based on a very large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously in the positive direction — the recent surge of brief, generic 5-star reviews shows strong indicators of inauthenticity, and the detailed negative reviews are numerous, specific, independently corroborated, and span over a decade, making the underlying service quality concerns highly credible.

This contractor's reviews paint an overwhelmingly negative picture across nearly every dimension. Four of five reviewers describe a pattern of taking large upfront deposits and then abandoning or severely neglecting the work, with one reviewer winning a small claims case only to have it dismissed due to bankruptcy. Professionalism scores are near-zero due to consistent reports of no-shows, broken promises, deceptive communication, and alleged misrepresentation of licensing status. Project completion is catastrophically low, with multiple reviewers reporting months of delays, unfinished work, and being forced to fire the contractor and hire replacements at significant additional cost. The sole positive review, from 2018, describes a routine water heater install in 2002 that went smoothly — this single data point prevents the score from reaching absolute zero but carries minimal weight given the volume and severity of the negative accounts.

• LICENSE ALERT: Multiple reviewers explicitly state the contractor's plumbing license has been revoked. One reviewer directs readers to verify this at MASS.GOV. This is a serious legal and safety concern.
• FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple independent reviewers describe an identical scheme — large upfront deposit taken, work briefly started or not started, followed by disappearance. This is a consistent fraud pattern, not isolated complaints.
• BANKRUPTCY FILING: One reviewer reports the contractor filed for bankruptcy after a small claims judgment was entered against them, making financial recovery for victims extremely difficult.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews (4 of 5) are from 2014, making them over 10 years old. The most recent review is from 2018. There is no data from the past 5+ years. Current business status and behavior cannot be confirmed from this review set.
• POSITIVE REVIEW OUTLIER: The single 3-star positive review references work done in 2002 — 16 years before the review was written. This experience predates all negative reviews and cannot be considered representative of recent performance.
• NO FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The negative reviews contain specific, detailed, and independently corroborated accounts. Language varies across reviewers. No fake review inflation pattern detected. The reviews appear genuine.

The WW Score of 18.4 should be treated as a serious warning signal and is considered moderately reliable given the small review count of 5, though the consistency and specificity of the negative accounts across multiple independent reviewers lends credibility to the low score; however, the absence of any reviews from the past 5+ years means current business status cannot be confirmed.

All three reviews describe severe failures across nearly every dimension. Two reviewers explicitly state the contractor took payment and never completed — or barely started — the work, then became unresponsive to repeated contact attempts, indicating catastrophic failures in both professionalism and project completion. A third reviewer reports the contractor cashed an $876 check for materials, failed to begin work for months, and was later discovered to be operating with an expired Master Plumber license, raising serious legal and ethical concerns. Pricing scores marginally above zero only because the contractor did accept payment (implying a quote existed), but hidden costs were imposed on customers who had to hire replacement plumbers and reorder missing specialty parts. Experience receives a minimal score based solely on the third reviewer noting a 20+ year prior relationship, though the expired license and abandoned work negate any implied competence.

• SUSPECTED COORDINATED REVIEWS: Reviews 1 and 2 are dated within hours of each other (2017-05-01), use nearly identical language and describe the same specific details (missing specialty part, bringing in a second plumber, being inconvenienced). These may represent the same incident described by two related parties, or could indicate coordinated posting. Scores are not inflated by this suspicion, but the pattern is noted.
• EXPIRED LICENSE: Review 3 explicitly states the contractor's Master Plumber license expired May 1, 2016 — meaning all work performed after that date was potentially unlicensed. This is a serious legal and safety flag.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGED: Multiple reviewers allege the contractor accepted payment (including a cashed check) and failed to deliver services or return funds. This goes beyond poor workmanship into potential fraud.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 1 YEAR: All three reviews are dated 2017. No recent reviews are available. Current contractor status and behavior cannot be assessed from this data alone.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews are available. While the WW Score has been calculated, it should be treated with caution due to the small sample size.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all from 2017, and while the negative signals are consistent and severe, the score should be considered a limited-confidence indicator of contractor quality pending more recent and numerous reviews.

This business is a plumbing supply retailer, not a contractor/plumber, which makes this review set fundamentally misaligned with the WW Score framework designed for service providers. The reviews reflect retail customer service and product pricing rather than project completion, workmanship, or service delivery. Professionalism scores are mixed: positive mentions of knowledgeable staff and courteous service are offset by serious complaints about unprofessional language and poor customer service from specific employees. Pricing feedback is contradictory—some reviews praise competitive pricing while others report prices 30% higher than competitors. Experience/product knowledge is consistently praised. However, without reviews addressing actual project completion, on-time delivery of services, or follow-through on service work, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• CRITICAL: This business appears to be a plumbing supply warehouse/retailer, NOT a contractor or plumber providing installation/repair services. The WW Score framework is designed for service contractors, not retail suppliers. Reviews discuss product purchases, pricing, and retail customer service—not project completion, workmanship quality, or service delivery.
• Review dates are heavily skewed toward older data: 5 of 8 reviews are from 2017 or earlier (2017, 2016, 2015, 2014). Only 2 reviews are from 2021 or later. This severely limits recency and reliability.
• Contradictory pricing feedback: One review praises 'top notch' pricing and beating competitors 'by a mile,' while another explicitly states prices are '30 percent higher than other supply houses.' This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or reviews from different time periods.
• Serious professionalism red flags: Two 1-star reviews from 2017 cite unprofessional employee behavior (profanity, poor customer service from 'Evan'), which directly contradicts the 5-star reviews praising staff professionalism. This suggests either significant staff turnover or inconsistent service quality.
• No project completion data: Zero reviews mention actual project completion, timeliness of service delivery, callbacks, or follow-through on work—all critical dimensions for a contractor/plumber score. This business model does not align with the WW Score framework.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated because the business is a plumbing supply retailer, not a service contractor, and reviews do not address project completion or service delivery. Additionally, 62.5% of reviews predate 2018, and contradictory feedback on pricing and professionalism suggests either significant operational changes or inconsistent service quality. This review set is unsuitable for WW Score assessment.