Find Nearby Plumbers In Buffalo, New York

Of the 7 reviews submitted, only 4 contained usable, substantive content. The meaningful reviews consistently praise punctuality, responsiveness, and cleanup habits, supporting a solid professionalism score. Pricing was explicitly described as fair and reasonable across multiple reviews, including one notable instance where the contractor absorbed the cost of a defective part replacement without charging the customer. Project completion was positively referenced in terms of timely, thorough work, though the review base is small and all reviews are significantly outdated, the most recent usable one dating to 2014. Experience scores are supported by references to efficient problem-solving and technical follow-through, but the limited and aged review pool prevents a high-confidence assessment.

• 3 of 7 reviews contain no usable content: one reads 'unknown' with a 5-star rating, one reads 'unknown' with a 1-star rating, and one reads 'Great. How is that it is now 10 character's.' — these appear to be placeholder or invalid submissions and were excluded from scoring.
• ALL usable reviews are from 2012–2014, meaning the most recent substantive review is over 10 years old. This contractor's current quality, pricing, and reliability cannot be assessed from this data.
• The 1-star 'unknown' review from 2014 may represent a negative experience that was not elaborated upon — this cannot be scored but should be noted as a potential concern.
• Total usable review count is very low (4 reviews). Scores carry MODERATE confidence at best and should be treated with caution.

This WW Score has LOW overall reliability due to a very small usable review pool, complete absence of reviews from the past decade, and multiple invalid or placeholder submissions that obscure the true picture of this contractor's performance.

Cellino Plumbing scores reasonably well on professionalism, with the large majority of reviewers praising technician friendliness, punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior — however, a meaningful minority of reviews cite unprofessional conduct including a technician threatening to abandon a job, poor follow-up from management, and a canceled appointment with no notice. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin: numerous reviewers across many years explicitly describe charges as excessive, opaque, or exploitative, with specific complaints about $357 faucet installs, $625 faucet replacements, $768 drain repairs, $400 fill valve swaps, and a $1,200 charge for minor PVC work — offset only partially by a smaller number of reviewers who found pricing fair or reasonable. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are described as completed promptly and thoroughly, but a notable cluster of negative reviews describes incomplete work, misdiagnosed problems requiring outside contractors to fix, jobs left unfinished, and a case where a gas line was allegedly struck and not disclosed. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers praising technician knowledge and skill, but undercut by multiple credible accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect installations requiring rework, and failure to identify problems that other companies resolved quickly.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06 are word-for-word identical ('Very quick response & all the technicians involved were friendly and informative. I had a sump pump line failure...'). This is a strong indicator of a fake or duplicated review submission and has been counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The detailed negative review about the tankless water heater and faucet installation (1-star, mentioning inability to fix issues and poor management follow-up) appears twice with slightly different dates (2024-10-09 and 2024-09-13). This appears to be the same review submitted twice and has been counted only once.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2013 to 2025. A significant portion of the negative pricing and project completion reviews are from 2013–2021, while recent reviews (2024–2025) skew more positive on professionalism. However, pricing complaints persist into 2024–2025, so the pricing score has not been adjusted upward for recency.
• PATTERN WARNING: A large number of reviews are 5-star with minimal detail (e.g., 'Technician was great.', 'Always knowledgeable and professional.', 'Great service'). While not conclusive, the volume of brief, generic 5-star reviews with no specifics inflates the apparent positivity and warrants caution. Confidence in the professionalism score is tempered accordingly.
• 18 reviews contained no text content (rating only) and were excluded from dimensional scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent, detailed reviews across different years describe charges that appear significantly above market rate for simple jobs. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints, and is the primary driver of the low pricing score.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: At least 4 credible, detailed reviews describe jobs that were left incomplete, incorrectly diagnosed, or required a second company to actually resolve the issue — including a sewer line misdiagnosis ($7,800 unnecessary quote), a sump pump overcharge with no fix, a tankless heater misdiagnosis, and an incomplete yard restoration with a disconnected downspout.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to substantial mention counts; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given the presence of duplicate reviews, a high volume of generic 5-star reviews with no substantive detail, and a persistent pattern of credible, specific negative reviews regarding pricing and project completion that meaningfully drag the score down from what the star-rating average alone would suggest.

Purtill Plumbing receives consistently positive marks for the friendliness, politeness, and responsiveness of individual technicians, with multiple reviewers praising specific workers by name. However, professionalism is significantly dragged down by repeated complaints about failure to return calls, no-shows, and at least one alarming report of an employee drinking and driving in a company shirt. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers across several years citing lack of billing transparency, unexplained charges, and feeling overcharged for short visits — a pattern that is both consistent and concerning. Project completion is mixed: several jobs were completed promptly and well, but there are documented instances of abandoned work (a second toilet never returned to finish) and unresponsiveness to new project inquiries. Workmanship quality, when work was actually performed, is generally rated positively, but the volume of operational and billing complaints prevents a high overall score.

• BILLING TRANSPARENCY PATTERN: At least 4 independent reviews across different years (2016, 2016, 2017, 2022) explicitly cite lack of upfront pricing, unclear billing breakdowns, or feeling overcharged. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW / CALLBACK FAILURE PATTERN: At least 3 reviews (2016, 2019, 2023) describe Purtill failing to return calls or show up for scheduled appointments. This recurs across multiple years and represents a systemic reliability concern.
• EMPLOYEE CONDUCT FLAG: One review (2024-02-23) describes a person in a Purtill shirt driving while drinking alcohol. While unverified, this is a serious allegation that warrants attention.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are mixed — positive experiences with specific technicians (Gary, Cody) coexist with a no-callback complaint and the employee conduct allegation. The business does not appear to have fully resolved its responsiveness issues.
• OLDER REVIEWS: Several reviews date from 2015–2017 and are weighted less heavily in scoring, but the billing complaints from that era are consistent with more recent ones, suggesting the issue has persisted.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and specificity. No suspicious clustering of identical phrasing or generic praise was identified. Reviews appear authentic.

This WW Score is based on 17 reviews spanning 2015–2024 with usable data across all four dimensions and HIGH confidence on each, making it a reasonably reliable assessment — however, the persistent billing and responsiveness complaints across multiple years suggest the lower scores in those areas reflect genuine operational issues rather than outlier experiences.

Roy's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately — many recent reviews praise individual technicians by name for punctuality, communication, and courtesy, but a significant number of older and mid-period reviews describe rude staff, ignored callbacks, cancelled appointments without notice, and dismissive customer service representatives. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension across the review history, with dozens of reviewers describing charges they considered grossly excessive, markups far above market rate, and pressure tactics to upsell unnecessary equipment — this single dimension drags the overall score down substantially. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are described as completed efficiently and correctly, but there are notable failures including unresolved flooding after a $5,500 repair, incomplete drain clearing, abandoned follow-through on yard restoration after sewer work, and at least one instance of code violations from an improperly installed furnace. Experience scores similarly mixed — individual technicians are frequently praised as knowledgeable, but multiple reviews describe technicians misdiagnosing problems, recommending unnecessary replacements, and failing to identify simple fixes that competitors resolved quickly and cheaply.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing complaints are the single most consistent theme across the entire review history, spanning from 2014 to 2025. Dozens of reviewers independently describe charges 2x to 5x above what competitors charged for identical work. This is not isolated — it is a systemic pattern.
• UPSELL / SCARE TACTIC PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe technicians recommending expensive replacements (furnaces, AC units, sewer lines) that turned out to be unnecessary. Second opinions consistently revealed far cheaper solutions. This pattern is flagged as a potential systemic sales practice.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 11 reviews dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-07 through 2025-06-09 are all 5-star with minimal or no text content (several are completely blank). Blank 5-star reviews with no content provide no usable data and inflate the apparent rating. These have been excluded from scoring but are flagged.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED: 11 reviews contained no text whatsoever and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no evidence for any dimension.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) skew heavily positive and are largely from named technician interactions. Older reviews (2017–2022) contain the majority of serious complaints. It is possible service quality has improved, but the pricing complaints persist into 2024.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2024-05-25) explicitly alleges that a technician showed photos of dirty AC coils that did not belong to their unit in order to sell a $2,300 cleaning service. This is a serious allegation of deceptive practice.
• CODE VIOLATION: One reviewer (2017-08-20) documents that Roy's installed an oversized furnace without a permit and with two confirmed code violations, verified by a village inspector. The HVAC supervisor allegedly denied violations and called the customer a liar.
• DOUBLE BILLING: One reviewer (2018-04-02) reports being double-charged on their credit card and receiving no resolution from the company, requiring a credit card dispute.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / NO FOLLOW-THROUGH: Multiple reviews describe jobs left incomplete, including a sewer repair with no yard restoration after 6+ weeks, a bathtub faucet still leaking after service, and a furnace left off overnight without informing the customer.

This WW Score of 62.4 is based on a large volume of reviews (109 total, 98 with usable data) spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence in its accuracy — the score reflects a company with genuinely capable individual technicians but a persistent, well-documented pattern of pricing complaints, upsell pressure, and inconsistent follow-through that meaningfully undermines overall trustworthiness.

AP Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for professionalism and technician demeanor — the majority of substantive reviews praise individual technicians as courteous, punctual, and communicative — but this is heavily counterbalanced by a very large volume of serious pricing complaints spanning the entire review history. Pricing is the single most-mentioned dimension and is overwhelmingly negative: dozens of reviewers across many years describe charges they consider grossly inflated for simple jobs (e.g., $400+ for a 15-minute faucet swap, $800–$2,000 to clear a drain, $1,200+ for a garbage disposal install), and multiple reviewers explicitly accuse the company of targeting elderly or vulnerable customers. Project completion is moderate: most jobs are finished, but there are meaningful complaints about return visits for the same problem, abandoned work orders, no-shows, and at least one case of a gas leak caused by improper installation. Technical experience is generally rated positively by satisfied customers, though several reviews describe technicians who failed to diagnose problems that were quickly found by others, undermining confidence in consistency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates within the same week (e.g., the Kendal Rosa review from 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06 are identical; the 'On their second trip back' 1-star review appears twice; the 'KendL was very professional' review appears twice; the 'Really enjoyed my experience with Kendal Rosa' review appears twice; the 'David was great' review appears twice; the 'Kendal solved the issue' review appears twice; the 'Honest work done well' review appears twice). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform duplication artifacts. Confidence in the June 2025 review cluster is reduced.
• LARGE VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence in high concentration around specific date clusters (June 2025, May 2025) is consistent with fake review padding patterns.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPAN OVER 15 YEARS (2006–2025): This is not an isolated pattern. Dozens of independent reviewers across multiple platforms and time periods describe the same core complaint — high flat-rate pricing, $89 dispatch fees, and charges perceived as exploitative for short or simple jobs. This is a structural business practice, not an anomaly.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews specifically name a manager ('Jason') as rude, dismissive, and unwilling to resolve legitimate complaints. One review describes a gas leak caused by improper installation followed by inadequate customer service response. These are serious operational red flags.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are heavily skewed toward 5-star ratings, many of which are blank or duplicated. Reviews from 2019–2024 contain a disproportionately high volume of 1-star pricing and professionalism complaints. The recent positive cluster should be treated with skepticism given the duplication evidence.
• ELDERLY TARGETING ALLEGATIONS: At least four independent reviews explicitly state that AP Plumbing took financial advantage of elderly or fixed-income customers. This is a serious reputational and ethical flag.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe jobs that were not fixed on the first visit, return visits that introduced new problems, and instances where the company refused to honor callbacks without additional dispatch fees.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set spanning over 15 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of duplicate and blank review padding in recent months, systemic pricing complaints that are deeply consistent across independent reviewers, and serious isolated incidents involving gas leaks, abandoned work, and alleged elder financial exploitation.

Metro has a mixed but generally positive historical record, with multiple reviewers praising prompt response times, clean workmanship, fair pricing, and skilled tradespeople across plumbing and HVAC work. The standout positive includes a reviewer noting a plumber returned immediately to fix a small leak at no apparent extra charge, reflecting strong follow-through. However, a serious 1-star review from 2016 alleges sexual harassment by a worker, repeated hang-ups when the complaint was escalated, rudeness, incompetence, and overpricing — this single review significantly drags down professionalism and pricing scores and cannot be ignored. The vast majority of reviews are more than 5 years old, with only one review from the past 12 months (2024), limiting confidence in how well these scores reflect current operations. Additionally, a note in one review indicates the company shifted to commercial-only work at some point, raising questions about the relevance of residential reviews to current service offerings.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer (2016) explicitly alleges a sexual remark made by a worker toward a customer, and claims the company hung up on the customer's husband multiple times when a complaint was filed. This is a significant professionalism and conduct red flag that materially lowers the professionalism score.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 of 12 reviews is from the past 12 months (2024). The majority of reviews are from 2010–2016, making it difficult to assess current service quality with confidence.
• BUSINESS MODEL CHANGE: One review notes Metro stopped doing residential work and moved to commercial plumbing and heating only. It is unclear whether the 2024 review reflects a return to residential service or an exception. Consumers should verify current service scope before hiring.
• GENERIC/LOW-DETAIL REVIEWS: Several reviews (e.g., 'Everything was great. They were very good.' and 'unknown') provide little to no actionable detail, reducing their scoring utility. The 'unknown' review was excluded from usable data.
• SCORE CONSERVATISM APPLIED: Due to the age of most reviews, the serious misconduct allegation, and the business model uncertainty, scores have been kept conservative rather than inflated.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — while there are enough mentions across dimensions to generate scores, the data is heavily dated (most reviews are 8–14 years old), a serious unresolved misconduct allegation exists, and only one recent review is available, making it inadvisable to rely on this score alone when making a hiring decision.