Find Nearby Plumbers In Atlantic City, New Jersey

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.

Strosberg Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2015–2021. Technical skill and workmanship (particularly Kevin's expertise) are consistently praised, yielding a strong experience score of 82. However, professionalism is severely undermined by repeated complaints about office staff (Nancy and Cathy) being dismissive, arrogant, and unresponsive—issues that appear in 3 of 5 reviews. Project completion is compromised by scheduling failures, lack of follow-up communication, and unresolved service issues requiring multiple callbacks. Pricing concerns emerge in 2 reviews citing high diagnostic fees, nickel-and-diming, and estimates described as expensive. The company appears to deliver quality technical work but fails consistently in customer service, communication, and operational follow-through.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 3 of 5 reviews are from 2015–2018 (6+ years old). Only 2 recent reviews (2017, 2021). Older negative reviews may not reflect current operations, but pattern of complaints is consistent across time periods.
• STAFF CONSISTENCY ISSUE: Nancy and Cathy are named negatively in multiple reviews (2015, 2016, 2021), suggesting systemic office management problems rather than isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING & FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite broken promises on scheduling, failure to call customers, and lack of communication—a recurring operational weakness.
• PRICE TRANSPARENCY: One review explicitly flags 'nickel and diming' with separate diagnostic charges not applied to final bill—suggests potential billing practice concerns.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the sample size is small (5 reviews) and recency is mixed, the consistency of complaints about office professionalism and project follow-through across multiple years suggests real operational issues. The technical skill rating is reliable, but overall score is dragged down by documented service failures. Potential customers should prioritize requesting Kevin specifically and clarify all fees and scheduling expectations upfront.

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is dragged down significantly by two explicit complaints about unreturned calls — one from 2022 and one from 2013 — including a failure to honor an 'Emergency Services' listing. Positive professionalism signals exist (courteous, prompt, polite, on time) but the responsiveness failures are serious and cannot be ignored. Pricing is mentioned in only a few reviews with generally positive signals — one review praised true estimates over guesstimates, one confirmed work was done for the price quoted, and one reviewer was uncertain about pricing — yielding a moderate but conservative score. Project completion and experience are supported by a handful of reviews noting efficient, satisfactory work and repeat usage, but the evidence is thin and mostly from reviews that are over a decade old. The most recent review (2022) is a 1-star complaint about no callback, which is the freshest data point and weighs negatively.

• RECENCY WARNING: The vast majority of reviews (7 out of 8) are from 2012–2013, making them over 10 years old. Only one review is from the past 3 years (2022), and it is a 1-star complaint. The WW Score should be treated with extreme caution as it largely reflects a contractor's performance from a decade ago.
• THIN DATA WARNING: With only 8 reviews total, confidence in all dimension scores is inherently limited regardless of mention counts. Small sample sizes make scores highly sensitive to individual outliers.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: Two separate reviews (2013 and 2022) explicitly cite failure to return calls. This is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident, and suggests a systemic issue with responsiveness.
• VAGUE REVIEWS: Several reviews ('No issues', 'I have always been extremely satisfied', 'not sure yet') provide little actionable detail and were treated as low-information data points. They contribute minimally to dimension scoring.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: No clear patterns of fake reviews detected. Language varies across reviews and includes both positive and negative feedback.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to a very small review sample (8 reviews), the overwhelming age of the data (most reviews are 10+ years old), and the most recent review being a negative one — consumers should seek more current references before hiring.

Bilmark Plumbing presents a mixed picture across its four reviews. Three positive reviews from 2017–2018 highlight professionalism, punctuality, affordability, and solid workmanship — including a proactive catch of a hidden plumbing issue. However, the most recent review (2021) is a significant negative data point, describing a failed repair that recurred within 8 months, an inability to schedule a timely callback, and rude office staff — directly undermining project completion and professionalism scores. The negative review drags down confidence in both workmanship longevity and customer service. Because the most recent review is the most damaging and recency rules apply, scores are held conservative across all dimensions.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are from 2017–2018, making them over 5 years old. The only recent review (2021) is a 1-star complaint. Current performance may differ significantly from the older positive reviews.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 total reviews provide a very thin evidence base. Scores should be treated with caution.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: The 2021 review explicitly describes a repair (basket replacement) that failed within 8 months and was not honored under any warranty or callback guarantee — a serious red flag for workmanship durability.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURE: The office representative's dismissive response ('Well, it lasted 8 months') in the 2021 review indicates a potential systemic issue with how complaints are handled, not just an isolated incident.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK: No strong patterns of fake reviews detected. The three positive reviews use varied language and include specific details. However, their age limits their reliability.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample (4 reviews), significant age of positive reviews (2017–2018), and a recent negative review that directly contradicts the positive trend — consumers should seek additional current references before hiring.

Werner Plumbing & HVAC shows significant inconsistency in service delivery. While technical competence and pricing are generally fair when work is completed, the company suffers from severe professionalism and project completion issues. Multiple reviews document poor phone communication, rude staff (particularly the receptionist), and critical failures in scheduling and follow-through—including no-shows and multi-week delays. The company's stated policy of deprioritizing secondary home owners and vacation rental customers has generated substantial customer frustration. Positive reviews highlight quick response times and fair pricing when service is actually provided, but these are overshadowed by systemic operational failures.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2018-2021) document identical complaint pattern: poor receptionist/phone staff attitude, scheduling failures, and deprioritization of non-primary-residence customers. This suggests systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 8 reviews are from 2015-2019 (5+ years old). Only 3 reviews from 2021-2022. Recent data is limited.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: Company explicitly deprioritizes secondary home owners and vacation rentals (per 2022 review), yet multiple customers report being discriminated against for this status without being informed upfront. This suggests deceptive business practices.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Receptionist/phone staff mentioned negatively in 3 separate reviews across different years (2018, 2019, 2021), indicating persistent staffing/training problem.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: 3 reviews document no-shows, cancellations, or multi-week delays without proper communication—critical failures for emergency services.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the data is consistent in identifying professionalism and scheduling as major weaknesses, the age of most reviews (5+ years) and small sample size (8 total) limit predictive reliability for current service quality. The company may have changed, but recent reviews are insufficient to confirm improvement.

Plumbing Tech presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. While several reviewers praised individual technicians (Kyle, Robert S., Matt S., Matt K.) for professionalism, communication, and quality workmanship, these positives are heavily counterbalanced by serious negative reviews alleging scam-like upselling, price inflation, and abandoned work. Pricing is the most damaged dimension, with multiple credible accounts of bills escalating dramatically — one from $3k to $38k and another involving a fabricated sewer collapse diagnosis to justify a $5,400 job. Project completion is also significantly impacted by a review describing a 7-foot hole left in a front yard for 3 months and a separate failure to ever deliver a promised quote. The experience dimension is similarly split: some reviewers describe skilled, thorough work while others describe technicians misdiagnosing problems or being unable to complete basic tasks without upselling.

• SERIOUS FRAUD/SCAM CONCERN: At least two independent reviews (May 2019 and April 2019) describe nearly identical patterns — a routine drain call escalating to a high-cost repair recommendation that a second plumber later determined was unnecessary or grossly overpriced. This is a strong signal of a systematic upselling or scam practice, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK: One review explicitly states a technician (Andy) left a 7-foot hole in the front yard for 3 months with a broken line unrepaired. This is a severe project completion failure.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: One reviewer reports being promised a quote that never arrived after 3+ weeks of follow-up, and a separate reviewer reports a promised callback from Matt that never came.
• REVIEW DATE RANGE: All reviews are from 2018–2021. The most recent review is from May 2021. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, meaning current service quality cannot be assessed. Scores should be treated with caution regarding present-day performance.
• MIXED TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Named technicians vary significantly in quality. Positive reviews name Kyle, Robert S., Matt S., Matt K., and Ron. Negative reviews name Matt and Andy. This suggests inconsistent staffing rather than uniform service quality.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Review language is varied, specific, and includes both positive and negative experiences with named individuals and specific dollar amounts. No fake review pattern detected.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews spanning 2018–2021 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution due to the severity of fraud-related allegations, an abandoned project, and the absence of any reviews from the past 12 months.