Find Nearby Plumbers In Binghamton, New York

Fanchers demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically weak, with 9 reviews documenting rudeness, poor communication, unresponsiveness, and unprofessional behavior including swearing and failure to follow up on quotes. Project completion is severely compromised, with multiple reviews reporting abandoned work, failure to return calls, incomplete jobs, and workers leaving without finishing tasks. Pricing concerns emerge in 3 reviews, with aggressive upselling tactics and unexplained high charges. Experience shows mixed signals—some reviews acknowledge technical competence, but this is overshadowed by poor execution, incomplete work, and failure to properly diagnose or complete repairs. The company exhibits a pattern of taking jobs and then abandoning them or handling callbacks with hostility.

• CRITICAL: Strong pattern of project abandonment—multiple reviews (2021, 2016, 2014) report workers leaving jobs incomplete or failing to return after initial contact
• CRITICAL: Consistent communication failure—at least 4 reviews document failure to return calls, follow up on quotes, or respond to callbacks
• CRITICAL: Hostile customer service—multiple reviews describe rude, aggressive, or dismissive behavior from staff and management when customers questioned work or declined jobs
• CRITICAL: Quality control issues—reviews document incomplete work (filter not changed, panels not replaced, trash left behind, wall cut without permission)
• CRITICAL: Aggressive upselling—multiple reviews describe pressure tactics to sell new equipment rather than service existing units
• CRITICAL: Overcharging—one review documents $356 charge for a part worth ~$75; another describes pressure to buy $10,000 unit after initial estimate
• Recency concern: Most damaging reviews are from 2021 and earlier; only 2 positive reviews from 2017 and 2013 are notably older, suggesting possible historical inconsistency or improvement attempts that failed

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning indicator. The score is based on 10 substantive reviews with consistent patterns of failure across all dimensions, particularly professionalism and project completion. The negative reviews contain specific, detailed complaints that are corroborated across multiple independent accounts, while the few positive reviews lack specificity and are significantly older. This company presents substantial risk to customers.

Water Works Plumbing and Heating shows severe and consistent deficiencies in professionalism and project completion. Two recent reviews (2022 and 2018) document critical failures: no-shows without communication, extended delays of 2+ months, and incomplete work despite multiple callbacks. A 2019 review praises honesty and reliability, but this is contradicted by the 2018 experience and heavily outweighed by the 2022 review showing the same patterns persist. The 2009 review mentions responsive service and problem-solving, but is too old to carry significant weight. The contractor demonstrates poor communication, unreliability, and inability to follow through on commitments.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two most recent reviews (2022, 2018) are severely negative and describe identical failure patterns (no-shows, poor communication, incomplete work). The positive 2019 and 2009 reviews are older and do not reflect current service quality.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews describe the same core issues—failure to show up, lack of communication, extended delays, and incomplete projects—suggesting systemic operational problems rather than isolated incidents.
• CREDIBILITY ISSUE: The 2019 five-star review uses generic praise ('most honest and trustworthy') with no specific details, while the negative reviews provide extensive specific examples. This asymmetry suggests the positive review may not reflect actual current performance.

This score should be trusted with moderate confidence. The WW Score of 32.8 is driven by two detailed, recent negative reviews documenting serious failures in reliability and follow-through. However, the small sample size (4 reviews) and significant age gap between reviews (2009–2022) introduce some uncertainty. The consistent pattern of complaints across multiple years suggests genuine operational issues, but potential customers should request recent references before engaging this contractor.

The review set paints a deeply mixed but predominantly negative picture of this contractor. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is heavily dragged down by multiple explicit accounts of rude phone interactions, dismissive customer service, and a serious allegation of attempting to defraud an elderly customer into an unnecessary furnace replacement. The two positive reviews — both quite old (2013 and 2015) — describe genuinely excellent workmanship and professional on-site behavior, which prevents the score from bottoming out entirely. Pricing is a significant concern, with one reviewer explicitly stating prices run 3–4 times the going rate and another describing what appears to be predatory upselling. Project completion scores moderately because the two positive reviews describe jobs that were completed thoroughly and on time, but the negative reviews raise concerns about follow-through and service accountability post-job.

• RECENCY WARNING: The only two positive reviews are from 2013 and 2015 — both over 8 years old at time of analysis. All negative reviews are from 2019–2020. This suggests a possible significant decline in service quality over time.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the company was bought out by Auchinachie, which may explain the quality and pricing shift between older positive reviews and newer negative ones. Scores from pre-acquisition reviews may not reflect current operations.
• ETHICAL CONCERN: One review alleges the company attempted to deceive an elderly customer into purchasing an unnecessary furnace and followed up with a liability-release letter as a scare tactic. A second opinion confirmed no issue existed. This is a serious red flag.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURE: Two separate reviews describe phone staff being dismissive, unhelpful, or outright rude — one reviewer reports being laughed at on the phone.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 reviews total. Scores should be treated with caution and are not statistically robust.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to the very small review sample (6 reviews), a significant ownership/operational change noted mid-timeline, and a stark split between old positive reviews and more recent negative ones — the score should not be trusted as representative of current service quality without substantially more recent data.

Heat Tek demonstrates severe deficiencies across professionalism and project completion. Four reviews explicitly document failures in punctuality, communication, and responsiveness—technicians arrived late or not at all, failed to provide estimates for weeks, and did not return callbacks for warranty work. Project completion is critically compromised: one furnace installation remained incomplete for over a year with three rooms never receiving ductwork, and heat pump maintenance resulted in cracked housings causing water damage and requiring unit replacement. A single 5-star review from 2016 praises workmanship and customer care, but this is heavily outweighed by four 1-star reviews documenting systemic operational failures. The company's inability to follow through on commitments and communicate with customers represents a fundamental business problem.

• Four of five reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints—not generic criticism. This is not a fake review pattern; rather, it indicates genuine customer dissatisfaction.
• Most reviews are older than 1 year (2017–2021), with only one recent positive review from 2016. Recency is limited, but the pattern of complaints spans multiple years, suggesting systemic issues.
• One review documents property damage (cracked heat pump housings) caused by technician negligence, resulting in significant financial loss to customer.
• One review documents incomplete project work (furnace installation) that remained unfinished for over a year, with warranty callbacks unanswered.
• The single 5-star review is notably older (2016) and does not address the operational and communication failures documented in more recent reviews.

This WW Score of 28.4 is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on consistent, detailed, and specific complaints across four independent reviews documenting failures in professionalism, communication, and project completion, balanced against one positive review. The low score reflects genuine operational deficiencies, not data scarcity.

Both available reviews are highly negative and describe serious failures across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is critically low: the contractor repeatedly promised to show up on four separate occasions in each review and never did, refused to provide documentation, and allegedly lied about manufacturer contact. Project completion is equally poor, with one review describing out-of-scope removal of necessary plumbing left unrepaired for over three weeks, and the other describing an abandoned furnace job that required a different contractor to finish. Experience is marginally scored above zero only because the contractor did perform some initial work, but the quality and follow-through were deeply inadequate. Pricing data was entirely absent from both reviews.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• One reviewer explicitly warns that this contractor changes the name of his business to avoid negative reviews and has prior businesses with negative reviews — this is a serious integrity flag.
• Allegations of dishonesty are present in both reviews: fabricated manufacturer contact claims, refusal to provide service documentation, and unsubstantiated accusations against the customer.
• Pattern of no-shows: both reviews independently describe the contractor promising to appear on four separate occasions and failing to show up each time — a consistent and serious behavioral pattern.
• Work was left incomplete and out-of-scope damage was caused in Review 1, and a job was abandoned entirely in Review 2, requiring the customer to hire another contractor.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and must be treated as highly preliminary; however, both reviews are detailed, specific, and independently corroborate serious patterns of dishonesty, abandonment, and non-performance that significantly undermine trust in this contractor.

Both reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of a contractor who repeatedly fails to show up, lies about work performed, and refuses to provide documentation. Professionalism is near zero: the contractor missed appointments on at least four occasions across the two reviews, communicated dishonestly, and refused to provide service records when requested. Project completion is equally catastrophic, with one customer forced to hire another contractor to finish abandoned work and another left without an installed appliance after three no-shows. Experience cannot be meaningfully assessed as no work was ever completed, though the first reviewer's account of fabricated manufacturer contact suggests a fundamental lack of technical follow-through. Pricing data is entirely absent from both reviews.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The first reviewer explicitly warns that this contractor changes business names to avoid negative reviews and has prior negative reviews under a previous business name. This is a serious red flag indicating potential reputation manipulation.
• Both reviews allege deliberate dishonesty and fabrication of facts, not merely poor workmanship — this elevates the severity of the negative signals beyond typical low-quality service complaints.
• The two reviews are separated by approximately 4 months (February and June 2018) and describe nearly identical patterns of behavior (no-shows, lies, refusal to provide documentation), suggesting a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.
• All reviews are from 2018 and are more than 1 year old. No recent reviews are available to assess whether performance has changed.
• No positive reviews are present in the dataset. While this does not confirm fake review activity, the absence of any counterbalancing feedback limits the ability to form a balanced assessment.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both highly negative and over 6 years old, making it insufficient for a statistically reliable WW Score — however, the severity and consistency of the misconduct described across both reviews warrants serious caution.