Find Nearby Plumbers In Manchester, New Hampshire

FW Webb demonstrates strong technical expertise and knowledgeable staff (82/100), with multiple reviews praising employee product knowledge and problem-solving ability. Professionalism is mixed (72/100): several reviews highlight excellent customer service from named employees (Michelle R., Jill, Samantha McFee, Dave), but multiple reviews document poor service experiences including long wait times, rudeness, and inconsistent phone-to-in-store communication. Project completion is solid (78/100) with timely deliveries and follow-through noted, though one review reported a 7-week delay. Pricing is the significant weakness (52/100): multiple reviews explicitly state prices are 2-3x higher than competitors (Home Depot, big-box stores), with contractors noting lack of contractor discounts. The company appears to operate a wholesale-only policy for certain products that is not clearly communicated, creating customer friction.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviews (2021, 2024, 2014) document prices double or triple competitor pricing for identical products. This is a consistent, substantiated complaint across different time periods.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE: Reviews show stark contrasts—some employees (Michelle R., Jill, Dave, Samantha McFee) receive high praise; others (Toni) receive severe criticism. Service quality appears highly dependent on which staff member assists.
• HIDDEN POLICIES: The wholesale-only policy for certain products is not transparently communicated, leading to customer frustration and refusal of service despite customer willingness to pay.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2024, 2023) continue to document pricing complaints and mixed service, suggesting issues are ongoing, not historical.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews show genuine specificity (product names, employee names, detailed scenarios, varied writing styles) and include both 5-star and 1-star ratings with substantive detail.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While the data is based on 15 substantive reviews with good specificity, the company shows high internal variance in service quality and a consistent, well-documented pricing disadvantage that significantly impacts overall value perception. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects strong technical expertise undermined by pricing concerns and inconsistent professionalism.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality and courteous communication across multiple reviews. However, significant concerns emerge around project completion and pricing. Multiple reviews document incomplete work, unresolved issues requiring callbacks, and lack of warranty coverage. Pricing complaints appear in 5 reviews, with customers noting rates substantially above market expectations. While technical skill is evident in some assessments, the pattern of incomplete jobs and unwillingness to stand behind work substantially undermines overall reliability. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects a contractor with good interpersonal skills but serious execution and value-for-money deficiencies.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2015, 2018, 2019) document incomplete project completion and failure to resolve issues on first visit. Review from 2019 shows 11-day communication gap with no follow-up after initial service attempt.
• PRICING CONCERN: Five reviews mention pricing issues. Four explicitly note rates as 'pricey,' 'steep,' or unexpectedly high. One review (2013) documents a $1,500 bill for estimated 4 hours labor, with customer reporting contractor became upset when questioned about charges.
• WARRANTY ISSUE: 2015 review explicitly states contractor refused warranty on work and demanded additional payment for rework after initial job failed.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are older (2013-2019), with recent positive reviews (2021, 2023) lacking detail. However, pattern of incomplete work spans multiple years, suggesting systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (minimal detail) and detailed 1-2 star reviews (specific problems documented). This asymmetry warrants caution.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism ratings are solid, the documented pattern of incomplete work, pricing disputes, and lack of warranty across multiple years represents a material risk. Recent positive reviews lack specificity and may not reflect current service quality. Potential customers should request detailed scope agreements and warranty terms before engaging.

Jenkins Plumbing demonstrates solid technical expertise and generally completes projects on time, with customers acknowledging their skill with specialized work like old oil furnaces and AC installations. However, the company is severely hampered by persistent pricing concerns across multiple reviews, with customers reporting significant overcharges, lack of itemized billing transparency, undisclosed diagnostic fees, and billing discrepancies. While professionalism in execution is noted positively, communication around pricing and fee structures appears problematic. The pricing dimension alone substantially depresses the overall WW Score due to its 15% weight and the consistent pattern of complaints.

• CRITICAL: Strong pattern of pricing complaints across 5 of 7 reviews (71% of sample). Multiple customers report being misled or overcharged, including a $1,675 bill vs. ~$800 expected, $426 for filter cleaning only, and undisclosed diagnostic/travel fees. This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• Lack of transparency: Multiple reviews cite refusal to provide itemized bills, which is a red flag for legitimate business practices.
• Review age concern: 4 of 7 reviews are from 2015-2019 (5-9 years old). Only 3 reviews are from 2021-2023. Older reviews may not reflect current practices, but pricing complaints span the entire timeline.
• Positive reviews (3 five-star/four-star) lack specificity and detail, while negative reviews are highly detailed and specific. This asymmetry suggests positive reviews may be less reliable or from long-term customers with sunk-cost bias.
• One review (2021) uses unusually casual language ('bs caring') and has timestamp 12:12:12, which is atypical. However, insufficient evidence to flag as definitively fake.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the pricing dimension is well-supported by consistent, detailed complaints across multiple years, the overall sample size is small (7 reviews) and recency is mixed. The company's technical competence appears genuine, but the persistent pricing transparency issues are a serious concern that materially undermines trustworthiness. Prospective customers should request detailed, itemized quotes and clarify all fees upfront before engaging this contractor.

Eric Watson's performance is highly polarized across reviews, with a stark divide between older positive reviews (2016–2019) and recent negative experiences (2020–2021). While his technical expertise and skill remain consistently praised across all reviews, his professionalism and project completion have deteriorated significantly. The most recent review documents serious failures: incomplete work (improper toilet installation), unresponsive communication, contract manipulation with handwritten warranty disclaimers, and refusal to honor verbal commitments. Earlier reviews highlight punctuality, responsiveness, and fair pricing, but these qualities are directly contradicted in recent feedback. The WW Score reflects this mixed but declining pattern, weighted heavily by the severity of the 2021 incident involving poor workmanship, abandonment, and contractual bad faith.

• CRITICAL: Severe recency issue — most positive reviews are 3–6 years old (2016–2019), while the two most recent reviews (2020–2021) are overwhelmingly negative and describe serious failures in professionalism and follow-through.
• CRITICAL: The August 2021 review documents potential fraud or bad faith: handwritten warranty disclaimers added to contracts, verbal assurances contradicted by written terms, failure to honor callbacks, and refusal to address defective work without additional payment.
• CRITICAL: Pattern of non-responsiveness and abandonment in recent reviews — customer called/texted 4 times with no response; contractor cited contract language to avoid responsibility despite verbal promises.
• Quality degradation: The contractor's behavior and reliability appear to have deteriorated significantly between 2019 and 2021, suggesting possible operational or personal issues.
• Contractual red flag: Use of confusing legal language and handwritten modifications to warranty sections suggests deliberate obfuscation of liability.

This WW Score should be treated with caution and weighted heavily toward the recent negative reviews. The older positive reviews (2016–2019) may not reflect current service quality. The August 2021 review is detailed, specific, and corroborated by a second recent negative review, indicating a genuine and recent decline in service. Potential customers should prioritize the 2020–2021 feedback and request clear, unambiguous written contracts with no handwritten modifications.

Matley shows strong professionalism and fair pricing in positive reviews, with friendly staff and responsive service. However, critical reviews reveal serious quality control issues: a gas line installation failed fire department inspection (costing customer $450 to correct), and multiple jobs required complete rework. The company appears to have inconsistent workmanship, particularly in plumbing versus their core pool/spa business. Recency is a major concern—most positive reviews are 6+ years old (2012–2018), while damaging reviews are from 2020. The most recent positive review (2023) lacks detail and may not reflect current operations.

• CRITICAL: Serious quality control failures documented—gas line installation failed fire department inspection; customer reports 'everything they have done in my house had to be re-done'
• RECENCY ISSUE: Positive reviews are 6–11 years old (2012–2018); negative reviews are more recent (2020). This suggests potential decline in service quality over time
• INCONSISTENCY: Company appears to excel at pool/spa work but struggles with plumbing; one reviewer explicitly recommends they stop advertising plumbing services
• PERSONNEL VARIATION: One review mentions 'the dad was a gem' but 'Gary, forget it'—suggests quality depends heavily on which staff member performs the work
• LIMITED RECENT DATA: Only one review from past 12 months (2023), and it lacks specifics; cannot reliably assess current performance

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism appears solid, documented project failures and the age of positive reviews (6–11 years old) raise serious concerns about current reliability. The WW Score reflects historical data that may not represent present-day operations.

The review set is heavily polarized: the majority of positive reviews are brief, generic, and clustered in 2017–2019, while the single detailed negative review from 2022 is the most recent and most substantive entry in the dataset. The 2022 review describes severe failures across every dimension — poor workmanship, warranty abandonment, repeated no-shows, dishonesty, and work so deficient that other licensed contractors were shocked. This single review carries significant weight because it is the most recent, the most detailed, and directly contradicts the pattern of short positive reviews. Professionalism and project completion scores are dragged down substantially by the documented pattern of ghosting, lying, and warranty refusal described in the 2022 review. Experience scores are similarly penalized due to explicit descriptions of improper installation confirmed by multiple third-party contractors.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A large cluster of 5-star reviews from February 2019 (four reviews posted within two days: 2019-02-11, 2019-02-11, 2019-02-12, 2019-02-13, 2019-02-13) show suspiciously compressed timing, generic language, and minimal detail. This pattern is consistent with solicited or fabricated reviews.
• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review (2022-05-25) is the only review from the past three years and is a detailed 1-star complaint. All positive reviews are 3–7 years old. The contractor's current quality and reliability cannot be assessed from the older reviews.
• LOW DETAIL REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no actionable information (e.g., 'They did great.', 'Excellent work. We love it!', '.') and were treated as having minimal evidentiary value for dimension scoring.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW DOMINANCE: While one negative review should not alone define a score, this particular review is uniquely detailed, recent, and corroborated by third-party contractors mentioned within it. It has been weighted accordingly.
• SCOPE MISMATCH: The most detailed negative review concerns HVAC work, not plumbing. However, the unprofessionalism, warranty abandonment, and dishonesty described are contractor-level behavioral issues applicable regardless of trade.

This WW Score has MODERATE overall reliability — the positive review base is large enough to calculate scores, but is significantly undermined by age (most reviews are 5–7 years old), suspected clustering of generic 5-star reviews in early 2019, and a single highly detailed recent negative review that raises serious concerns about current contractor quality and integrity.