Find Nearby Plumbers In Clifton, New Jersey

T-Mont Plumbing exhibits severe and consistent professionalism issues across multiple reviews, including unresponsiveness, inappropriate workplace conduct, and poor communication. Pricing practices are highly problematic, with customers reporting inflated service charges, lack of transparency on estimates, and aggressive upselling tactics—particularly toward elderly customers. Project completion shows mixed results with instances of incomplete work, abandoned issues, and failure to honor callbacks. While some reviews acknowledge technical competence and quick problem-solving, these positives are heavily outweighed by documented failures in customer service, ethical conduct, and fair dealing.

• SEVERE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2024, 2023, 2019, 2017, 2016) document unresponsiveness and failure to return calls—this is not isolated but systemic.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: At least 4 reviews explicitly describe pricing as deceptive, inflated, or predatory. One review documents a $300 service charge for no work performed; another describes a $675 quote that was reduced to $180 by a competitor for identical work.
• ETHICAL VIOLATIONS: One review documents sexually inappropriate behavior by a plumber toward a customer. Owner's response (denial without investigation) suggests poor accountability.
• QUALITY CONTROL FAILURE: Review documents broken snake left in drain without customer notification, causing subsequent damage and requiring expensive remediation.
• TARGETING VULNERABLE POPULATIONS: One detailed review describes aggressive sales tactics directed at a 94-year-old elderly customer, with pricing 3.75x higher than competitor for same job.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews document refusal to honor warranty work or provide service call discounts for recently installed defective work.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are older (2016-2019), but 2024 and 2023 reviews show pattern continues. Positive reviews are older (2014, 2018) or lack specificity.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing reviews (which are generic and lack detail) and detailed negative reviews (which are specific, corroborated, and include third-party witnesses). This asymmetry suggests potential selection bias or review manipulation.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (11 reviews) and significant recency skew, but the consistency and specificity of negative allegations across independent reviews spanning 8 years, combined with corroborating details (witness accounts, third-party verification, documented BBB complaints), suggests the low score reflects genuine and systemic operational failures rather than isolated incidents. The company's pattern of unresponsiveness, pricing deception, and ethical violations presents substantial risk to potential customers.

Professionalism is severely damaged by a recurring pattern of no-shows, unreturned calls, and broken promises across multiple reviews spanning several years. Four out of seven reviews explicitly describe failures in communication and responsiveness, including a no-show without notice and repeated ignored follow-ups. Project completion is similarly hurt by abandoned quotes, unfinished commitments, and at least one instance of a customer left with an incomplete job. The two positive reviews that mention pricing and experience are encouraging but are outnumbered and outweighed by the volume of negative experiences. The small number of total reviews and the age of most data further limit confidence in any positive signals.

• Only 7 total reviews available — WW Score should be treated as directional only, not definitive.
• Most reviews are from 2016–2021; no reviews from the past 12 months are present, so current service quality cannot be assessed.
• A clear and consistent pattern of unresponsiveness and no-shows appears across 4 separate reviews from different years, suggesting a systemic business practice issue rather than isolated incidents.
• The 3 positive reviews are older (2016–2017) and may not reflect current operations.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the stark split between 1-star and 5-star reviews with no middle-ground ratings warrants caution.

This WW Score has LOW overall reliability due to the small review pool, the age of all available reviews, and a deeply polarized rating distribution that makes it difficult to assess current service quality with confidence.

These reviews appear to be for Ferguson, a plumbing supply distributor, not a contractor or plumber. The reviews discuss purchasing fixtures and parts, sales interactions, and delivery services—not actual plumbing work, installation quality, or project completion. Only pricing is explicitly mentioned across reviews (2 mentions: one positive reference to 'good prices' and one negative complaint about high prices and sales pressure). No reviews contain evidence of professionalism in service delivery, project completion, or technical workmanship on actual plumbing jobs. The dataset is fundamentally misaligned with the WW Score framework, which is designed to evaluate contractors and plumbers.

• CRITICAL: Reviews appear to be for a plumbing supply company (Ferguson), not a contractor or plumber. WW Score is designed for service providers, not retail/wholesale distributors.
• Reviews are extremely old (2005, 2013, 2014). No recent data within past 12 months.
• No reviews mention actual plumbing work, installation, or project completion—only product purchasing and delivery.
• Insufficient data to calculate WW Score: only 1 dimension has scoreable mentions (pricing with 2 mentions).

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated or interpreted because the reviews do not evaluate a plumbing contractor's service delivery, and the data is too old and sparse to support any meaningful assessment.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 3 reviews are available, which falls below the minimum threshold of 5+ reviews needed for statistical confidence. All three reviews are uniformly 5-star with highly similar language patterns (e.g., 'prompt, friendly, efficient,' 'genius workarounds,' 'highly recommend'). While professionalism, project completion, and experience are consistently praised across all reviews, the absence of any pricing discussion and the suspicious homogeneity of review language raise concerns about authenticity and representativeness.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for reliable scoring.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: All three reviews are 5-star ratings with nearly identical phrasing and structure. Repeated use of 'prompt, friendly, efficient,' 'genius/novel workarounds,' and 'highly recommend' suggests possible review manipulation or template-based submissions.
• NO PRICING DATA: Zero mentions of pricing, value, or cost across all reviews. This is unusual for contractor reviews and limits ability to assess price-friendliness dimension.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2022 and one from 2021. All reviews are older than 12 months, limiting relevance to current service quality.
• LACK OF SPECIFICITY ON NEGATIVES: No reviews mention any problems, delays, issues, or areas for improvement. This uniformity is atypical of genuine customer feedback.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews) and suspicious patterns suggesting potential review manipulation. Any scoring would be based on limited, potentially non-authentic data and should not be trusted for decision-making.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 5 reviews needed for a statistically meaningful WW Score. While the reviews are uniformly positive and mention project completion (3 mentions), professionalism (2 mentions), experience (2 mentions), and pricing (1 mention), the sample size is too small to produce a reliable overall score. Additionally, one review dates to 2018 (6+ years old), limiting recency validity.

• Sample size critically low: only 3 reviews analyzed. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for reliable scoring.
• Recency concern: One review from 2018 (6+ years old); only 1 review from past 12 months (2024). Most data is stale.
• Name inconsistency detected: Reviews reference both 'Vartan' and 'Gary' — unclear if same contractor or data quality issue.
• Generic praise in 2018 review with no specific details — limited evidentiary value.
• Pricing dimension severely underdeveloped: only 1 mention across all reviews.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews, minimum 5 required) and poor recency (67% of reviews older than 1 year). Do not rely on any aggregate score at this time; collect additional recent reviews before making contractor decisions.

Analysis of this contractor is severely compromised by critical legal and safety concerns that override numerical scoring. One review alleges use of a fake license number checked against NJ Division of Consumer Affairs, which if true represents fraud and unlicensed operation. A second review documents serious project failures including improper p-trap installation, failure to respond to callbacks, and water damage from untightened shower drain. The single positive review from 2018 praises professionalism and pricing, but is contradicted by documented failures and legal violations. The extreme polarization (5-star vs. two 1-star reviews) combined with serious allegations of unlicensed operation makes any numerical score unreliable and potentially misleading.

• CRITICAL: Review from 2015-07-08 alleges contractor is UNLICENSED and uses a FAKE LICENSE NUMBER verified against NJ Division of Consumer Affairs. This is a serious legal violation that supersedes all other scoring considerations.
• CRITICAL: Review from 2017-06-19 documents multiple project failures: improper p-trap installation blocking drywall, failure to respond to calls/texts, untightened shower drain causing water damage to new owner. Contractor did not return for callback work.
• Extreme polarization: one 5-star review vs. two 1-star reviews with serious allegations. This pattern suggests either severe inconsistency in service quality or potential credibility issues.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (2015, 2017, 2018). No recent data available to assess current operations or whether licensing issues have been resolved.
• Insufficient data volume (3 reviews) combined with serious legal allegations makes any WW Score calculation unreliable and potentially dangerous to rely upon.

This score cannot be calculated reliably and should NOT be used for decision-making. The allegations of unlicensed operation and fake licensing are disqualifying factors that require independent verification with state licensing authorities before any consideration of this contractor. The documented project failures and communication breakdowns in the 2017 review further undermine confidence. Potential customers must verify current licensing status independently before engaging this contractor.