Find Nearby Plumbers In Kearny, New Jersey

Precise Plumbing (led primarily by Jay/J. Cruz) earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an enormous volume of reviews spanning nearly a decade. Professionalism is the standout dimension, with hundreds of reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, responsiveness, courteous communication, and willingness to respond to emergencies at odd hours. Pricing scores well overall — the majority of reviewers describe costs as fair, affordable, or lower than competing quotes — but a small number of negative reviews cite overcharging, hidden fees, or prices higher than expected, which moderates the score. Project completion is solid but not perfect: the vast majority of jobs were finished completely and to customer satisfaction, but several negative reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows after initial visits, and one case of abandoned work with no refund. Experience scores highly, with many reviewers noting skilled diagnostics, use of camera technology, creative problem-solving, and superior results compared to prior plumbers — though a few reviews describe rushed or incorrect initial work requiring callbacks.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews dated 2024-05-28, 2024-05-14, 2023-12-09, 2023-11-29, 2023-11-27, 2023-11-13, 2023-09-08, 2023-08-04, 2023-07-31, 2023-07-29, 2023-06-19, 2023-06-07, 2023-06-02, 2023-05-26, 2023-04-17, 2023-03-31, 2023-03-15, 2023-03-12, 2023-02-19, 2022-11-29, 2022-11-19, 2022-11-13, 2022-11-08, 2022-10-09, 2022-10-01, 2022-09-23, 2022-07-28, 2022-02-23, 2021-12-02, 2021-08-09, 2021-07-07, 2021-06-16, 2021-05-10, 2021-04-06, 2021-04-01, 2021-03-18, 2021-02-09 x4, 2021-02-08, 2021-01-26, 2021-01-23, 2021-01-12, 2020-09-29, 2020-09-24, 2020-08-28, 2020-08-12, 2020-08-07, 2020-06-11, 2020-05-18, 2020-04-16, 2020-04-05, 2020-01-10, 2019-12-02, 2022-01-31, 2024-01-10, 2024-06-07). These duplicates inflate the apparent review count and may reflect a platform aggregation artifact or review manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced accordingly.
• NEGATIVE REVIEWS PRESENT: At least 7 reviews rate the company 1.0–1.5 stars. Issues cited include: abandoned work after payment (Dec 2022), overcharging and no-show after initial visit (Oct 2014), price gouging on slab leak detection and incorrect leak location (Mar 2020), profanity from a technician and no refund issued (May 2020), flooding caused by improperly installed washing machine hoses with disputed liability (Dec 2019), failure to return calls (May 2024), and incorrect information provided to a customer with no follow-up (May 2017). These represent a meaningful minority of the review base and indicate inconsistency in service quality.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIAN NAMES: Reviews reference Jay/J. Cruz, George, Marc/Mark, Alan/Allan, Hector, John, James, Lee, Silas, Eric, Alfonso, Malik, Devine, Ryan, Tony, JoJo, Isaac, and others. This suggests either a large crew or possible review aggregation across multiple related but distinct business entities or franchises, which may affect score reliability.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2020–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, a meaningful cluster of reviews dates to 2014–2019 and some practices described in older negative reviews (no-shows, overcharging, profanity) may or may not reflect current operations.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• ONE REVIEW DATED 2004: A single review dated 2004-04-28 was noted but given negligible weight due to extreme age.

This WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence given the large volume of substantive reviews, but should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews inflating counts, a consistent minority of serious negative experiences, and possible multi-entity review aggregation — the true score likely falls in the 80–87 range.

This contractor demonstrates strong technical diagnostic ability (correctly identifying issues others missed) but is significantly hampered by serious pricing transparency failures and incomplete project follow-through. The first review shows responsiveness and problem-solving but reveals a callback issue with a toilet installation. The second review (2022) praises technical expertise and long-term results. However, the third review documents a critical failure: no upfront estimate provided, followed by a $450 one-hour charge with no justification—a major professionalism and pricing violation. With only 3 reviews and mixed signals, confidence in this score is limited.

• CRITICAL: Pricing transparency failure documented in Review 3 — no estimate provided before work, customer charged $450 for 1 hour with no prior disclosure of job-based pricing model. This is a serious red flag for business practices.
• Project completion concern: Review 1 indicates incomplete work — toilet removed and reinstalled but now has drainage issues; customer states they contacted contractor for callback but review is marked incomplete pending resolution.
• Recency issue: Review 2 is from September 2022 (nearly 2 years old); only 1 recent review (May 2024) provides current performance data.
• Very small sample size (n=3) limits statistical reliability of any score.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (3 reviews), significant recency skew (1 recent, 1 old), and conflicting signals between strong technical ability and serious pricing/transparency failures. The documented pricing violation is a material concern that outweighs positive technical feedback.

Only two reviews contain usable service-related data, both from 2011–2012, making this dataset extremely dated and thin. The positive reviews describe a courteous, thorough technician named Brian who appeared knowledgeable and attentive to customer preferences, supporting modest scores in professionalism and experience. Project completion is inferred from the positive tone but not explicitly confirmed with detail, so scores are kept conservative. No pricing information was mentioned in any review. The negative review raises serious concerns about business conduct, including accusations of dishonesty, harassment, and bullying, which weigh against overall trustworthiness even if they do not directly score a technical dimension.

• SERIOUS CONDUCT WARNING: One review explicitly accuses the business of dishonesty, harassment, and bullying behavior toward customers who left negative feedback. This is a significant red flag about business integrity.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are from 2011–2013, meaning this data is over 10 years old. These scores have no bearing on current service quality.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 total reviews, with only 2 containing usable service data. The WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW SUPPRESSION: The negative review implies that the business may have attempted to discredit or intimidate customers who left negative reviews, which could mean negative reviews were removed or suppressed, artificially skewing the visible rating.
• GENERIC PRAISE: The 5-star review ('They were very good and we would give them A's for everything') contains no specific detail and reads as low-information, reducing its evidentiary value.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current or historical service quality due to critically low review volume, data that is over a decade old, and serious allegations of customer harassment and dishonest business practices.

The single review available is a 1-star complaint describing extremely serious misconduct. The reviewer explicitly states the contractor took payment, signed a contract, performed shoddy work, and then abandoned the job entirely without returning or responding to calls or texts. This constitutes a near-total failure across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is rated near-zero due to complete unresponsiveness and predatory behavior. Project completion scores zero as the job was explicitly left unfinished. Pricing scores very low as money was taken without services being delivered. Experience scores marginally above zero only because some work was reportedly started, though described as shoddy.

• Only 1 review exists — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2018-03-17, making it over 6 years old. Current contractor behavior may differ significantly.
• Reviewer alleges contractor deliberately targeted a vulnerable customer (spouse deployed military). This is a serious ethical allegation.
• Reviewer alleges contractor accepted payment, signed a contract, and abandoned the job — potential fraud or breach of contract.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review data set. No corroborating reviews exist to validate or contradict these claims.

This score is based on a single review from 2018 and should be treated with very low reliability — the WW Score threshold was not met, and no corroborating data exists to confirm or refute the serious allegations made.

The single review analyzed is a 1-star account describing severely negative experiences across multiple dimensions. Professionalism scored near zero due to explicit reports of call avoidance, excuses, and failure to clean up after work. Pricing scored very low due to allegations of demanding upfront cash deposits under questionable pretenses. Project completion scored near zero as the reviewer explicitly states the job was half-finished despite full payment, with the contractor actively avoiding follow-up contact. Experience could not be scored as no commentary on technical skill or workmanship quality was provided. All scores carry only LIMITED confidence as they are based on a single review.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Reviewer alleges contractor demanded upfront cash payment to 'buy parts,' which may indicate deceptive business practices.
• Reviewer alleges job was abandoned after full payment was collected — potential fraud or breach of contract.
• Reviewer reports contractor screens calls and only answers from blocked numbers, suggesting deliberate evasion of a paying customer.
• Reviewer states legal action (court) was being pursued at time of writing — serious red flag for contractor reliability.
• Review is dated 2012 — this is over 12 years old and may not reflect current business practices. Recency is very low.
• No other reviews are available to corroborate or contradict these claims. Treat with caution in both directions.

This WW Score report is based on a single review from 2012 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of overall contractor quality — no conclusions should be drawn without significantly more recent and numerous reviews.