Find Nearby Plumbers In Hackensack, New Jersey

Lauer Plumbing shows severe inconsistency across reviews, with two highly positive recent reviews contrasting sharply against two detailed negative reviews from 2017–2019 describing poor diagnostics, non-responsiveness, broken promises, and refund disputes. Professionalism is significantly compromised by documented communication failures and alleged dishonesty. Project completion is undermined by incomplete repairs and unresolved callbacks. While pricing appears reasonable when work is completed, the low experience score reflects a critical misdiagnosis that caused extensive customer damage. The business demonstrates capability in routine tasks but serious deficiencies in complex problem-solving and customer accountability.

• CRITICAL: Two detailed, specific negative reviews (2017, 2019) describe serious professional misconduct including alleged dishonesty, non-responsiveness to callbacks, broken refund promises, and poor diagnostic skills leading to customer financial harm. These are not generic complaints.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Negative reviews are from 2017–2019 (4–6 years old); positive reviews are from 2018 and 2023. Unclear if business practices have improved or if negative reviews represent isolated incidents.
• PATTERN OF NON-RESPONSIVENESS: Both negative reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls and broken communication—this is a repeated behavioral pattern, not a one-time issue.
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURE: 2017 review documents a critical misdiagnosis (tile vs. pipe) that resulted in extensive customer damage and financial loss. This raises serious questions about technical competence.
• REFUND DISPUTE: 2017 review alleges the owner made a verbal refund agreement, then denied it and claimed he 'talked to other plumber friends' who advised against it. This suggests ethical issues beyond technical skill.

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews are positive, two detailed negative reviews from 2017–2019 document serious professional and ethical concerns that significantly outweigh routine positive feedback. The WW Score of 52.3 reflects genuine risk; customers should independently verify current business practices and request written estimates before engaging.

The review set is very small and spans a wide date range (2014–2020), making reliable conclusions difficult. Two positive reviews highlight reasonable pricing and responsive service, with one reviewer noting a fast diagnosis and a price $100 below a competitor. However, a detailed 1-star review describes a serious professionalism failure — the contractor abandoned a job mid-visit without completing any work, was dismissive, and hung up on the customer — which significantly drags down both the professionalism and project completion scores. The mixed signals across only three reviews prevent any high-confidence assessment of this contractor.

• Very small sample size (3 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional.
• The oldest review (2014) is over 10 years old and may not reflect current business practices; it should be weighted less, but its severity cannot be ignored.
• The two positive reviews are relatively generic and lack specific operational detail, which slightly raises concern about their depth of evidence.
• The 1-star review is highly detailed and credible, describing a specific incident with named circumstances — this increases its reliability and weight despite being a single review.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present; all data is at least 4 years old as of 2024.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 6 years, with no recent data, and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use this score as a primary basis for hiring decisions without seeking additional, more recent references.

This contractor demonstrates strong technical expertise and knowledge (evidenced by all four reviews praising their diagnostic and service capabilities), but is severely hampered by critical failures in professionalism and project completion. Two recent reviews (2021-2022) describe serious issues: incomplete work (loose PVC connection on sump pump replacement), incorrect installation of backup systems, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and alleged coercive behavior regarding review removal. The two older positive reviews (2019) praise service quality but predate the documented problems. The stark contrast between older and recent reviews, combined with explicit documentation of non-responsiveness and incomplete work, indicates a significant deterioration in service standards.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews from 2021-2022 describe severe professionalism failures including alleged coercive conduct (conditioning repair on review removal), complete non-responsiveness to callbacks despite claimed 24-hour service, and incomplete/incorrect installations. These are not generic complaints but specific, detailed allegations.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The two positive 5-star reviews are from 2019 (3+ years old). The two negative 1-star reviews are from 2021-2022 (recent). This temporal pattern suggests service quality has deteriorated significantly.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Review 1 documents a sump pump replacement where the PVC connection was not properly sealed, causing failure on first rain. Review 2 documents backup sump pump installed incorrectly (connected to winterized sprinkler line). Both represent fundamental project completion failures.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: Both recent negative reviews explicitly state inability to reach the company despite claimed 24-hour availability. Review 2 documents 6 weeks of unanswered calls/emails and a missed appointment with no reschedule communication.
• NOT DETECTED AS FAKE: The negative reviews contain specific technical details, dates, addresses, dollar amounts, and credible failure modes. They do not exhibit the generic praise or repetitive language patterns of fake reviews. They appear to be authentic customer complaints.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews) and extreme polarization, but the recent negative reviews contain specific, detailed, and serious allegations of incomplete work and non-responsiveness that cannot be dismissed. The WW Score of 42.3 reflects genuine service quality concerns documented in recent customer experiences, though the limited review volume means this assessment could shift with additional data.

J&C Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven by overwhelmingly negative feedback across all dimensions. While the company demonstrates occasional professionalism and technical capability (evidenced by 6 five-star reviews from 2020-2023), the vast majority of reviews (34 of 40) document severe failures in project completion, responsiveness, and customer service. Recurring patterns include incomplete repairs requiring multiple visits, failure to return calls, misdiagnosis of problems, and aggressive upselling of unnecessary work—particularly when assigned through American Home Shield warranty. The company's practice of charging service fees without completing work, combined with documented instances of causing additional damage and refusing callbacks, creates a pattern of systematic customer harm.

• CRITICAL: Extreme bimodal distribution detected. Six 5-star reviews (all from 2020-2023, mostly generic praise) contrast sharply with 34 one-star reviews (2015-2018, highly detailed complaints). This suggests either a dramatic business transformation or potential review manipulation.
• PATTERN ALERT: 28 of 34 negative reviews explicitly mention American Home Shield warranty assignment. Negative reviews consistently describe the company as reluctant to serve warranty customers, using service fees as revenue without completing work, and falsely reporting to AHS that work was completed or not covered.
• RECURRING FRAUD INDICATORS: Multiple independent reviews describe identical scam patterns—technician charges $75-$100 service fee, claims work is not covered or requires additional unauthorized charges, fails to return for callbacks, and lies to AHS about job status. This is not isolated complaint variation but systematic behavior.
• QUALITY CONTROL FAILURE: Documented instances of technicians causing new damage (water damage from faucet work, toilet reset blocking door, flue pipe installation failure) and inability to diagnose basic plumbing issues (pilot light assembly, shower cartridge identification).
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: 15+ reviews explicitly state company does not return phone calls, uses automated system to screen calls, and refuses to schedule follow-up appointments. One review notes company explicitly told customers not to call multiple times or they won't call back.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews cluster in 2020-2023 (6 reviews). Negative reviews span 2015-2018 (34 reviews). If company improved after 2018, recent positive reviews may not reflect historical pattern. However, absence of recent negative reviews could indicate customers stopped using the company rather than improvement.
• SUSPICIOUS POSITIVE REVIEWS: The six 5-star reviews use similar language patterns ('highly recommend,' 'top notch,' 'amazing') with minimal specific detail about actual work performed. Three reviews mention 'Steve' by name with consistent praise, but lack the granular complaint detail present in negative reviews.
• FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION: Multiple reviews document unauthorized charges, false claims of parts on backorder, upselling of unnecessary modifications (chimney relining, flue replacement, gas line replacement) that other contractors later identified as unnecessary.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 40 reviews with extensive detail across all four dimensions. The overwhelming consensus of negative feedback (85% of reviews are 1-star) combined with documented patterns of systematic customer harm, communication failure, and financial exploitation creates a clear and consistent picture. The six positive reviews, while noted, cannot offset the volume and specificity of negative evidence. This company presents significant risk to consumers and should be avoided.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. All six reviews are uniformly negative (1-star ratings) with explicit documentation of unprofessional conduct, including substance abuse on job sites, arrogant and hostile communication, refusal to honor callbacks, and systematic failure to complete work correctly. Technical incompetence is extensively documented across radiant heating installation, boiler wiring, pipe capping, and blueprint reading. Pricing concerns emerge in two reviews citing inflated charges and refusal to provide itemized bills. The contractor demonstrates a pattern of dismissing customer concerns, blocking communication, and refusing accountability for defective work.

• CRITICAL: All 6 reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly severe allegations. While this could indicate genuine systemic failure, the extreme nature of some claims (cocaine on countertops, heroin needle in pipes, workers smoking joints) warrants cautious interpretation. However, multiple independent reviews document consistent patterns of poor workmanship, arrogance, and refusal to stand behind work, which are corroborated across sources.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 4 of 6 reviews are from 2017-2018 (5-6 years old). Only 2 reviews are from 2020-2022. Older reviews may not reflect current operations, though the pattern is consistent across all time periods.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW RISK: While the reviews vary in detail and specificity (which argues against fabrication), the uniformity of 1-star ratings and severity of allegations suggests possible coordinated negative campaign. However, the technical specificity (radiant heating thermostat placement, Aquastat wiring, boiler temperature readings) and distinct scenarios across reviews suggest authentic customer experiences rather than generic praise or identical phrasing.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege unlicensed workers, code violations, substance abuse, and refusal to provide required documentation. These are not minor service complaints but potentially criminal or regulatory violations.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient positive data and the extreme uniformity of negative ratings across all reviews. The WW Score methodology requires balanced data to function; with zero positive reviews and six uniformly severe 1-star ratings, any calculated score would be artificially depressed and not representative of normal scoring distribution. The individual dimension scores reflect the explicit content of reviews but should be interpreted as evidence of severe, documented problems rather than a reliable comparative metric. This contractor should be considered high-risk based on the consistency and specificity of complaints, though potential review bias should be acknowledged.

All three reviews are 1-star and none describe a standard plumbing service engagement in a conventional sense. One review alleges the business owner (Niko) fails to pay vendors or subcontractors, suggesting serious financial integrity issues. A second review appears directed at a property management operation associated with this entity, citing theft of tenant fees and deposits. The third review is a road-rage complaint about aggressive driving by someone associated with the company, with a passing dismissive reference to their plumbing skills. No reviewer described a completed plumbing job, workmanship quality, or pricing for plumbing services in any positive or neutral way. Because no dimension reached 5 mentions and the reviews are highly atypical, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA WARNING: Only 3 reviews total. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules.
• CONTENT ANOMALY: None of the three reviews describe a standard plumbing service transaction. Two reviews appear to relate to property management or landlord activity, not plumbing work.
• ROAD RAGE REVIEW: One review (2020-05-15) is a road-rage incident complaint and provides no meaningful data about plumbing services. It was partially counted under professionalism and experience only due to the brief dismissive reference to plumbing skills.
• BUSINESS IDENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference both a plumbing company and a real estate/property management operation, suggesting possible dual-business activity or misattributed reviews. This undermines scoring reliability.
• PAYMENT INTEGRITY FLAG: One reviewer explicitly alleges the business owner strings along vendors and does not pay bills — a serious red flag for business conduct.
• RECENCY NOTE: Only one review (2023-11-29) falls within the past 12 months. The other two are from 2021 and 2020 respectively.
• NO POSITIVE SIGNAL: Zero positive or neutral reviews exist in this dataset. All ratings are 1-star. No dimension received any favorable mention.

This score report has extremely low reliability — only 3 atypical reviews exist, none describe a completed plumbing job in meaningful detail, and all are 1-star complaints spanning unrelated conduct including alleged non-payment, property management misconduct, and road rage.