Find Nearby Plumbers In Buffalo, New York

Jeffrey Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for responsiveness, courtesy, and knowledge across multiple reviews. However, pricing is a significant and polarizing issue: while some customers report fair and reasonable rates, two detailed negative reviews explicitly flag pricing as excessive and unfair compared to competitors, with one customer reporting a $220 toilet installation quote versus $100 elsewhere. Project completion is solid with evidence of timely work and follow-through on complex jobs. The 1.5-year post-completion satisfaction in one review provides strong durability evidence. The score is tempered by the pricing controversy and the age of some reviews (2017-2019).

• PRICING CONFLICT: Stark contradiction between positive reviews citing 'reasonable' or 'fair' pricing and two detailed negative reviews calling pricing 'outrageously expensive' and a 'rip off.' This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices, scope-dependent pricing not clearly communicated, or customer expectation misalignment.
• RECENCY BIAS: 3 of 8 reviews are from 2017-2019 (5+ years old). Only 3 reviews from 2024. Older reviews may not reflect current pricing or service standards.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE CONCERN: One 2022 review documents Jeff walking away from a job when customer refused his recommendation, citing customer was 'refusing his recommendations.' This suggests potential friction over upselling or recommendation acceptance.
• PUNCTUALITY ISSUE: One review explicitly states Jeff was 1.5 hours late to an appointment, requiring customer to take time off work.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews show genuine variation in experience, specific details, and authentic criticism. Negative reviews are detailed and credible, not generic.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported, the pricing dimension shows genuine conflict that cannot be resolved from review text alone—this may reflect legitimate service variation or a real business practice concern. The small sample size (8 reviews) and age of several reviews further limit confidence. Recommend requesting recent references and obtaining detailed written quotes before engaging.

Basement Technologies of Western NY scores strongly on professionalism, with multiple reviewers across different years praising courteous communication, owner involvement on-site, and transparency throughout the process — including one notable instance of free advice given to a non-customer. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with several reviewers noting competitive quotes and honest recommendations against unnecessary upsells, though one reviewer flagged costs as 'a little pricey' for certain add-ons. Project completion is the most consequential drag on the score: a 2018 review describes a $12,000 helical pier project that failed to deliver results due to undiscovered subsurface conditions, raising concerns about pre-job engineering diligence. The remaining completion-related reviews are positive, describing dry basements and functional systems over time. Experience scores moderately well, with specific praise for technical knowledge and problem-solving, but the failed foundation project introduces meaningful doubt about consistency in complex structural work.

• One significant negative review (2018) describes a $12,000 project failure involving helical piers where large rocks in fill were not identified prior to excavation — this suggests a potential gap in pre-project engineering assessment and materially impacts the project completion score.
• Several reviews are significantly dated: 3 of 8 reviews are from 2015–2017, which is 7–9 years old. These are given reduced weight relative to the 2023–2024 reviews. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are positive and suggest continued quality, but the sample of recent reviews is small.
• The one-sentence review from 2015 ('Knowledgeable! Professional! Quality Workmanship!') contains no specifics and contributes minimal evidentiary value. It was counted for dimension mentions but treated conservatively in scoring.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating, which is consistent with authentic customer feedback.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the review pool is small (8 reviews), spans nearly a decade, and includes one materially negative outcome that meaningfully offsets otherwise strong professionalism and pricing signals — prospective customers should weigh the 2018 project failure carefully for complex structural work while noting that more recent reviews suggest consistent quality for waterproofing and drainage services.

Taylor and Pipeworx receive strong praise across professionalism, pricing, and technical skill, with multiple reviewers highlighting responsiveness, friendliness, honesty, and quality workmanship. Pricing is consistently described as fair and transparent, with one reviewer even noting that Taylor advised them to do work themselves to save on labor — a notable mark of integrity. However, project completion is the most significant concern: one reviewer explicitly described being strung along for 5 weeks on a shower repair before giving up and hiring another plumber, which is a serious follow-through failure that meaningfully drags down the completion score. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with only one review from the past 12 months, which limits confidence in current performance consistency.

• One review (1-star, 2019) explicitly describes a project abandonment scenario — customer waited 5 weeks with no resolution and had to hire a different plumber. This is a significant project completion failure and is weighted accordingly.
• Most reviews (7 of 8) are older than 12 months; only one review is from the past 12 months (May 2024). Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this review set.
• Several 5-star reviews use somewhat generic praise language ('fantastic,' 'highly recommend,' 'old school values') without granular specifics, though enough reviews include concrete job details (sump pump, hot water heater, gas line) to suggest authenticity. No strong fake review pattern detected, but generic phrasing is noted.
• Small total review count (8 reviews) limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review pool of 8 reviews, a predominance of older reviews (most pre-2023), and one significant negative data point regarding project abandonment that meaningfully impacts the project completion dimension.

Jason Kelly Plumbing shows strong technical capability and responsiveness, with two reviews praising quick emergency response and effective problem-solving. However, pricing is a significant concern—two of three reviews explicitly address cost, with one customer feeling overcharged for a 15-minute job despite negotiation. The contractor demonstrates professionalism in communication and follow-through, but the pricing feedback is mixed and somewhat contradictory (one customer found pricing 'very reasonable,' another felt 'taken advantage of'). With only 3 reviews total, confidence in this score is moderate and should be treated cautiously.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed—sample size is very small and limits reliability of scoring
• Significant pricing contradiction: Review 1 and 2 praise affordability; Review 3 criticizes high pricing for same service type. This suggests pricing may vary by job type or customer negotiation ability
• Review 3 (1-star, June 2021) is over 2.5 years old; two positive reviews are also 2+ years old. No recent reviews provided
• All three reviews are from 2021-2022; no recent data to assess current service quality

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and age of data (all 2+ years old). The contradictory pricing feedback suggests the score may not be stable across different service scenarios. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish reliable confidence in this contractor's performance.

This contractor demonstrates strong technical expertise and emergency response capability, as evidenced by successful problem-solving and efficient project completion in critical situations. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a documented instance of late arrival, poor attitude, and lack of transparency regarding pricing structure—resulting in a customer feeling overcharged at $226/hour equivalent. Pricing practices are a major concern based on one detailed complaint about unclear billing and perceived unfair charges. The mixed profile reflects competent workmanship offset by serious customer service and communication failures.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One review (2022-07-25) explicitly documents lack of upfront pricing disclosure and customer perception of excessive charges ($679.69 for 3 hours of work). Owner reportedly defended non-hourly billing model but customer felt misled.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: Same 2022 review reports late arrival and 'poor attitude' from plumber, contrasting sharply with positive 2019 and 2023 reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent review (2023-07-23) is positive but brief with minimal detail. Negative review is from 2022. Oldest positive review is from 2019 (5+ years old).
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Score reliability is constrained by small dataset and uneven mention distribution across dimensions.

This WW Score of 73.8 should be treated with caution due to only 3 reviews and significant variance in customer experience; the pricing dimension is particularly weak (1 mention), and the documented service failure in 2022 raises questions about consistency that cannot be fully resolved without additional recent reviews.

Infinity Home Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and knowledgeable workmanship across 28 reviews. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive (13 mentions). However, project completion is significantly compromised by multiple documented cases of deposit theft, non-completion of work, and failure to return customer communications—at least 6 reviews from 2022–2024 describe abandoned jobs and missing deposits totaling over $7,500. This pattern of non-completion severely depresses the overall WW Score despite otherwise positive service quality metrics. The business appears to have closed in April 2024 according to one review.

• CRITICAL: Multiple credible reports of deposit theft and job abandonment (6 reviews, 2022–2024). Customers report deposits of $1,000–$2,500 with no work completed and no refunds. This is a serious red flag indicating potential fraud.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Complaints cluster in 2022–2024 period, suggesting deterioration in business operations or possible closure. One review explicitly states business closed April 2024.
• INCONSISTENCY: Early reviews (2017–2021) are overwhelmingly positive with no complaints. Later reviews (2022–2024) show sharp decline with multiple fraud allegations. This suggests either a change in business practices or a different operator.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain only 5-star ratings with no text (dates: 2025-02-09 x5, 2022-06-10 x1, 2020-06-10 x3). These provide no usable data and may indicate review manipulation.
• ONE NEGATIVE QUALITY REVIEW: 2019 review describes wrong-address service and incomplete drain replacement with no follow-up. This is distinct from deposit fraud but indicates quality/accountability issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (May 2025) are positive, but business was reportedly closed in April 2024. This timeline is contradictory and requires verification.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by substantial positive evidence, the project completion score is severely depressed by credible, detailed allegations of deposit theft and job abandonment affecting multiple customers. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects this serious risk: the contractor may deliver quality work when engaged, but demonstrates a pattern of taking deposits and failing to complete jobs or return funds. Customers should NOT provide upfront deposits and should verify current business status before engaging.