Find Nearby Plumbers In Vineland, New Jersey

Bovio Rubino scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, clear communication, and technical competence across both HVAC and plumbing services. However, pricing is a significant drag on the overall score, with a substantial number of reviewers explicitly calling out high or opaque charges, unexpected fees, flat-rate billing surprises, and instances where the dispatch fee was not rolled into the final bill. Project completion is moderately strong but is meaningfully pulled down by several serious complaints: an abandoned or unresolved AC installation that never cooled properly, a water heater installation that caused $22,000 in flood damage with poor follow-up, a cracked new unit leaking refrigerant within 14 months, a system installed on mulch that sank with no remediation, and multiple reports of no callbacks or unresolved warranty disputes. The post-merger period (Bovio-Rubino) generated a cluster of negative reviews citing a shift toward upselling and reduced service contract value, which tempers confidence in the otherwise positive recent trend.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., 'Great Job! Very professional. Job well done! They are my go to guys...' by James M Baston appears on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; the AC cleaning/booties review appears on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; the 'Always outstanding service! James was here on time...' review appears on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; the Larry R. review appears on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; the 'Was on time, worked quickly...' review appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; the long Larry/Frank/Nazir review appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05). These are likely fake or artificially inflated reviews and have been counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Several reviews contain no text at all but carry 5-star ratings. These blank reviews (approximately 15 identified) provide no usable data and inflate the star average without substance. They were excluded from dimension scoring.
• CONTRADICTORY RATING: One review is rated 5 stars but states 'Very disappointed' with no further explanation. This is a likely data entry error or rating inversion and was excluded from scoring.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: Multiple substantive negative reviews describe significant failures including: a $22,000 flood caused by improper water heater drain procedure with poor management response; a new AC unit failing within 14 months with warranty dispute; a $6,000 AC replacement that never cooled the home below 80 degrees; a unit installed on mulch that sank with no remediation offered; and a technician who condemned a system that another tech fixed for $20.
• POST-MERGER QUALITY CONCERNS: Multiple long-term customers explicitly noted a decline in service quality and customer focus following the Bovio-Rubino merger, citing increased upselling pressure, reduced service contract inclusions, and diminished responsiveness.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of positive reviews are from 2025 (within the past 12 months) and carry more weight. The most serious negative reviews are from 2017-2024, suggesting possible improvement over time, but the 2024 warranty dispute and installation failure reviews indicate ongoing systemic issues have not been fully resolved.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CONSISTENT AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing feedback is not vague — reviewers cite specific dollar amounts and describe unexpected fees, flat-rate billing surprises, and charges they considered excessive. This pattern across many independent reviewers over multiple years is credible and significantly depresses the pricing score.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews that suggest artificial inflation of the positive review count, a meaningful cluster of serious project failure complaints, and consistent multi-year pricing concerns that represent a genuine and documented weakness of this contractor.

TLC Mechanical demonstrates solid professionalism with punctual arrivals and courteous technicians mentioned across 38 reviews, though several instances of rudeness from ownership (particularly Matt Calloway) significantly lower this score. Project completion is reliable at 75.0, with most jobs finished satisfactorily, but callback issues and incomplete follow-through on minor tasks appear in multiple reviews. Experience/workmanship is strong at 80.5, with technicians showing good technical knowledge and problem-solving ability. However, pricing is a critical weakness at 58.0—the most frequently cited complaint across 18 reviews, with customers consistently reporting charges 50-100% above market rates, unclear billing practices, and aggressive collection tactics including liens. The company shows inconsistent service quality and a troubling pattern of defensive responses to customer concerns.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic overcharging documented across 18 reviews. Examples include $500 for <2 hours work, $3900 for $1200 equipment, $196 for 15-minute faucet replacement, $450 for $30 in parts. This is the single largest driver of negative sentiment.
• OWNERSHIP CONDUCT: Matt Calloway (owner) exhibits unprofessional behavior in multiple reviews—yelling at customers (2019-02-27), being 'openly hostile' and using 'vulgar words' (2016-11-29), argumentative and dismissive (2022-03-10). This contrasts sharply with positive reviews praising his work ethic.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews document failure to return calls or honor promised callbacks (2022-09-01, 2013-02-13, 2014-07-07, 2013-06-26). This undermines project completion confidence.
• AGGRESSIVE COLLECTION: One review (2014-04-12) documents placement of materialman's lien on customer's house over disputed $100 charges—highly unusual and aggressive tactic that suggests business practices issues.
• COMMUNICATION INCONSISTENCIES: Contradictory statements to customers about scheduling (2022-03-10), denial of promised commitments (2020-07-27), and vague inspection reports (2018-02-16) appear across multiple reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2013-2022 period. More recent reviews (2022-2023) show mixed quality. Older reviews (2016-2019) contain more 5-star ratings, suggesting possible rating inflation or selection bias in older data.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Several reviews document jobs requiring return visits or outside contractors to complete work properly (2022-09-01, 2017-06-19, 2014-04-12, 2013-02-13).

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable and should be trusted as a cautionary assessment. The score is based on 67 reviews with HIGH confidence in professionalism and project completion dimensions, but is significantly dragged down by consistent, well-documented pricing complaints across 18 reviews and multiple documented instances of poor ownership conduct. The company delivers technically competent work but appears to systematically overcharge and exhibits defensive, sometimes hostile customer interactions. Customers should expect quality workmanship but should obtain detailed written estimates and be prepared for bills substantially above quoted prices.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

Roger's Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians — particularly Orlando, Jim, Marcus, Eddie, and Chris — who communicate clearly, arrive on time, and go above and beyond on the job. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a substantial and consistent pattern of negative reviews explicitly calls out charges that reviewers describe as 2–4x competitor rates, surprise fees, upselling of unnecessary work, and in one case an unauthorized membership charge. Project completion is generally solid but is meaningfully dragged down by multiple reviews citing no-shows, missed appointments without callbacks, and at least one case of work that had to be redone. The combination of excellent field technicians and a problematic pricing model creates a bifurcated reputation that is clearly reflected across hundreds of reviews spanning over a decade.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical reviews from the same reviewer (dated 2024-09-09 and 2024-08-22) describing the same rental property experience with the $53 drain special and hydro-jetting comparison. These appear to be the same person posting twice. Only counted once for scoring purposes.
• GENERIC/THIN REVIEWS: Approximately 18 reviews consist solely of a star rating with no text, and several others contain only 2–4 words (e.g., 'Professional. Detailed. Polite.' appearing twice on different dates with identical wording — possible duplicate or templated review). These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• IDENTICAL PHRASING FLAG: The review 'Professional. Detailed. Polite.' appears on both 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-02 with identical text and 5-star ratings. This is suspicious and may indicate a fake or duplicated review.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2024–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, a meaningful cluster of negative pricing reviews spans 2010–2024, suggesting the overpricing concern is a long-standing and persistent issue rather than an isolated incident.
• PRICING CONCERN IS SYSTEMIC: At least 15 distinct reviews across multiple years explicitly cite overcharging, price gouging, or quotes 2–4x competitor rates. This is not noise — it is a consistent pattern that materially suppresses the pricing score.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 5 reviews describe technicians who never arrived, did not call, or failed to reschedule appropriately. One review describes 7 return visits for the same unresolved dripping faucet issue, raising a project completion concern.
• OLDER REVIEWS (pre-2020): A significant number of reviews date back to 2010–2019. These were given reduced weight in scoring relative to 2023–2025 reviews, per recency rules.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 15+ years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; the score is considered reliable, and the pricing dimension in particular reflects a well-documented and persistent pattern that prospective customers should weigh carefully before engaging this contractor.

All Clear Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill, with many customers highlighting prompt arrivals, friendly technicians, and successful resolution of complex plumbing issues. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — raises serious concerns across all dimensions: hidden charges and pricing disputes appear in at least 4 reviews, failed or incomplete work requiring redo appears in at least 3 reviews, and rude or unprofessional behavior is cited in at least 3 reviews. Project completion is notably penalized by incidents of abandoned follow-through, a job that had to be redone twice, a toilet repair that failed and required a callback that was delayed, and a crew that never followed up after a failed drain clearing. Pricing confidence is dragged down by explicit complaints of overcharging, surprise fees, and one customer alleging outright fraudulent upselling. The WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine strengths but a non-trivial pattern of service failures that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• 8 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews use 'unknown' as text content and were excluded from scoring.
• Pricing complaints are significant: at least 4 reviews explicitly describe hidden charges, surprise fees, or alleged price gouging. One review describes a $610 out-of-pocket demand for unnecessary parts under a home warranty. Another describes $330 for 10 minutes of work. These are not isolated incidents.
• Project completion failures noted in multiple reviews: one customer had a job fail and require redo twice; one toilet repair leaked again shortly after; one crew failed to follow up for an entire week after an incomplete job; one customer states both jobs had to be redone by a different professional.
• Rudeness/unprofessionalism flagged in at least 3 negative reviews: one describes the plumber as 'argumentative and rude,' one describes the owner as hanging up and being a 'complete prick,' and one describes a very hostile interaction over an estimate.
• Recency note: The majority of positive reviews are from 2017–2021 or earlier. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) include both positives and a significant 1-star review about hidden charges and jobs needing to be redone. The 2022 negative reviews about follow-through failures are also notable.
• Some older reviews (2007–2014) reference different named technicians and may reflect a different operational period of the business. These were included but given reduced implicit weight due to age.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, though a large number of brief, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'The best', 'Excellent!', 'Great - quick & efficient') slightly reduce confidence in the positive signal. These were scored conservatively.
• One 1-star review (Dan and Darwin, 2018-10-31) gave positive descriptive content but a 1-star rating — this appears to be a data entry error or misclick. It was treated as ambiguous and not used to penalize scores.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (87 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the persistent pattern of pricing complaints and project completion failures across multiple years means the score should be treated as a genuine mixed signal — not a blanket endorsement.

ASAP Plumbing and Mechanical has a strong base of satisfied customers who frequently praise individual technicians by name for being professional, communicative, knowledgeable, and courteous, driving reasonably solid scores in professionalism and experience. However, pricing is a persistent and serious concern across multiple independent reviews spanning many years, with multiple customers explicitly describing charges as 'outrageous,' 'ludicrous,' or double the market rate, and one customer citing the owner as openly indifferent to repeat business — this drags the pricing dimension down significantly. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are described as completed well and on time, but there are credible, detailed accounts of abandoned work, unresolved leaks after multiple visits, a brand-new furnace left non-functional in winter with no callback, and an HVAC unit installed so poorly it nearly fell through a ceiling. The gap between the enthusiastic recent 5-star reviews and the detailed critical reviews from 2018–2024 suggests inconsistent service quality depending on the technician assigned and the complexity of the job.

• Multiple reviews from June 2025 are extremely brief (blank text with 5-star ratings) or contain only 1–2 generic sentences with no specifics — these provide no usable data and may inflate the visible star average without contributing meaningful evidence.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2025 use nearly identical praise structures ('professional and informative,' 'professional and explained everything') which may reflect coached or templated responses, though named technicians differ so outright fabrication is not confirmed.
• 11 reviews contain no review text at all (blank body, rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Pricing complaints are consistent, specific, and span from 2015 to 2025 across multiple independent reviewers — this is a credible systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• Project completion failures are documented in detail across multiple reviews: unresolved leaks after repeat visits (2024), abandoned well pump job (2023), non-functional new furnace with no callback (2017), HVAC unit installed incorrectly (2020), and a water heater installation left leaking (2018) — these are serious and credible.
• One review (2018) alleges the owner called a customer 'an angry bitch' after she refused his excuse — this is a significant customer service and professionalism flag at the ownership level.
• One review (2015) quotes the owner as stating he does not need to prioritize repeat customer satisfaction due to high service volume — if accurate, this is a structural business attitude concern.
• Recency note: The majority of highly positive reviews are from 2025 and mid-2020s, while the most serious failure reviews span 2017–2024. The recent positive trend may reflect genuine improvement or increased review solicitation — both interpretations are plausible.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (90 reviews) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it statistical weight, but the score should be interpreted cautiously because the review pool contains a meaningful cluster of detailed, credible negative reviews describing pricing abuse, incomplete work, and poor escalation handling that are partially offset by a high volume of brief, less-detailed positive reviews — consumers should pay particular attention to the pricing and project completion dimensions before engaging this contractor for large or complex jobs.