Find Nearby Plumbers In Elizabeth, New Jersey

Alliance Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across its review history. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple credible accounts of no-shows, unreturned calls, poor responsiveness, and dismissive office staff — despite a solid cluster of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and communication. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with several reviews describing incomplete work, repeated return visits, wrong parts, and outright abandonment of jobs — particularly through home warranty assignments. Pricing is relatively favorable, with multiple reviewers noting reasonable or below-estimate costs, though one major re-pipe job included unexpected add-on charges. Experience scores are moderate: skilled work is praised in several reviews, but technically challenged execution and unpreparedness (e.g., arriving without a snake, breaking pipes during a simple toilet repair) pull the score down meaningfully. Three blank 5-star reviews with no text content were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.

• THREE BLANK REVIEWS DETECTED: Reviews dated 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11 (two instances) contain no text — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide zero usable evidence.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising 'Suzy' and plumber 'Joe' for a toilet replacement appears twice with nearly identical text (dates: 2018-06-11 and 2017-12-01). Similarly, the water heater burst review praising 'Andrew' appears twice (dates: 2018-06-11 and 2017-10-10). These duplicates were counted only once per dimension to avoid score inflation.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2016–2019. The most recent reviews (2021–2023) include a reckless driving complaint and an unresolved communication issue, suggesting possible decline in service quality in recent years.
• HOME WARRANTY PATTERN: Multiple negative reviews stem from home warranty assignments (HMS, Sears). These consistently describe no-shows, non-responsiveness, and incomplete work. This pattern is specific and credible, not isolated incidents.
• REVIEW DATE RANGE SPANS 17 YEARS (2006–2023): Older reviews (pre-2015) carry reduced weight in scoring. The business may have changed ownership, staff, or service scope over this period, limiting the reliability of aggregated scores.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the high mention counts across all dimensions provide statistical grounding, but the wide date range, duplicate reviews, blank reviews, and a clear pattern of serious project completion failures in multiple independent accounts introduce meaningful uncertainty that prevents a high-confidence assessment.

Pitman Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed track record across reviews spanning nearly a decade. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praised the team's responsiveness, dedication (working through the night after Hurricane Sandy and a basement flood), and courteous attitude, which lifted professionalism scores. However, two serious negative reviews — one involving an improperly vented boiler that National Grid had to disconnect, and another involving a $7,000 dispute over subpar workmanship — significantly drag down project completion and experience scores. Pricing received a moderate score because one reviewer explicitly praised no price-gouging during Hurricane Sandy, while two others are pursuing or threatening legal action over money disputes, suggesting transparency and fairness issues in some cases. The combination of genuinely strong service in emergency situations and documented technical failures and adversarial dispute resolution creates a contractor profile that carries meaningful risk.

• Two separate reviews mention legal disputes or court proceedings over workmanship and refunds — this is a significant red flag for project completion and customer relations.
• A boiler installation was condemned by National Grid within one year due to improper venting, and the contractor reportedly refused warranty coverage — this is a serious safety and quality concern.
• One reviewer explicitly states workmanship is subpar and that the owner (Salvatore) does not take customers seriously.
• Review dates span from 2012 to 2020 — the most recent review (2020) is over 4 years old, and the majority of reviews are from 2012–2016. Recency is very low; current performance cannot be reliably inferred.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic authorship.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review pool of only 7 reviews, a wide date range with no recent data, and significant contradictions between highly positive and highly negative experiences that make it difficult to establish a consistent performance baseline.

Mark receives strong praise in two reviews for responsiveness, punctuality, fair pricing, and quality workmanship on water heater installations. However, a significant negative review describes a failed toilet reinstallation that began leaking the next day, followed by complete non-responsiveness to repeated calls and emails — a serious failure in both project completion and professionalism. The negative review, while dated 2016, directly contradicts the positive pattern and cannot be dismissed, especially given the small sample size. Pricing and experience scores are based on only two mentions each and must be treated with caution. Overall, the score is pulled down meaningfully by the documented callback failure and abandonment of a leaking job.

• Very small sample size (3 reviews total) — WW Score has low statistical reliability.
• One review (2016) documents a serious project completion failure: a leaking toilet reinstallation with zero follow-up response from the contractor despite repeated contact attempts.
• The two positive reviews span 2020 and 2024, while the negative review is from 2016. Recency favors the positive reviews, but the negative incident is severe enough to warrant retention in scoring.
• With only 3 reviews, no fake review pattern is detected, but the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions about consistency.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning nearly a decade and should be treated as preliminary and low-confidence — prospective customers should seek additional references before hiring.

This is a plumbing supply store rather than a contractor, so Project Completion is not applicable and returns no data. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: three reviews praise the owner as helpful, personable, and attentive, while two detailed negative reviews describe serious customer service failures including long wait times, being ignored in favor of later-arriving customers, and one account of an aggressive, profanity-filled confrontation with the owner that included physical intimidation. These negative accounts are specific, detailed, and credible, pulling the professionalism score down significantly. Pricing receives a mixed signal — one reviewer calls prices reasonable, while another explicitly states prices were 40% above trade price and describes a contentious return dispute over a low-quality part. Technical knowledge and inventory depth are consistently praised across multiple reviews, supporting a moderately strong experience score, though this reflects product knowledge rather than installation workmanship.

• This appears to be a plumbing supply store, not a contractor or plumber. Project Completion dimension is entirely inapplicable and scored null.
• The two most negative reviews (1-star, 2017–2018) are highly detailed and specific, lending them strong credibility. One describes a threatening physical confrontation with the owner, which is a serious red flag.
• Most reviews are older than 1 year; the most recent review is from January 2024 but contains minimal detail. The bulk of substantive reviews date from 2017–2018, reducing recency confidence.
• The positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are relatively generic in their praise (knowledgeable, helpful, good inventory) and lack specific transactional detail, which slightly limits their evidentiary weight compared to the detailed negative accounts.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the small sample size of 6 reviews limits overall reliability.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability due to the small review sample (6 reviews), the age of most substantive reviews (2017–2018), the inapplicability of the Project Completion dimension, and the presence of two credible, highly detailed negative reviews that describe serious professionalism failures which cannot be dismissed.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with stark polarization between highly positive older reviews and severely negative recent reviews. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented instances of rudeness, poor communication, and lack of follow-through on callbacks. Pricing is a major concern, with multiple reviews citing excessive charges, hidden fees discovered mid-project, and aggressive upselling tactics that appear predatory. Project completion is compromised by incomplete work, failure to resolve original problems, and refusal to honor callbacks without additional charges. While some reviews praise technical skill, the two most recent and detailed reviews (2024 and 2023) describe misdiagnosis, unnecessary expensive work, and failure to fix the actual problem.

• CRITICAL: Two detailed, recent reviews (August 2024 and July 2023) describe nearly identical patterns of behavior: misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary $15,000+ charges, aggressive upselling, rude customer service, and refusal to honor callbacks without additional fees. These are not generic complaints but specific, documented incidents.
• RECENCY BIAS: Positive reviews are from 2007, 2016, and 2021 (oldest data). Negative reviews are from 2023-2024 (recent). This suggests a significant decline in service quality or a change in business practices.
• PRICING RED FLAGS: Multiple reviews describe being quoted one price, then charged significantly more after work begins. One customer was quoted $15,000 additional work that turned out to be unnecessary. Another was charged $625 for incomplete work and refused callback service without another $625 charge.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: The August 2024 review explicitly states the original problem was never resolved and the customer had to hire another plumber to fix it for $3,000 (vs. the $15,000+ Masters wanted). The July 2023 review describes incomplete work (no cleanup, no verification) followed by refusal to address the resulting problem.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE DETERIORATION: Recent reviews describe staff as 'very nasty,' 'rude,' and 'not willing to listen.' This contrasts sharply with older reviews praising communication and respect.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 7 reviews, the data is heavily skewed by recency: the two most recent and detailed reviews (2023-2024) describe serious, specific failures in pricing transparency, project completion, and customer service, while older positive reviews lack detail and are 3-17 years old. The pattern of behavior described in recent reviews (misdiagnosis, aggressive upselling, refusal to honor callbacks) appears systematic rather than isolated, suggesting the WW Score reflects a contractor in decline or with fundamentally problematic business practices.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency in service quality. While some customers report excellent professionalism and fair pricing (5-star reviews), multiple detailed accounts describe unprofessional behavior, deceptive pricing practices, and incomplete/damaged work. The most recent detailed negative review (2018) documents catastrophic project failure including ceiling collapse, inflated billing, and system left non-functional. Positive reviews lack specificity and are older (2016–2020), while negative reviews provide extensive documentation of problems. The pattern suggests either significant operational decline or inconsistent service delivery across technicians.

• CRITICAL: Two detailed 1-star reviews (2018) document severe failures including property damage, deceptive pricing, incomplete work, and owner acknowledgment of unethical practices. These are not isolated complaints.
• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple reviews cite bait-and-switch pricing (quoted one price, charged another), undisclosed coupon expiration, inflated material costs (4x retail), and hidden charges. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: The 2018 review documents catastrophic failure—ceiling collapse, burst pipes, system left non-functional, requiring another plumber to complete the job. This is not minor rework.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Documented rudeness, complaints during work, unprofessional conduct (plumber prioritizing dinner over job completion), undisclosed conflicts of interest (selling heaters on the side).
• RECENCY BIAS: Positive reviews are from 2016–2020 (4–7 years old). Negative reviews are from 2018–2021 (3–6 years old). No recent reviews to assess current state.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK DETAIL: The 5-star reviews are generic and brief, lacking specifics. The negative reviews are extensively documented with dates, amounts, and sequences of events, suggesting higher credibility.
• OWNER ACCOUNTABILITY: The 2018 review documents the owner explicitly defending unethical practices ('he knows what his guys do and was okay with it'), indicating systemic rather than individual technician issues.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 7 reviews with adequate mention counts, the extreme polarization (1-star and 5-star with no middle ground), detailed documentation of fraud and property damage in negative reviews, and lack of recent data create significant reliability concerns. The WW Score of 52.3 reflects serious documented problems, but potential customers should read the full negative reviews before engaging this contractor.