Find Nearby Plumbers In Albany, New York

This contractor's reviews are overwhelmingly negative, with 4 out of 5 reviews giving 1-star ratings and describing rude, dismissive, and unprofessional behavior including hanging up on customers mid-conversation. Multiple reviewers explicitly describe being hung up on, condescended to, and treated disrespectfully, driving the professionalism score to a critically low level. Pricing concerns are significant, with one reviewer alleging bait-and-switch warranty tactics and a charge of over $600 to snake a drain, and another describing an outrageous quote of $10,000 plus unspecified 'fines.' Project completion is also poor, with at least one reviewer reporting that the same plumbing issue persisted after two paid service visits, resulting in water damage. The sole positive review, from 2022, describes a prompt, reasonably priced, and effective service call, but it is outnumbered and outweighed by the volume and severity of recent negative experiences.

• 4 out of 5 reviews are 1-star and describe serious misconduct including hanging up on customers, discriminatory behavior, and alleged warranty fraud — this pattern is consistent and credible, not indicative of fake reviews.
• One reviewer alleges a bait-and-switch warranty scheme: promising free warranty service then charging upon arrival — this is a potential consumer protection concern.
• One reviewer alleges water damage caused by the contractor's failed repair work, suggesting liability risk.
• The only positive review is from June 2022 — over 2 years old — and references a different technician ('Pete') by name, suggesting it may reflect a different employee or era of service quality.
• RECENCY WARNING: All 4 negative reviews are from 2024, indicating a recent and sustained pattern of poor service. The single positive review predates all negative reviews by nearly 2 years and should be weighted accordingly.
• The condescending and potentially discriminatory behavior described in the March 2024 review is a serious flag beyond standard service quality concerns.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, limiting statistical reliability, but the consistency and specificity of the 4 recent negative reviews — covering professionalism, pricing, and project completion — make the low score directionally trustworthy; the overall confidence is LIMITED due to small sample size, but the negative signal is credible and should not be dismissed.

All three reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of a contractor who engages in dishonest billing practices, delivers poor-quality workmanship, and behaves unprofessionally toward clients. Professionalism is severely undermined by allegations of threatening communications, badmouthing tenants and workers, refusing to return keys, and failing to respond to clients. Pricing concerns are explicit across all three reviews, with accusations of charging double or triple market rates, billing for unused materials, and charging for unrequested work. Project completion is critically poor, with reports of unfinished rooms, missing floorboards, paint stains on new floors, and abandoned responsibilities. Workmanship quality is described as substandard across roofing, flooring, painting, and plumbing tasks, with one reviewer explicitly calling it a 'hagit job' and another labeling the contractor 'incompetent.'

• All three reviews are 1-star ratings with highly specific, detailed complaints — this pattern is consistent with genuine negative experiences rather than fake reviews.
• Review 1 references an ongoing legal dispute and threatening communications from the contractor, which is a serious red flag regarding business conduct.
• Review 2 alleges theft of materials paid for by the client, which if accurate represents potential criminal conduct beyond poor workmanship.
• Review 3 alleges fraudulent billing for unused materials and unrequested work, corroborating the pattern seen in Review 2.
• The contractor (Mike Butler) appears to have responded to at least one reviewer with threats of arrest and accusations of fabrication, suggesting a pattern of intimidation rather than resolution.
• Only 3 reviews are available. While the WW Score has been calculated, the small sample size limits reliability. Treat this score as directional only.
• All reviews are dated between March 2022 and November 2022 — all are older than 12 months from a 2025 reference point. No recent reviews are available to assess whether conduct has changed.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are over two years old and uniformly negative; while the consistency of complaints across independent reviewers lends credibility to the findings, the small sample size and lack of any recent data mean this score should be treated as a serious warning signal rather than a statistically robust assessment.

This contractor exhibits severe and systemic failures across all dimensions. The overwhelming majority of reviews (28 of 37) document chronic no-shows, missed appointments, and abandoned work. Professionalism is critically compromised by repeated tardiness, unresponsiveness, and dishonest communication. Pricing concerns are severe, with multiple reports of inflated quotes, unauthorized work, and non-refundable deposits obtained through fraudulent contracts. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with extensive evidence of incomplete jobs, broken promises, and customers forced to hire other contractors to finish work. A small subset of positive reviews (5-6) praise specific crew members (Manuel, Mr. Castillo) and describe quality work, but these are vastly outweighed by fraud allegations, identity theft claims, and evidence of serial deception across multiple identities and business names.

• CRITICAL: Extensive evidence of fraudulent business practices including forged signatures, false identities (Jesse Alberio operating under multiple aliases: Alberto, Alverio, Mr. Fixit, ActNowPlumbing), and multiple addresses across multiple states
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document criminal behavior including theft of customer deposits, cashing checks for services not rendered, and alleged identity theft
• CRITICAL: Pattern of extreme project abandonment—customers report being left without functional plumbing for days/weeks after partial work and payment
• CRITICAL: Fake address documented (944 Rt 146 Clifton Park does not exist per Google Street View)
• CRITICAL: BBB dumped this company; multiple lawsuits filed by customers; arrest records mentioned in NC and NY
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: 5-6 highly positive reviews (all 5-star or 4-star, mostly generic praise like 'Great job', 'Amazing and cheap', 'They did a good job') clustered on 2019-06-11 and 2018-06-11 with minimal detail, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews. These appear potentially fabricated or posted by associates
• RECENCY: Most reviews are from 2018-2019 (5+ years old). Only 1 review from 2020 (positive, professional). This suggests either the business changed operations or reviews became less accessible
• INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews mention different crew members (Manuel, Mr. Castillo) than negative reviews (Jesse, Tara, Shane), suggesting possible legitimate crew members working under a fraudulent operator's business name

This score cannot be reliably calculated and should NOT be used for decision-making. The data reveals a business engaged in systematic fraud, identity theft, and criminal conduct. The positive reviews appear potentially fabricated and are vastly outnumbered by detailed, corroborated accounts of theft, abandonment, and deception. DO NOT USE THIS CONTRACTOR under any circumstances.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent professionalism failures across multiple reviews spanning 2021–2024. Four of five reviews explicitly document no-shows, failure to return calls, and lack of basic courtesy communication. One review from 2021 describes a construction project abandoned mid-work for 37 days with no contact, leaving the customer without running water and unable to proceed. A single positive review from 2021 mentions good price and fast service, but this is heavily outweighed by the pattern of abandonment and unresponsiveness. No meaningful data exists on technical experience or workmanship quality.

• CRITICAL: Severe pattern of no-shows and communication failure documented across 4 of 5 reviews (80% failure rate)
• CRITICAL: Project abandonment documented—customer left with incomplete work, no water, and legal action threatened
• CRITICAL: Chronic unresponsiveness to calls and voicemails across multiple customers and years
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews are 2–3 years old (2021–2022), but June 2024 review confirms pattern continues
• Insufficient positive data to establish reliable scoring; single 5-star review is insufficient to offset documented failures
• No reviews mention technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability—experience dimension cannot be scored

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient total reviews (n=5), but the pattern of documented failures is severe and consistent enough to warrant a strong caution: this contractor demonstrates critical deficiencies in professionalism and project completion that pose significant risk to customers.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 4 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. While individual dimension scores show strong performance (professionalism 92.5, project completion 95.0, pricing 85.0, experience 90.0), the extremely limited sample size and mention counts (2–3 per dimension) prevent confident aggregation. Additionally, the review dates span from 2011 to 2024, with significant gaps, making temporal trend analysis impossible.

• CRITICAL: Only 4 total reviews analyzed — sample size is too small for reliable scoring (minimum 3 reviews is a floor, not a target)
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review dates are highly dispersed (2011, 2021, 2023, 2024). One review is 13 years old and may not reflect current service standards
• PATTERN ALERT: All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language and no specific criticisms or nuanced feedback. While not definitively fake, this pattern warrants caution
• MENTION SCARCITY: Pricing mentioned in only 2 reviews; experience in only 2 reviews. These dimensions lack sufficient evidence for confident scoring
• NO NEGATIVE DATA: Complete absence of any critical feedback, complaints, or service failures. This may indicate genuine excellence or selective review publication

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (4 reviews) and extremely low mention counts per dimension (2–3). Any aggregate score would be statistically unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Recommend collecting at least 15–20 recent reviews before attempting WW Score calculation.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Three recent reviews (2024, 2021, 2021) document critical failures in professionalism (extreme tardiness, poor communication, disorientation), project completion (incomplete work, leaks, forgotten tasks requiring emergency callbacks), and experience (incorrect installations, improper settings, material substitution without disclosure). Pricing concerns include overcharging for inferior materials and work that required costly corrections. One isolated 2016 review praising the contractor as a 'master plumber' stands in stark contradiction to all other evidence and appears inconsistent with documented performance patterns.

• SEVERE FAKE REVIEW ALERT: The 2016 five-star review uses generic superlative language ('BEST', 'master plumber', 'complete professional', 'goes out of his way') with zero specific details about the work performed. This contrasts sharply with the three detailed, specific negative reviews documenting concrete failures (4-hour delays, incorrect PVC/copper substitution, water level not reset, leaks, disorientation). The 2016 review appears fabricated or written by a family member.
• RECENCY BIAS CRITICAL: Three of four reviews are from 2021 or later, with the most recent (July 2024) describing ongoing systemic failures. The single positive review is from 2016—eight years old—and contradicted by all recent evidence.
• PATTERN OF SYSTEMIC FAILURE: All three negative reviews document identical core issues: extreme tardiness/no-shows, poor communication, incomplete/incorrect work, and lack of follow-through. This is not isolated complaint variation but a consistent operational pattern.
• MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION: One review explicitly documents charging for copper while installing PVC, suggesting dishonest billing practices.
• EMERGENCY CALLBACK REQUIRED: At least one customer had to hire another plumber on emergency basis to fix Roy's incomplete work, indicating failure to deliver functional results.

This score should be treated with extreme caution due to the presence of one apparent fake review, but the weight of evidence from three detailed, specific, and recent negative reviews documenting concrete failures (missed appointments, incomplete work, material substitution, leaks) is substantial enough to indicate serious and systemic performance problems. The contractor does not appear reliable for professional plumbing work.