Find Nearby Plumbers In Albany, New York

This contractor's review profile is deeply mixed and heavily skewed by age — the vast majority of reviews are from 2006–2014, with nothing in the past decade, making the score of limited practical reliability. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: two scathing 1-star reviews from 2014 describe chronic lateness, failure to return to finish work, and dismissive customer service, while several older reviews praise responsiveness and reliability. Pricing is a significant concern, with one reviewer explicitly calling a $408 charge for a 15-minute igniter swap 'criminal' and another noting emergency weekend surcharges, though two others found pricing fair or acceptable. Project completion is similarly split — one reviewer explicitly states the contractor took payment and never returned to finish the job, which is a serious red flag that heavily drags this dimension down despite other reviewers reporting satisfactory completed work. Experience scores modestly positive overall, with most reviewers who commented on workmanship finding it adequate to good, but no reviewer described exceptional technical skill.

• CRITICAL: One review (2014) explicitly describes payment collected for unfinished work with a promise to return that was never honored — this is a serious project abandonment flag.
• CRITICAL: One review (2014) describes a $408 charge for a ~15-minute job with a ~$30 part, suggesting potential price gouging. The company refused to negotiate when contacted.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 10 YEARS: The most recent review is from 2014. There is no data from the past decade. This score should not be used to assess the contractor's current performance.
• One review (2006) simply states 'They never called back' — a responsiveness failure that is brief but notable.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the wide variance in ratings (1-star to 5-star) and the specificity of both positive and negative reviews suggest authentic, genuine feedback.

This WW Score carries very low practical reliability due to the complete absence of reviews from the past 10+ years — all 9 reviews date from 2006 to 2014 — meaning this score reflects a historical snapshot only and should not be used to make a current hiring decision.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 3 reviews spanning 7 years. The 2020 1-star review is the most detailed and damaging, describing a serious safety hazard — gas blowing out the back of a burner — attributed to 5 years of incompetent maintenance, followed by 5 failed service calls in a single month and ultimately being ignored without heat for two months. This single review heavily drags down project completion and experience scores. The two positive reviews mention punctuality, reasonable pricing, and courteous service, but lack specific detail and are significantly older (2016 and 2023). The 2023 5-star review is brief and provides minimal verifiable detail beyond satisfaction with a furnace installation.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated with caution.
• Review date range spans 2016 to 2023 — the most recent usable reviews are over 1 year old as of scoring; recency is a concern.
• The 2016 5-star review is nearly 9 years old and carries minimal weight in assessing current performance.
• The 1-star review (2020) describes a potential gas safety hazard and repeated service failures — this is a serious red flag that warrants elevated scrutiny.
• The two 5-star reviews are brief and generic with limited specifics, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though they do not appear to be coordinated fake reviews.
• Small sample size means a single negative experience has outsized impact on the score — this score should not be considered stable or representative.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with a wide date range and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional recent references before making a hiring decision.

Muller's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed record across all dimensions. On the positive side, several reviews praise Nick's responsiveness in emergencies, fair pricing, and pleasant demeanor, with one reviewer highlighting a same-day emergency response and transparent project cost. However, two serious negative reviews from late 2023 describe botched tub installations resulting in structural water damage, refusal to honor workmanship, and in one case the owner allegedly screaming and cursing at a customer's wife. A third negative review from 2019 documents repeated ignored callbacks and a failure to address warranty issues before expiration. These significant failures in both project completion and professionalism substantially drag down the scores across all dimensions. The recency of the two most damaging reviews (December 2023) is particularly concerning, as they represent the most current picture of the business.

• Two reviews posted on the same date (2023-12-28) describing nearly identical issues with tub installations — possible related parties or coordinated reviews, but the specificity and detail of each complaint make them appear credible and distinct rather than fabricated.
• Three of the four positive reviews are from 2018–2020, meaning they are 4–6 years old and carry reduced weight under recency rules. The most recent positive review is from June 2024 but lacks detail on workmanship.
• A documented pattern of ignored callbacks appears in both the 2019 review (warranty issue) and the 2023 negative reviews (refusal to return for defective work), suggesting a systemic issue with post-job follow-through.
• The alleged verbal abuse of a customer (calling a wife a profane name) is a serious professionalism red flag that, if accurate, represents conduct well below acceptable standards.
• Overall review volume is very low (7 reviews), which severely limits the reliability of any score derived from this dataset.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution — the low review count (7 total), the age of most positive reviews, and the severity of the most recent negative complaints combine to make this score a limited and potentially unrepresentative snapshot of current service quality.

This contractor has a deeply mixed and concerning review profile across only 3 reviews. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is significantly damaged by two separate negative accounts: one reviewer describes being harassed by phone calls at 8 AM over a review dispute, and another describes high-pressure sales tactics and a lack of transparency during an estimate. The single positive review praises reliability, friendliness, and a successful furnace installation, which provides some upward pull on experience and project completion scores. Pricing is flagged as a serious concern, with one reviewer describing a $1,300 quote for a straightforward part swap as a rip-off and characterizing the business practices as 'fishy.' Overall, the negative signals outweigh the single positive review, and the small sample size means no dimension can be scored with high confidence.

• HARASSMENT CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states the business called them multiple times at 8 AM to dispute a negative review. This is a significant professionalism red flag and suggests potential review manipulation or suppression behavior.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: One reviewer describes a high-pressure, confusing pricing structure during a free estimate and characterized the $1,300 quote for two identical part swaps as a rip-off.
• VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews were provided. No dimension reaches the 5-mention threshold for HIGH confidence. All scores should be treated as highly provisional.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW REMOVAL: One reviewer states their original review was taken down, which may indicate the business has had negative reviews removed in the past. This could mean the true review profile is more negative than what is currently visible.
• RECENCY NOTE: All three reviews are from October 2024, meaning the dataset is recent but extremely narrow. No historical trend can be established.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with no dimension reaching HIGH confidence, and the presence of a potential review suppression flag means the visible review pool may not represent the contractor's true performance history — treat this score with significant caution.

The review set is small (4 reviews) and spans 2016–2021, with the most recent review now over 3 years old, limiting reliability. Professionalism is mixed: in-person demeanor was described as pleasant across multiple reviews, but one reviewer explicitly noted the plumber became rude on the phone when complaints were raised, dragging the score down significantly. Project completion is the most damaging dimension — two reviews describe work that was left incomplete or improperly done, with one contractor failing to return after promising to fix a pipe they dislodged, and another reviewer experiencing a sewer backup recurrence shortly after service. Pricing received moderate marks — one reviewer found the quote competitive, but another questioned value given inconsistent billing between two jobs of similar scope. Experience is rated very low based on two reviews: one reviewer explicitly stated the crew did not appear experienced with drain cleaning, and roots were left in the line that a subsequent company found easily.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of current performance.
• All reviews are dated between 2016 and 2021; the most recent is from July 2021. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current quality cannot be assessed.
• Two of the four reviews are 1-star with detailed, specific complaints about incomplete work and poor follow-through — these carry significant negative weight.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific details, varied language, and mixed ratings, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 4 reviews, all of which are more than 3 years old, and two containing serious, detailed complaints about incomplete work and unprofessional follow-up — prospective customers should seek more recent references before hiring.

Bass Plumbing's review corpus is dominated by deeply negative experiences across all four dimensions, with professionalism and project completion being the most critically damaged. The overwhelming majority of reviewers describe technicians who were rude, dismissive, and unwilling to perform work, combined with an office staff that routinely failed to return calls, missed appointments without notice, and provided no accountability. Project completion is the single worst-performing dimension: dozens of reviews describe jobs that were never finished, claims that were never submitted to warranty companies, no-shows on scheduled appointments, and customers who ultimately had to hire other plumbers at their own expense. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small but consistent cluster of positive reviews — primarily involving technicians named Raymond, Jeff, and Eddie — describe genuinely skilled and knowledgeable work, but these are vastly outnumbered by accounts of misdiagnosis, shoddy installations, and work done without proper permits or code compliance. Pricing received a slightly higher score due to a handful of reviews praising fair or reasonable rates, but this is offset by accounts of unexpected charges, bait-and-switch upselling, and a $560 charge for heating a crawlspace without resolving the underlying problem.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'DO NOT USE this company. If I could give Bass Plumbing a negative score...' (kitchen sink/dishwasher leak) appears verbatim on two different dates (2024-08-13 and 2024-07-22). This was counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Never, Ever Use them! I am a real estate agent...' appears verbatim on two different dates (2024-06-09 and 2024-05-30). This was counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The toilet flange review beginning 'I hired Bass Plumbing to do a few tasks for a bathroom renovation...' appears verbatim on two different dates (2021-06-10 and 2020-12-05). This was counted once for scoring purposes.
• POTENTIAL FAKE OR IRRELEVANT REVIEW: The review dated 2022-06-10 ('Great food and service, more like family') appears to be for a restaurant, not a plumbing company, and was excluded from scoring.
• POTENTIAL FAKE OR IRRELEVANT REVIEW: The review dated 2015-06-04 contains only 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: A disproportionate number of positive reviews are generic (e.g., 'Fast and efficient', 'Professional and courteous', 'Good and knowledgeable techs. Can't go wrong') with no specific details, names, or job descriptions. These may be inflated or solicited reviews and were scored conservatively.
• RECENCY NOTE: The negative review pattern is consistent and persistent across all date ranges from 2012 through 2025, indicating this is not an isolated period of poor performance but a systemic and long-standing operational failure.
• SYSTEMIC PATTERN — WARRANTY FRAUD RISK: A large number of reviews across multiple years describe the company accepting home warranty service fees, performing minimal or no work, failing to submit required reports to warranty companies, and then becoming unreachable. This pattern is consistent enough to suggest a deliberate business practice rather than isolated incompetence.
• RETALIATION FLAG: One reviewer (2024-08-27) explicitly states that after leaving a negative review, his wife received a call from Bass Plumbing that made her feel 'uncomfortable and upset.' This is a serious flag regarding the company's response to criticism.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews appear to reference a Bass Plumbing in Albany/Schenectady, NY area while the majority reference Fayetteville, NC. It is possible these are two different companies sharing a name. Scores reflect the aggregate of all reviews as provided.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on a very large sample of 117 usable reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence — the score accurately reflects a company with severe, systemic, and well-documented failures in professionalism, follow-through, and workmanship, and should be treated as a strong warning against engaging this contractor.