Find Nearby Plumbers In Albany, New York

Peter receives strong praise across multiple reviews for responsiveness, punctuality, and professionalism, with several reviewers highlighting same-day service and courteous conduct. Pricing is generally described as fair or fantastic by satisfied customers. However, one detailed negative review significantly tempers the scores: a customer reported a failed repair, an unexplained $480 charge with no receipt provided, a leaking installation, and complete non-response to follow-up messages — directly contradicting the positive pattern. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, as the negative review describes abandoned work and an ignored callback, which is a serious red flag. The overall score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but a documented failure in accountability and follow-through that cannot be dismissed.

• One detailed 1-star review describes unprofessional conduct including ignored callbacks, no receipt issued, a failed repair, and a faulty installation — this is a significant negative data point that materially impacts project completion and professionalism scores.
• The 2-star review is anomalous: the review text is entirely positive yet the rating is 2.0 stars. This inconsistency may indicate a data entry error or platform issue. The text was scored on its content, but the low rating was noted as a potential signal of underlying dissatisfaction not fully expressed in writing.
• Three of the four positive reviews are from 2018, making them over 6 years old. Only one positive review is from 2022. Recency weighting reduces confidence in the positive pattern.
• With only 5 total reviews, the sample size is very small. A single negative review represents 20% of all feedback, giving it outsized influence. Scores should be interpreted cautiously.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, and tone, and the negative review includes specific names, amounts, and incident details consistent with a genuine experience.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning several years, with most positive reviews being 6+ years old and one serious negative review describing abandoned work and non-payment accountability — the score should be treated as LOW CONFIDENCE and prospective customers are advised to seek additional recent references before hiring.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across all dimensions. While two positive reviews from 2022 and one from 2024 praise responsiveness, punctuality, and technical skill, two negative reviews from 2023 raise serious concerns about dishonesty (billing for time not worked), poor communication, missed appointments, and failure to clean up after work. The fraud allegation in the 1-star review — where cameras reportedly clocked only 16 minutes of work billed as significantly more — is a major red flag that heavily penalizes the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing received a low score because one reviewer explicitly called labor charges 'out of this world expensive' for the work performed, partially offsetting the one positive mention of fair and transparent pricing. The overall picture is of an inconsistent operation with some capable technicians but documented reliability and integrity problems.

• SERIOUS INTEGRITY FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor billed for time not worked, with camera footage reportedly showing only 16 minutes on-site for a job billed as 1–1.5 hours. This is a significant fraud allegation and heavily weighs against trustworthiness.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: The same reviewer reports the contractor went MIA after offering to redo the job at no cost, indicating a pattern of not honoring commitments.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One reviewer experienced a cancelled appointment with no notification until after the two-hour window had passed, and described the overall scheduling process as difficult.
• CLEANLINESS CONCERN: One reviewer noted the technician left a mess in the basement without any cleanup, suggesting inconsistent professionalism standards.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most negative reviews are from 2023, which are more recent than the two positive reviews from 2022. The single 2024 positive review is the most recent data point but comes from only one source.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews total. This is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution. Scores can shift dramatically with even one or two additional reviews.
• POSSIBLE REVIEWER BIAS NOTE: The 2024 5-star review is highly detailed and effusive, but no fake review pattern is confirmed across multiple reviews. No identical phrasing detected across positive reviews.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust due to the very small review sample (5 reviews), a serious unresolved fraud allegation, and a clear split between older positive reviews and more recent negative experiences.

Bob Jones receives a mixed picture across reviews. Positive reviews praise his promptness, communication, and ability to diagnose and fix issues quickly, including one notable case where he saved a customer from an unnecessary $4,900 system replacement. However, a serious 1-star review from 2022 describes a failed AC installation where the unit never worked, an unexplained $900 charge beyond the warranty payment, and a complete refusal to take responsibility or issue a refund — directly impacting project completion and experience scores. The pricing dimension is pulled down by the alleged hidden charge, while the professionalism score reflects the tension between glowing accounts of honesty and the 2022 complaint of being unhelpful and unaccountable. With only 5 reviews spanning a decade, confidence in any dimension is limited and the score should be treated with caution.

• Only 5 reviews total spanning 2013 to 2023 — extremely small sample size; WW Score reliability is low.
• The most recent negative review (2022) describes a serious unresolved complaint: a non-functional AC installation, an unexplained $900 charge, and refusal to refund or take responsibility. This is a significant red flag.
• Three of the five positive reviews are from 2013, 2019, and 2021 — all older than 2 years relative to the most recent review date. Only one positive review falls within the past 12 months of the dataset (2023), and it is very brief and generic with no specific details.
• The 2023 5-star review ('Honest business man... tells you like it is') contains no specifics about work performed, which limits its evidentiary value.
• Recency concern: The only detailed negative review (2022) is more recent than most positive reviews, which may indicate a decline in service quality over time.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 10 years and should be considered LOW reliability — the presence of one serious, detailed negative review alongside a very small positive sample means this score cannot be trusted as a confident indicator of current service quality.

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension across all three reviews, but the picture is mixed: one reviewer praised prompt response and courteous service, while two others noted slow or absent call-backs, which is a meaningful negative pattern. Project completion and experience are only referenced in two reviews each — both positive, describing a fully completed water heater replacement with cleanup and a general note of satisfactory workmanship — but the small sample limits confidence. Pricing was never mentioned in any review, so no score can be assigned. Overall, the contractor shows some genuine strengths but has a documented responsiveness problem that meaningfully drags down the professionalism score.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with significant caution.
• Two of the three reviews are from 2006 and 2008 — more than 15 years old. The most recent review is from 2013, now over 10 years old. None of the reviews fall within the past 12 months. This score may not reflect current performance.
• A recurring responsiveness/callback issue appears in two separate reviews (2008 and 2006), suggesting this may be a persistent pattern rather than an isolated incident.
• No pricing data was mentioned in any review — the Price Friendly dimension cannot be scored.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 3 reviews, all of which are over a decade old, providing an extremely thin and outdated evidence base that should not be used to make confident hiring decisions.

Professionalism scores moderately because while a large number of reviews praise individual technicians as friendly, courteous, punctual, and communicative, a significant and recurring minority describe rude office staff, dispatchers who hung up on customers, failure to notify customers of schedule changes, and at least one technician described as appearing impaired. Pricing is the most heavily penalized dimension: dozens of explicit complaints describe charges of $400–$1,800+ for jobs lasting under an hour, non-transparent fee structures, undisclosed dispatch fees, and quotes that ballooned after work began — with multiple reviewers stating they were charged more than quoted or charged for work that did not fix the problem. Project completion suffers from a meaningful pattern of abandoned or incomplete jobs, repeat visits for the same unresolved issue, parts never ordered, jobs left mid-way, and in several cases customers having to hire a second company to finish what Best Plumbing started. Experience scores in the moderate range because many individual technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but a notable subset of negative reviews describe misdiagnosis, wrong parts, broken equipment left behind, and work that made problems worse — suggesting uneven technical quality across the workforce.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (the long 'sewer backup on a Sunday' review appears twice on different dates; the 'Fast and prof Service' review appears twice; the 'Professional, Helpful, Communicative' Morgan Hoover review appears twice; the 'Best Plumbing Company is simply the BEST' Trent and Sheldon review appears twice). These duplicates were counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes but inflate the raw review count.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-06 with no review text (rating only, all 5-star) is highly suspicious and suggests possible review padding. These blank reviews were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable data.
• PLATFORM DISCREPANCY NOTED: One reviewer explicitly states the company has a 1.5/5 rating on Consumer Checkbook and a 3.0 on Yelp versus a much higher Google rating, and questions whether positive Google reviews are authentic. This is consistent with the observed pattern of generic, brief 5-star reviews alongside detailed negative reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text span from 2006 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) include both strong positives and several serious negatives including pricing complaints, incomplete work, and threatening collection behavior, suggesting the issues are ongoing and not historical.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer alleges the owner called months after a negative review to offer $100 to remove it, which if accurate represents a serious ethical concern about review integrity.
• BILLING PRACTICE FLAG: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same pattern — undisclosed dispatch/diagnostic fees, no upfront estimates, charges presented only after work is done, and refusal to itemize invoices. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 8 distinct reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required multiple return visits for the same issue, or required a second company to finish — a significant project completion risk for prospective customers.
• THREATENING COLLECTIONS FLAG: At least two reviewers describe being threatened with police action or property liens when disputing bills, including in one case for work that did not fix the problem. This is a serious customer service and ethical flag.

This WW Score of 58.3 is based on a very large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but prospective customers should weight it cautiously given strong evidence of systematic pricing opacity, a suspicious cluster of blank 5-star reviews that may artificially inflate the overall star average on other platforms, and a recurring pattern of incomplete work and aggressive billing practices documented across multiple years and geographies.

A. Johnson Plumbing & Heating presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Individual technicians — Brian, Dan, Sean, Joe, Tucker, and others — are frequently praised for friendliness, punctuality, and competence, which keeps professionalism and experience scores from collapsing entirely. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: at least 14 reviews explicitly describe charges as excessive, shocking, or exploitative, with multiple reviewers citing quotes that were dramatically reduced when challenged, suggesting a pattern of inflated initial pricing rather than isolated incidents. Project completion is also significantly undermined by several reviews describing repeat service failures, unresolved issues, abandoned follow-through by ownership, and at least one case of a system never functioning properly after installation. The score gap between individual technician quality and company-level business practices is a defining feature of this contractor's review profile.

• PRICING PATTERN — SERIOUS: At least 14 reviews across multiple years independently describe prices as grossly excessive. Multiple reviewers note that quoted prices dropped dramatically (sometimes by $1,000+) when challenged, strongly suggesting a deliberate high-anchor pricing strategy targeting uninformed or emergency customers.
• DIAGNOSTIC INTEGRITY CONCERN: One 2025 review (2-star) alleges a technician falsely claimed mice chewed wires and recommended a $10,000 replacement for what turned out to be a clogged condensate line fixed on the spot by another company. A 2019 review describes a technician arriving without tools and quoting $13,000 for a boiler installed by another company for under $6,500. These are serious allegations of misdiagnosis and potential fraud.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe repeat service visits for the same unresolved issue (5-6 visits for a sewage pump), a $9,500 HVAC system that never functioned properly for nearly a year, a furnace left non-functional after routine maintenance, and an owner who promised follow-up quotes and then went silent for weeks.
• PERMIT VIOLATION ALLEGATION: One review (2018) explicitly states the company did not pull permits for an installation and directs readers to the City of Glens Falls building and codes department for verification. This is a serious legal and safety concern.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Three reviews consist solely of a 5-star rating with no text whatsoever. These provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring. Additionally, several 5-star reviews from the same date cluster (2025-05-10, 2025-04-10) are extremely brief and generic ('The tech was efficient and friendly, the work was excellent'; 'Very easy to talk to, and was very knowledgeable'). While not conclusive, the pattern warrants caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024-2025) continue to show both strong individual technician praise AND serious pricing complaints, indicating the pricing issue is not historical — it is ongoing as of the review period.
• OLDER REVIEWS DISCOUNTED: Reviews from 2015-2019 were included in pattern analysis but given reduced weight in scoring, as they are 5-10 years old. However, they are directionally consistent with more recent complaints, suggesting systemic rather than temporary issues.
• OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT CONCERNS: Multiple reviews reference the owner directly — in some cases positively (apologizing, offering VIP pricing) but in others negatively (taking no responsibility, switching facts, failing to follow through on refund promises, going silent after promising quotes). This suggests inconsistent leadership accountability.

This WW Score carries HIGH statistical confidence due to the large number of reviews and broad mention coverage across all four dimensions, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given credible allegations of deliberate overcharging, at least one potential misdiagnosis, and a permit violation claim — issues that metrics alone cannot fully capture.