Find Nearby Plumbers In Buffalo, New York

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning 2013–2017. Professionalism is mixed: one review praises politeness and responsiveness, while two others cite poor communication, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and failure to follow up. Project completion is a significant weakness—one review explicitly states the contractor abandoned plumbing work, forcing the customer to hire another firm to complete and repair the job. Pricing is a major concern, with one customer reporting feeling 'ripped off' at $500 for duct cleaning (vs. $200 elsewhere) and receiving evasive explanations; another notes lack of transparency. Experience shows some technical competence (furnace installation, emergency plumbing response) but is undermined by poor workmanship (incomplete duct cleaning, mess left behind, rust on driveway). The oldest review (2013) is most positive; recent reviews (2016–2017) are significantly more negative, suggesting declining service quality.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2016–2017) are substantially more negative than the oldest review (2013), indicating potential service degradation over time.
• INCONSISTENCY: Roofing team praised as 'fabulous' but plumbing/heating heavily criticized in same review, suggesting quality varies significantly by department or crew.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: Review 1 explicitly states contractor failed to complete plumbing work and customer had to hire another firm—this is a critical red flag for project completion.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Review 2 contains detailed complaints about overcharging ($500 vs. $200 elsewhere) and evasive explanations from owner; customer felt 'taken advantage of.'
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite unresponsiveness to callbacks and failure to follow up on promised return visits.
• WORKMANSHIP QUALITY: Review 2 documents incomplete work (vents not cleaned), excessive mess left behind, and missing equipment (filter).

This score should be treated with caution due to only 3 reviews and significant recency bias (oldest review is 10 years old and most positive; recent reviews are substantially more negative). The contractor shows inconsistent performance with serious concerns around project completion, pricing transparency, and responsiveness. Recommend obtaining more recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Third Generation Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 38.2, driven by severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is particularly weak (32.5), with 89 mentions documenting rude office staff, hang-ups, condescending behavior, and poor communication. Project completion scores only 35.8 despite 78 mentions, reflecting widespread failures to complete work, no-shows, delayed callbacks, and abandoned repairs. Pricing integrity is severely compromised (28.0 across 47 mentions), with customers reporting inflated charges, hidden fees, and apparent collusion with warranty companies to deny claims through false reporting. Experience shows the only relative strength (52.3), though many skilled technicians are undermined by systemic company failures. The company's reliance on warranty contracts (particularly American Home Shield) appears to enable poor service, as customers report technicians deliberately misdiagnose issues to deny coverage.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pattern of fraudulent reporting to warranty companies. Multiple independent reviews (2022-2024) document technicians telling customers one diagnosis verbally, then submitting contradictory reports to AHS to trigger claim denials. This pattern is repeated across 15+ reviews with consistent detail.
• CRITICAL: Pervasive office staff misconduct. Documented instances of hanging up on customers, condescending language, refusal to help, and blocking customers on social media. Named staff members (April, Katie, Raz, Matti, Gloria) appear repeatedly in negative contexts across multiple years.
• CRITICAL: Property damage and refusal of accountability. At least 8 reviews document damage caused during service (broken pipes, damaged property, broken AC units, damaged shower doors) with company refusing to take responsibility or repair damage.
• CRITICAL: Warranty company collusion pattern. Consistent across 30+ reviews: technicians perform minimal work, submit false diagnoses to warranty companies, then pressure customers for out-of-pocket payments when claims are denied. This appears to be deliberate business strategy.
• HIGH CONCERN: No-show and scheduling failures. 20+ reviews document missed appointments, no confirmation calls, vague 8-hour service windows, and failure to follow up. Some customers waited weeks for repairs.
• HIGH CONCERN: Potential fake positive reviews detected. Several 5-star reviews from 2025 (Rafael, Phil, David, Luis) use nearly identical phrasing ('explained everything,' 'very informative,' 'professional') and lack specific details. However, these are vastly outnumbered by detailed negative reviews with specific dates, names, and documented damages.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2020-2024, with particularly high volume in 2021-2022. Recent reviews (2025) show mixed pattern but negative reviews continue to document same issues (warranty fraud, rude staff, incomplete work).
• BBB CORRELATION: Multiple reviews reference F-rating with Better Business Bureau and recommend checking BBB complaints. This external validation corroborates review patterns.
• LEGAL RISK: Multiple reviews mention intent to file BBB complaints, contact Florida Attorney General, and report to Department of Business and Professional Regulations. At least 3 reviews explicitly state they are pursuing formal complaints.

This WW Score of 38.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 152 detailed reviews with 89+ mentions of professionalism failures, 78+ of project completion issues, and 47+ of pricing problems. The consistency of specific, dated allegations across 8+ years, combined with corroborating external sources (BBB, warranty company denials, legal complaints), creates a clear pattern of systemic misconduct. The few positive reviews (approximately 20 five-star reviews) are substantially outweighed by 100+ one-star reviews documenting identical, specific failures. This company presents significant risk to consumers and should be avoided.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies in professionalism and project completion. Six of seven reviews explicitly document failures in punctuality, communication, responsiveness, and follow-through—including no-shows, missed callbacks, hung-up calls, and abandoned projects. Two positive reviews (2015, 2017) praise competence and fair pricing, but they are substantially outweighed by five recent negative reviews (2014–2023) documenting systemic operational breakdown. The contractor's technical skill appears adequate when work is actually performed, but reliability and customer service have deteriorated markedly over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2014–2016, but two recent reviews (2023, 2020) confirm the pattern persists. The 2023 review documents billing disputes and hang-ups; the 2020 review documents project abandonment after customer incurred expenses.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS AND MISSED CALLBACKS: Four reviews explicitly mention no-shows, missed appointments, or failure to return calls. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• DETERIORATION OVER TIME: The two positive reviews are from 2015 and 2017. All reviews from 2014, 2016, 2020, and 2023 are negative, suggesting service quality has declined or remained poor.
• PROFESSIONALISM FAILURES: Multiple reviews document hanging up on customers, rudeness during initial contact, and dismissive behavior when customers raised concerns.

This score is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on seven reviews with consistent, explicit evidence across multiple dimensions. The negative pattern is corroborated across different customers, time periods, and specific failure modes (no-shows, communication breakdown, project abandonment). The two positive reviews do not offset the weight of systemic failures documented in five other reviews.

Keiffer Heating Cooling & Plumbing shows severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. While one recent review (2022) praised the owner's responsiveness and customer service, four reviews spanning 2016–2022 document serious failures: unresponsive communication, failure to follow up on estimates, misdiagnosis of equipment issues, and aggressive sales tactics disguised as service calls. Multiple customers report being pressured to purchase expensive replacements when repairs were possible, and one customer alleges the company deliberately sabotaged their system to generate paid service calls. The single positive review is substantially outweighed by consistent patterns of poor professionalism, questionable pricing practices, and incomplete project follow-through.

• CRITICAL: Four of five reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed complaints of deceptive practices, suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATION: Customer reports being told a $40 part was unavailable and pressured to buy a $3,800 unit; customer sourced the part online and installed it themselves in 15 minutes.
• SABOTAGE ALLEGATION: Customer claims company turned off all heating valves and left them that way, then blamed customer and demanded payment for repairs to their own mistake.
• UNRESPONSIVE: Multiple reviews document failure to follow up on estimates and service callbacks, including one case where company promised callback 'by end of day' and never called.
• INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT: One customer reported technician asking inappropriate personal questions about politics and marital status during service call.
• SALES-OVER-SERVICE PATTERN: Multiple reviews indicate service calls are actually sales pitches with no actual repair attempts or tool use.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are 2–6 years old, but the 2022 review shows problems persist. The single positive 2022 review may reflect owner intervention rather than standard company practice.

This WW Score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. While the sample size is small (5 reviews), the consistency of serious complaints across multiple years and dimensions, combined with one detailed positive review, provides a reliable signal that this company has significant operational and ethical problems. The score reflects genuine customer harm and should be considered a strong warning indicator.

Seneca Plumbing shows significant weaknesses in professionalism and project completion. The most recent review (Feb 2024) documents severe responsiveness failures with a tankless water heater service call, where the owner delayed callbacks over multiple days and ultimately lost the customer. A 2016 review details a special order that arrived quickly but was the wrong size—a stock item sold at inflated pricing instead of the custom part promised. However, one positive 2014 review highlights strong technical knowledge and exceptional value pricing for a shower repair. The business demonstrates inconsistent service quality and communication issues that substantially undermine customer trust.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 8-10 years old (2014, 2016). Only one recent review from Feb 2024 provides current operational data. Historical reviews may not reflect current business practices.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Feb 2024 review documents repeated failure to return calls promptly (delays of hours to full days), poor responsiveness, and inadequate staffing for service offerings. This is a critical operational failure.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: 2016 review shows wrong item delivered despite 'special order' claim, sold at double retail price. Customer had to hire carpenter for repairs. This indicates quality control and honesty issues.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: 2016 review explicitly states email and website contact options are non-responsive. Combined with phone callback delays in 2024 review, this suggests systemic communication problems.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One review praises exceptional value ($10 fix vs $200 alternative), while another criticizes overpricing (stock item at double Home Depot cost). Pricing appears inconsistent or opportunistic.
• HOURS OF OPERATION COMPLAINT: 2016 review criticizes early closing hours incompatible with working-class schedules, suggesting poor customer accessibility.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 1 review from past 12 months) and a pattern of serious service failures documented in available reviews. The Feb 2024 review is particularly concerning as it shows current operational problems with responsiveness and staffing. Recommend seeking recent customer references before engaging this business.

Huron Plumbing shows highly polarized performance across three reviews spanning 2012–2021. One 5-star review from 2021 praises professionalism, punctuality, and technical skill, but two 1-star reviews (2012, 2019) document serious failures: incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, lack of communication, property damage without compensation, and poor workmanship (undersized equipment, damaged ductwork). The extreme variance and small sample size make this score unreliable. The most recent positive review cannot offset documented patterns of incomplete work and unprofessional conduct in earlier reviews.

• EXTREME POLARIZATION: Reviews range from 1-star to 5-star with no middle ground, suggesting either inconsistent service quality or potential data integrity issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two negative reviews are from 2012 and 2019 (3–12 years old); only one positive review is recent (2021). Older reviews may not reflect current operations.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. WW Score is unreliable with this limited data.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Two reviews explicitly document incomplete work (June repair failed, requiring July callback; ductwork cut wrong). This is a critical failure pattern.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One review explicitly states 'no communication' and surprise billing, indicating unprofessional business practices.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: One review documents tenant clothing damage with no compensation offered, suggesting liability and customer care issues.

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution. With only 3 reviews showing severe polarization and critical gaps in project completion and communication, the score does not reliably represent contractor performance. Additional recent reviews are essential before making a hiring decision.