Find Nearby Plumbers In Albany, New York

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Project completion is critically weak, with 7 of 7 reviews documenting abandoned work, incomplete jobs, and failure to follow through on commitments. Professionalism is severely compromised by poor communication, avoidance of calls/texts, chronic unreliability, and repeated excuses. Pricing concerns emerge in multiple reviews documenting money taken upfront with work never completed or fraudulent practices. Experience is limited, with one review explicitly noting subpar workmanship and lack of problem-solving ability. The single positive review (5-star, 2023) stands in stark contrast to six overwhelmingly negative reviews spanning 2019–2022, suggesting either a dramatic recent change or potential review manipulation.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of fraud allegations — one review explicitly states 'FRAUD' with police involvement and ongoing court investigation regarding $6,500 down payment with incomplete work.
• CRITICAL: Multiple small claims court judgments against contractor documented in reviews (2018, 2022) with non-payment of awarded damages.
• SEVERE INCONSISTENCY: Single 5-star review (August 2023) praising 'excellent job' and quick completion stands in extreme contrast to six 1-2 star reviews (2019–2022) documenting systematic failure. This may indicate fake review or dramatic business change; recommend verification.
• Pattern of taking deposits/down payments and abandoning projects — documented in at least 3 reviews.
• Documented avoidance of communication (calls, texts ignored for weeks/months) in multiple reviews.
• Certificate of insurance provided was invalid per one review.
• Most negative reviews are 2-4 years old; however, the single positive review is recent (2023), creating ambiguity about current reliability.

This WW Score of 28.3 is highly reliable and should be treated as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 7 reviews with consistent, detailed documentation of serious failures across all dimensions. However, the recent positive review (2023) creates uncertainty about whether the contractor's practices have genuinely improved or whether review authenticity should be questioned; independent verification is strongly recommended before any engagement.

The overwhelming majority of reviews for Roland J Down are highly negative, painting a consistent picture of serious service failures across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by multiple accounts of no-shows, missed appointments with no communication, and a manager who never followed up on complaints — with only one review (featuring tech Avi) offering a positive counterpoint. Project completion is a critical weak point, with multiple reviews describing work that was left incomplete, made things worse (burst pipes, refrigerant loss), or was never performed at all despite payment or scheduling. Pricing and experience also drew sharp criticism, including allegations of deceptive pricing plans, a $1,500 bill for a non-functioning unit, and a technician who attempted to replace a still-warranted water heater unnecessarily. The single positive review (Avi, 2024) is an outlier and insufficient to meaningfully offset the volume and severity of negative experiences documented across multiple years.

• 8 out of 9 reviews are 1-star ratings — this is a strong and consistent negative signal, not a statistical anomaly.
• Reviews span from 2017 to 2024, indicating persistent and long-standing service problems rather than isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews describe the same failure pattern: scheduling confirmed, technician never arrives, no proactive communication from the company.
• One review explicitly alleges deceptive pricing practices tied to their 'advantage plan' — this is a potential consumer protection concern.
• One review alleges a technician arrived ready to replace a 1-year-old water heater still under warranty, suggesting possible upselling misconduct.
• The single 5-star review (Avi, Sept 2024) is specific and credible but represents only 1 of 9 reviews and cannot offset the pattern of negative data.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews are varied in language, detail level, and incident type, suggesting authentic customer experiences.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews with a strong and consistent negative pattern across multiple years and dimensions, giving the score moderate-to-high reliability as a warning signal — though the small total review count means individual positive experiences (like the Avi review) could shift the score meaningfully if more data were available.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Project completion is critically weak, with multiple reviews documenting non-appearance, extreme delays (4+ months for simple tasks), and incomplete work requiring professional remediation. Professionalism is severely compromised by dishonesty, non-responsiveness, and failure to honor commitments. Pricing integrity is questionable, with at least one documented case of taking payment and disappearing. The single positive review from 2020 is substantially outweighed by four damaging reviews spanning 2015–2016 documenting fraud, incompetence, and code violations. The WW Score of 28.3 reflects a contractor with critical trust and performance issues.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document potential fraud (payment taken for boiler, contractor disappeared; payment taken without refund). Legal action mentioned in one review.
• CRITICAL: Severe project completion failures documented across multiple reviews—non-appearance, extreme delays (4+ months for 2 valves), incomplete work, and false claims about parts procurement.
• CRITICAL: Code violations documented—leaking gas pipe and improper furnace venting represent serious safety hazards.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Four of five reviews are from 2015–2016 (8–9 years old). Only one recent review (2020) exists, which is positive but isolated and insufficient to offset historical pattern.
• PATTERN ALERT: The consistency of negative themes (non-appearance, dishonesty, incomplete work, refusal to refund) across independent reviews suggests a genuine pattern of problematic behavior rather than isolated incidents.

This score is highly reliable due to consistent corroboration across multiple independent reviews documenting serious failures in professionalism, completion, and integrity. However, the age of most reviews (2015–2016) means current operational status is uncertain; the single recent positive review suggests possible improvement, but insufficient data exists to confirm whether practices have changed.

This company demonstrates severe professionalism failures across multiple reviews, with repeated no-shows, failure to return calls, and broken promises. Two of three reviews explicitly cite missed appointments and poor communication. The single positive review praises one technician's skill and courtesy, but this is insufficient to offset systemic operational failures. Project completion is compromised by cancellations and abandoned commitments. No pricing information was provided in any review. The company's reliability is critically undermined by a pattern of non-responsiveness and lack of follow-through.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document repeated no-shows and failure to return calls—this suggests systemic operational dysfunction, not isolated incidents.
• Review 1 (2018) describes two consecutive no-shows on the same job, with excuses that customer questions (trailer fire story). Owner did not respond to email complaint.
• Review 2 (2015) documents two cancelled appointments with poor communication and lack of callback follow-up.
• Recency concern: Reviews are from 2015 and 2018 (5-9 years old). No recent reviews available to assess if company has improved.
• Only 1 of 3 reviews is positive, and it focuses on individual technician kindness rather than company systems or reliability.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (n=3) and age of data (5-9 years), but the pattern of professionalism failures is consistent and explicit across multiple independent reviews, suggesting genuine operational issues rather than isolated complaints.

The review set for A&A is dominated by severely negative accounts that paint a troubling picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is the most heavily evidenced dimension and scores extremely low: multiple reviewers describe the owner using customer property without permission, failing to return calls, leaving job sites in disarray, and attempting to have a customer sign off on incomplete work. Project completion is similarly poor, with documented instances of unresolved leaks, abandoned follow-up, a ceiling collapse caused by an unaddressed leak, and a clog that was left unresolved with no callback. Experience scores marginally higher only because one reviewer praised multi-year service and another noted patience in finding solutions, but these positives are directly contradicted by the owner's own admission of learning 'by trial and error' and a separate reviewer's account of misdiagnosis. Pricing raises a red flag due to one reviewer alleging checks were made out to 'cash' and a suggestion of tax evasion, which undermines any claim of transparent or trustworthy pricing.

• LICENSING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly questions whether the contractor holds a valid plumbing license, citing the owner's own statement that he learned plumbing 'by trial and error.' This is a serious red flag and should be independently verified before hiring.
• FINANCIAL INTEGRITY FLAG: One reviewer alleges the owner requested payments made out to 'cash' and referenced an active IRS dispute over unreported income. This raises significant concerns about business legitimacy and financial transparency.
• ATTEMPTED FRAUDULENT SIGN-OFF: One reviewer reports being pressured to sign a receipt stating the job was complete when active leaks were still present. This is a serious ethical and potentially legal concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most positive reviews are dated 2019 and 2021. The three most negative reviews are from 2022 and 2023, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. More recent data should be weighted more heavily.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 5 reviews are available. While the WW Score has been calculated, the small sample size limits statistical reliability. Scores should be interpreted with caution.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-low reliability due to the small review pool of only 5 reviews, but the consistency and specificity of the negative accounts — including documented property misuse, incomplete work, a structural incident, and financial misconduct allegations — lend credibility to the low scores assigned.

The reviews paint a largely negative picture of this contractor. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely damaged by one review describing yelling, cursing, and rude behavior on the job, and a separate review alleging dangerous road rage by an employee. Pricing receives a mixed signal — one reviewer praised the low cost and transparency, while another alleged inflated parts charges and felt overcharged for incomplete work. Project completion is flagged by a customer who explicitly states the job was not finished after payment was collected. Experience is similarly mixed, with one positive sewer-snaking interaction offset by a botched drain repair that left the original problem unresolved.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as low reliability due to very small sample size.
• Most reviews are from 2016–2020, meaning all data is older than 1 year and may not reflect current business practices.
• One review (2020) describes a serious professionalism failure including verbal abuse and disputed billing — this is a significant red flag.
• One review (2016) describes alleged road rage by an employee — while off-site, it reflects on company character and is counted as a professionalism mention.
• The single positive review (2017) is the oldest in the set and provides limited counterbalance to two strongly negative reviews.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than 4 years, and should be considered very low reliability — it signals serious concerns but cannot be treated as a definitive assessment of current service quality.