Find Nearby Plumbers In New Brunswick, New Jersey

Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension across this review set, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing sticker shock, excessive charges, travel fees, and a lack of upfront quotes — this drags the score down significantly. Professionalism is deeply mixed: several reviews praise respectful, courteous workers while others describe use of expletives, refusal to find parking, and calling tenants before 7am. Project completion scores moderately — jobs were generally finished and often quickly, but the negative reviews include an instance of unnecessary wall damage and a worker who abandoned a job before starting. Experience is similarly split, with some reviewers praising problem-solving ability and others suggesting workers lacked basic competence. The overall picture is a contractor with inconsistent service quality and a clear pattern of pricing complaints.

• Most reviews are from 2016 or earlier — only 3 reviews are from 2020 or later, meaning the score may not reflect current service quality.
• The positive reviews vary enough in detail and phrasing to appear genuine, but the contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star complaints suggests highly inconsistent service rather than fake reviews.
• Multiple independent reviewers explicitly flagged pricing as a serious concern, including overcharging a senior citizen, a $900 charge for 55 minutes of work, and charging for estimates — this is a strong and credible pattern, not an outlier.
• One reviewer noted the worker used expletives and made inappropriate comments about renters — this is a significant professionalism red flag that warrants attention.

This score is based on 16 reviews spanning roughly a decade, with the majority of reviews being more than 5 years old, which meaningfully limits confidence in how well this score reflects the contractor's current performance.

Dun-Rite Plumbing shows severe and consistent deficiencies across professionalism and pricing, with multiple documented instances of missed appointments, rude staff, poor communication, and billing discrepancies. While some customers report satisfactory workmanship and timely completion on specific jobs, the company's pattern of unprofessional conduct—including failure to call customers with schedule changes, aggressive technician behavior, and refusal to provide itemized invoices—significantly undermines trust. Pricing practices are highly problematic, with quotes frequently exceeded by substantial margins ($150 quoted vs. $350 charged; $160–$180 estimated vs. $296 charged; $350 approved vs. $1,045 billed), and the owner's defensive responses to complaints suggest systemic accountability issues. The few positive reviews (2017–2020) contrast sharply with predominantly negative recent feedback (2021–2024), indicating deterioration in service quality.

• CRITICAL: Severe pattern of billing fraud/overcharging documented across multiple independent reviews. Quotes consistently exceeded by 50–200% without customer approval or itemized explanation.
• CRITICAL: Multiple documented instances of missed appointments and failure to notify customers of schedule changes, showing systemic disrespect for customer time.
• CRITICAL: Owner (Dwayne Browning) documented as unresponsive to complaints via phone, text, email, and certified mail. Refuses to provide itemized invoices or accountability.
• CRITICAL: Unauthorized scope creep documented—technicians performing work not approved by homeowners (e.g., installing regulators, vents, additional materials without permission), then billing for them.
• Pattern of aggressive/unprofessional technician behavior: loud, disrespectful, frustrated, spending time on personal calls rather than customer work.
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews cluster in 2021–2024; positive reviews are from 2016–2020, suggesting significant service degradation over time.
• One review (Mike's 5-star, 2020) contains unusual formatting/typos ('sooooooooooooo', 'w Just supposed to,shutoff') that may indicate rushed or inauthentic submission, though content is plausible.
• Legal/regulatory risk: Customer explicitly filed complaints with Maryland Attorney General and Office of Licensing and Professionalism; another customer mentioned home warranty dispute.
• Yard damage liability: Company uses waivers to avoid responsibility for property damage caused by their own negligence (backhoe operation).

This WW Score of 52.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is grounded in 14 detailed reviews with consistent, specific evidence of systemic failures in professionalism, pricing transparency, and accountability. The HIGH confidence ratings on professionalism and pricing are based on 8–10 independent mentions each, all corroborating the same patterns of misconduct. The company's documented refusal to respond to complaints, provide itemized billing, and honor quoted prices represents material business practice violations that transcend isolated incidents.

RupCoe receives a critically low WW Score of 42.8, driven primarily by severe pricing concerns that dominate 42 reviews. While professionalism scores moderately at 62 (28 mentions), with many technicians described as courteous and responsive, this is overwhelmed by systematic complaints of excessive markups, hidden charges, and predatory pricing practices. Project completion and experience both score in the mid-50s, with evidence of both competent work and significant diagnostic failures. The company demonstrates responsiveness and politeness but fails fundamentally on value delivery, with customers consistently reporting markups of 300-3300% on parts and labor charges that far exceed market rates.

• SEVERE PRICING PATTERN: 42 of 60 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Systematic pattern of excessive markups (e.g., $13 thermocouple charged at $330, $25 toilet part charged at $451, $11 drain pan quoted at $265) suggests deliberate price gouging rather than isolated incidents.
• DIAGNOSTIC INCOMPETENCE: Multiple reviews report failed diagnostics leading to unnecessary part replacements and expensive misdiagnoses (e.g., recommending $7000-8000 cement slab removal when issue was a simple valve, recommending full shower replacement when generic part was available, charging $1395 for board replacement when wiring was the actual issue).
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH TACTICS: Recurring pattern of low initial quotes followed by dramatic price increases at time of service, and aggressive upselling of unnecessary replacements (boilers, water heaters, full system replacements).
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Wide variance between technicians—some described as excellent (Angelo, Tom, Howard, Daquan), others as rude, lazy, or incompetent (Derek, Mike). Suggests inconsistent training or quality control.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reports of missed appointments, failed callbacks, and unresolved issues requiring repeat service calls.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2014-2017 (older than 5 years), but recent reviews (2018-2023) show continued pricing complaints and service issues, indicating problems persist.
• DISPATCH FEE CONTROVERSY: Repeated complaints about $59-$129 dispatch/service call fees that are not credited toward work, even when customer declines service—viewed as predatory by multiple reviewers.

This WW Score of 42.8 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence overall) due to large sample sizes across all dimensions, particularly the 42 explicit pricing mentions. The company demonstrates a systematic pattern of overcharging that transcends individual incidents. However, the score reflects a polarized company: some customers report excellent professionalism and workmanship, while the majority report predatory pricing and diagnostic failures. The score should be trusted as an accurate reflection of customer experience, with the primary risk being poor value for money rather than incompetence.

Rich's Plumbing has a deeply polarized review record spanning 2014–2024, with a significant volume of serious complaints dragging all four dimensions well below average. Professionalism is heavily penalized by repeated accounts of rude management, broken promises, poor communication, and in one case a customer feeling unsafe in her own home; positive mentions of courteous individual technicians are consistently undermined by the behavior of office staff and ownership. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous reviewers citing quotes two to three times higher than competitors, hidden fees added after the fact, charges for incomplete or failed work, and refusals to provide itemized invoices. Project completion suffers from multiple documented cases of work left unfinished, recurring problems not resolved under warranty, and at least one instance of a misdiagnosis that would have cost a customer $3,200 for an unnecessary repair. Experience scores marginally higher due to a subset of positive reviews praising specific technicians by name, but is offset by accounts of incorrect installations, snapped equipment left in vents, and a cartridge installed upside down.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe quotes 2–3x higher than competitors for identical work (water heater, sewer line, sump pump). This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• HIDDEN FEES PATTERN: At least four reviews explicitly describe charges added after the fact or fees not disclosed upfront, including charges for estimates that were promised to be free.
• FAILED WORK / NO WARRANTY HONOR: Multiple reviews describe the same problem recurring after a paid repair, with the company refusing to return under warranty or charging again for the same issue.
• OWNER/MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Several reviews specifically call out the owner (Rich) or office management as rude, dismissive, or dishonest — including one review where the owner allegedly lied about having heard a prior phone call.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least two reviews describe technicians only completing part of the agreed scope while charging the full price.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: Reviews mention a damaged vanity, a hole put in a wall, and a leak created that was not present before the technician arrived.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to show 1-star complaints about poor communication and incomplete work, indicating problems have not improved over time. Positive reviews are more concentrated in 2020–2021.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The cluster of 5-star reviews in 2020–2021 uses notably enthusiastic and somewhat generic language. While many name specific technicians (which adds credibility), the volume and timing of positive reviews during that period warrants mild caution. No definitive conclusion of fakery, but confidence in the positive cluster is reduced.
• MISDIAGNOSIS DOCUMENTED: One detailed review describes a $3,200 misdiagnosis (bad compressor) that was resolved by a different company for $100 (bad capacitor), with management defending the error.

This WW Score of 42.1 is based on 48 reviews with a HIGH volume of dimension-specific evidence across all four categories, and should be treated as a reliable and conservative assessment of a contractor with serious, recurring, and well-documented service quality and integrity problems.

Ace Mechanical presents a deeply divided review profile. Three of the eight reviews are scathing 1-star accounts describing rude technicians, unresponsive dispatchers, incomplete work, and in one case a worsening sewage problem after service — these are serious, detailed complaints that carry significant weight. The positive reviews (mostly older, ranging from 2019 to 2022) describe prompt, courteous, and effective service, suggesting the company may have experienced a decline in quality or consistency in more recent years. The two most recent reviews (2023 and 2024) are both 1-star, which is a concerning trend. Pricing was only mentioned in one older review and noted as reasonable, but the sample is too small to draw conclusions. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with a genuinely inconsistent track record and a troubling recent pattern of poor service.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (May 2024 and December 2023) are both 1-star with detailed complaints. The positive reviews are predominantly from 2019–2022, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: At least two reviews explicitly state the job was not completed or left the situation worse than before — this is a serious project completion concern.
• DISPATCHER/ADMINISTRATION PATTERN: Multiple negative reviews independently cite rude or unresponsive phone/dispatch staff, suggesting a systemic administrative issue rather than isolated incidents.
• HOMESERVE INSURANCE CONTEXT: Several reviews note this company is dispatched through HomeServe insurance, which may affect how the contractor prioritizes or handles jobs — customers had limited ability to vet or choose this contractor independently.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Positive reviews contain some specific names and details (Roy, Gustavo), and negative reviews are highly detailed and specific. No obvious fake review pattern identified, though the stark positive/negative split warrants attention.

This WW Score is based on 8 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions; confidence is moderate overall, but the strong recency skew toward negative reviews means the score likely reflects current service quality better than the raw average would suggest — prospective customers should weight the 2023–2024 reviews most heavily.

Craig's Plumbing and Heating presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple reviews citing bad attitudes, refusal to return calls, and dismissive behavior, though a handful of positive reviews do praise friendly and responsive staff. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous reviewers explicitly calling out overcharging, lack of transparency, and prices far above competitor quotes — including one reviewer who obtained independent professional opinions confirming gross overcharging. Project completion is also concerning, with at least two reviews describing work left incomplete or actively made worse after a service call, including a plumber allegedly leaving pipes disconnected and another allegedly creating a new problem to generate a callback. Experience scores reflect a similar split: some reviewers praised quick diagnosis and solid workmanship, while others described untrained technicians and poor-quality work. The volume of detailed, specific negative reviews across all dimensions significantly suppresses the overall WW Score.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years explicitly describe overcharging, with one reviewer obtaining two independent professional quotes confirming the bill was 5-6x the fair market rate. This is a serious and recurring pattern.
• INTEGRITY CONCERN: Two separate reviews allege that technicians deliberately created new problems or left work incomplete to generate additional service calls and charges. This pattern, if accurate, represents a significant ethical red flag.
• RESPONSIVENESS CONCERN: At least one reviewer states the company refused to take their calls and never returned messages when a billing dispute was raised.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2013–2019, with no reviews in the past 12 months (relative to the most recent date of 2019-11-12). The score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current operations.
• REVIEW DISTRIBUTION: Of 11 reviews, 6 are 1-star and only 4 are 5-star, with one 2-star. The positive reviews tend to be less specific or focus narrowly on office staff responsiveness rather than technical work quality, while negative reviews contain detailed, specific, and credible accounts of problems.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: No strong patterns of fake reviews detected. Both positive and negative reviews contain specific names, dates, and situational details that suggest authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews spanning 2013–2019 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable; however, the absence of any reviews from the past several years means this score reflects historical performance only and should be treated with caution when assessing the contractor's current state of operations.