Find Nearby Plumbers In Paterson, New Jersey

The overwhelming pattern across these reviews is one of severely inflated pricing, with at least 10 reviews explicitly describing quotes that were 2x to 10x what competitors or DIY repairs ultimately cost — this single issue dominates the pricing dimension and drags the entire score down significantly. Project completion is also heavily penalized: multiple reviews describe technicians who failed to diagnose problems correctly, left work incomplete, or allegedly sabotaged work when customers declined full-price quotes. Professionalism is mixed — a handful of positive reviews praise specific technicians by name for punctuality, courtesy, and communication, but these are outweighed by reviews citing rude office staff, unethical behavior by ownership, and a state investigation finding against the company. Experience scores slightly higher than other dimensions due to a few reviews praising technical knowledge, but is undermined by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis and inferior workmanship on installations.

• PRICING PATTERN — At least 10 of 21 reviews independently describe quotes that were dramatically higher than what competitors or DIY repairs cost, suggesting a systemic pricing practice rather than isolated incidents.
• ETHICAL CONCERN — One review describes a technician allegedly intentionally leaving pipes disconnected after a pricing dispute, which if accurate represents deliberate sabotage. This is an extreme flag for project completion integrity.
• NYSERDA REMOVAL — One review states the company was removed from the NYSERDA state energy program due to volume of homeowner complaints, and that a state investigation found against the company. This is a significant institutional red flag.
• RECENCY NOTE — The majority of reviews are from 2017–2021, with only two reviews from 2023–2024. The most recent review (October 2024) is negative. The positive reviews from 2013–2015 are over 9 years old and carry reduced weight.
• POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN — The positive reviews (5-star) tend to be brief, generic, or focused on a single technician by name, while negative reviews are detailed, specific, and corroborated by multiple independent accounts. This asymmetry reduces confidence in the positive reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW concern; positive reviews do not appear to be coordinated or use identical phrasing, but their lack of specificity relative to the detailed negative reviews is noted.

This WW Score is based on 21 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; the score of 34.2 should be treated as a genuine reflection of serious and recurring service quality issues, particularly around pricing transparency and job completion integrity.

The review set paints a deeply concerning picture of this contractor across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension and is severely damaged by repeated accounts of no-shows, unanswered calls, extreme lateness without apology, and in one case, a worker using racial slurs toward a customer. Project completion is similarly troubled, with multiple reviews describing abandoned follow-through, unrepaired damage, work done without permits, and jobs left without explanation. Experience scores slightly higher due to a few positive reviews noting competent troubleshooting and successful installations, but is undercut by one reviewer noting a misidentification of radiator type. Pricing data is sparse, with only minor references to value, limiting confidence in that dimension.

• RECENCY WARNING: Four of the seven reviews are from 2014–2018, making them 6–10 years old. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2023). The single recent review is positive, but it is insufficient to override the pattern of serious complaints in older reviews.
• PATTERN OF NON-RESPONSE: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe the same behavior — Cesar not answering calls, not showing up, and going silent after problems arise. This is a consistent behavioral pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PERMIT VIOLATION FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states that an AC/heating installation was completed without a permit and without inspection. This is a serious legal and safety concern.
• HOSTILE CONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer credibly describes Cesar using racial slurs and behaving in a menacing manner inside a customer's home. This is an extreme professionalism failure.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: The two most positive reviews (2016) are brief, generic, and lack specific detail. While not conclusive, they contrast sharply in tone and specificity with the negative reviews. Scores have been kept conservative as a result.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 7 reviews total. While the pattern is consistent, the limited sample size reduces overall reliability.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability overall — the negative patterns are consistent and span multiple years and dimensions, lending credibility to the low score, but the small total review count and age of most reviews mean this profile should be supplemented with additional current references before drawing a final conclusion.

The review record for Anthony & Sons Plumbing is dominated by serious, detailed negative accounts spanning from 2012 through 2024, describing a consistent pattern of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, ignored calls, work done without permits, and outright dishonesty. Positive reviews exist but are heavily outnumbered and several lack specific detail, reducing their evidentiary weight. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating that paid work was left unfinished, inspections were failed, and follow-up calls were ignored or refused. Professionalism scores are similarly devastated by repeated accounts of rudeness, denial of responsibility, and avoidance of customers after payment. While a small number of reviewers praised responsiveness and fair pricing, these positives are insufficient to offset the volume and severity of the negative evidence.

• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2012, 2015, 2019, 2021, 2023, 2024) describe the same behavior — taking payment, leaving work incomplete, and then refusing to return calls. This is a serious and consistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PERMIT VIOLATIONS: At least two reviews explicitly describe work performed without required permits, including a hot water heater installation (2024 review) and plumbing licensed to a general contractor (2012 review). This represents potential legal and safety risk.
• UNLICENSED/OFF-BOOKS WORK: One review (2019) describes a worker named James operating off the books after hours, suggesting possible use of unlicensed labor under the company's name.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite severe technical failures including massive leaks, improperly installed boilers, eroded pipe misconnections, and subpar materials — indicating a pattern of poor workmanship, not one-off errors.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review (September 2024) is a 1-star review describing the same core behaviors seen in reviews going back over a decade, suggesting no improvement over time.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CONCERN: Several 5-star reviews are vague and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Outstanding service!!! Very dependable and reliable service!!' with no specifics). These may be genuine but carry low evidentiary weight and could not offset the detailed negative accounts.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: The generic 5-star review from 2015 ('Outstanding service!!! I definitely recommend!!!! Very dependable and reliable service!!') uses repetitive exclamation marks and zero specifics, which is a minor flag. Not conclusive, but noted.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews spanning 12 years with strong mention coverage across all four dimensions, making it a HIGH confidence assessment — the low score reliably reflects a documented, multi-year pattern of serious service failures that prospective customers should treat as a significant warning.

This contractor has a deeply mixed and concerning record across only 3 reviews. Two of the three reviews are 1-star and describe serious failures: a no-show with zero follow-up communication, and an incomplete job where the plumber falsely declared the work done before leaving. The single positive review describes a late-night emergency response handled professionally and thoroughly, which prevents the scores from bottoming out entirely. Project completion is a major red flag — two out of three jobs either were not finished or were never started. Professionalism is similarly damaged by the documented no-show and the aggressive, ineffective approach described in the second review.

• Only 3 reviews total — scores carry very low statistical reliability and should be treated with significant caution.
• Two reviews explicitly describe the same representative 'Wally' by name, suggesting a small or single-operator business where individual performance variance is high.
• The single 5-star review is generic in praise ('very nice,' 'very professional,' 'excellent job') with limited specific detail, which warrants mild scrutiny, though the emergency context provides some plausibility.
• All reviews are dated within a narrow 12-day window in late September to early October 2020, meaning all data is over 4 years old — current performance may differ significantly.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are from 2020. No recent data exists to assess current quality or reliability.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all over 4 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of this contractor's current or consistent performance.

Advanced Professionals receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple accounts of no-shows, unanswered callbacks, and a carbon monoxide emergency being completely ignored for an entire day. Pricing is a consistent complaint, with customers describing charges as excessive, misleading, and not reflective of the work actually performed. Project completion is a critical failure point — multiple reviews describe work that was incomplete, abandoned, or ineffective, including a boiler pilot that failed within hours and wall repairs that were promised but never scheduled. The only positive signals come from two older reviews (2014 and 2017) praising specific technicians for skill and politeness, which prevents the experience and professionalism scores from bottoming out entirely, but these are heavily outweighed by the volume of negative accounts.

• Most reviews are older than 1 year — the most recent review is from March 2022, and the majority date from 2016–2019. Current performance may differ but cannot be confirmed from this data.
• The two positive reviews (2014 and 2017) are the oldest in the set and are significantly outnumbered by negative reviews. They should be weighted less due to age.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, named technicians, dates, dollar amounts, and varied writing styles, suggesting authenticity.
• A pattern of non-responsiveness (no callbacks, no follow-through, phones going unanswered) appears across multiple independent reviews, suggesting a systemic operational issue rather than isolated incidents.
• One review describes a potential safety risk — a carbon monoxide emergency that was ignored — which is a serious red flag beyond standard service quality concerns.

Despite high mention counts across all dimensions, the overall WW Score carries only LIMITED reliability due to the small total review pool of 8 reviews and the significant age of most data, with no reviews from the past 12 months to confirm whether current operations reflect these historical patterns.

The overwhelming majority of reviews across all four dimensions are deeply negative, painting a consistent picture of a company that routinely overcharges, misdiagnoses problems, sends unqualified technicians, and behaves rudely or dishonestly when challenged. Professionalism scores are devastated by repeated accounts of the owner and managers being verbally abusive, hanging up on customers, and making threats, with only a small cluster of positive reviews praising specific technicians like Alex R, Adam Q, and Mark. Pricing is the lowest-scoring dimension, with dozens of independent reviewers documenting charges that were two to three times competitor quotes, hidden fees, prices that changed after work was agreed upon, and charges for work never performed. Project completion is similarly poor, with multiple accounts of abandoned jobs, incorrect parts installed, failed repairs requiring immediate re-service, and work that failed inspection. Technical experience scores marginally higher only because a handful of positive reviews describe competent diagnostics and successful repairs, but these are vastly outnumbered by accounts of misdiagnosis, use of wrong parts, unlicensed technicians, and work that created new problems.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED POSITIVE REVIEWS: One reviewer explicitly states the company asks customers to leave 5-star reviews immediately after job completion before problems emerge. Several 5-star reviews are suspiciously generic, brief, and lack specific detail consistent with authentic experiences.
• EXTREME REVIEW POLARIZATION: The review set is heavily bimodal — the vast majority are 1-star with detailed, specific complaints, while the small number of positive reviews tend to be shorter and less specific. This pattern is consistent with a company that has systemic service failures.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2010 through August 2024, indicating persistent and long-standing problems rather than a temporary decline in quality. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to reflect the same core complaints about overcharging and poor diagnostics.
• PATTERN OF MISDIAGNOSIS FOR UPSELLING: At least 8 independent reviews describe technicians recommending expensive full replacements (compressors, full AC systems, boilers, water heaters) that were subsequently found unnecessary by other contractors, strongly suggesting a systemic upselling practice.
• UNLICENSED TECHNICIANS: Multiple reviews explicitly state that technicians are not licensed plumbers or HVAC technicians, which is a serious safety and legal concern.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews independently describe the owner ('Ozzy') as verbally abusive, threatening, and refusing refunds for documented failures, suggesting a top-down culture of dishonesty.
• ONE ANOMALOUS 1-STAR REVIEW WITH POSITIVE CONTENT: The review dated 2021-10-04 with a 1-star rating reads as a positive experience (AC fixed, pipes repaired). This is likely a rating error and was treated cautiously — the text was counted as positive data for relevant dimensions but the anomaly is flagged.

This WW Score of 18.7 is highly reliable and should be trusted: it is based on 72 reviews spanning over a decade, all four dimensions have HIGH confidence due to extensive mentions, and the negative patterns are specific, independently corroborated, and consistent across time — this is not a company experiencing a temporary rough patch but one with deeply entrenched systemic problems.