Find Nearby Plumbers In Buffalo, New York

Kandefer receives a critically low WW Score of 38.2, driven by severe failures in project completion and professionalism. Two of three reviews document catastrophic outcomes: a boiler installation that was incorrect, improperly executed, and left incomplete for 6 months (creating a carbon monoxide hazard in a home with young children), and a water heater replacement performed without customer consultation or transparency. The third review, while positive regarding pricing and care, is substantially outweighed by the two damaging accounts. Professionalism scores are depressed due to lack of communication, failure to consult customers, poor worksite cleanliness, and refusal to take responsibility for defective work. Project completion is the lowest dimension, reflecting incomplete installations, abandoned work, and unmet callbacks.

• CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE: Review 1 documents a boiler installation that created a carbon monoxide leak hazard in a residential building with young children. This is a serious liability and safety concern.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: The boiler bypass was omitted during initial installation and took 6 months to add; the replacement boiler was never turned on.
• LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY: Contractor refused to take responsibility for defective work despite clear evidence of improper installation.
• CUSTOMER CONSULTATION FAILURE: Review 3 documents installation of equipment without customer input, discussion of options, or transparency about pricing alternatives.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review is from October 2022 (boiler issue from January 2020 installation). The positive review is from January 2020, and the critical water heater review is from November 2015. The pattern of complaints spans multiple years.
• WORKSITE CLEANLINESS: Review 3 notes dirty water left on floor requiring customer cleanup.

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. While only 3 reviews were analyzed, two contain explicit, detailed documentation of serious failures (safety hazard, incomplete work, lack of accountability, poor communication), and the third is positive but insufficient to offset the severity of the documented issues. The WW Score of 38.2 reflects genuine and material problems with this contractor's work quality and professionalism.

The three reviews present a mixed and largely concerning picture of this contractor. While one reviewer praised a door replacement as fast and seamless, the other two reviews describe significant quality and follow-through failures. A picture-hanging job was done without a level and without proper stud anchoring, reflecting poor workmanship. Most seriously, a deck rebuild used substandard knotted lumber that was improperly patched with wood filler, and the contractor failed to resolve the issue despite repeated callbacks over many months. Project completion and experience scores are dragged down substantially by these two negative accounts.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable until more reviews are available.
• The single 5-star review is brief and generic with no specific detail beyond 'fast and seamless,' which limits its evidentiary value.
• One review (deck rebuild, dated 2021) is over 3 years old and may not reflect current performance, but its severity — abandoned follow-through on a defective job — warrants full weight.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• Pattern of unresolved callbacks noted: contractor was contacted 'numerous times' with no resolution, a serious red flag for project completion reliability.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with significant negative incidents and should be considered LOW reliability — prospective customers should seek additional references before hiring.

Duffett Plumbing demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by documented instances of unresponsiveness, rudeness, hung-up calls, and dismissive attitudes toward customers. Pricing practices are deeply problematic, with multiple reviews detailing aggressive upselling tactics, inflated quotes, warranty threats, and unnecessary service recommendations that cost customers thousands of dollars. Project completion shows mixed results with some emergency work handled well but marred by follow-up failures and unresolved issues. Technical experience is undermined by misdiagnosis, failure to identify root causes, and reliance on expensive unnecessary repairs rather than proper troubleshooting. The company exhibits patterns of targeting vulnerable customers (single parents, military families) and employing high-pressure sales tactics.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of aggressive upselling and financial exploitation documented in multiple reviews (2020-07-20, 2020-04-11, 2020-12-22). Customers charged $8,000+ for unnecessary installations and repairs.
• CRITICAL: Documented unresponsiveness and communication failures (2021-03-01, 2016-01-04). Multiple customers report unreturned calls and emergency callbacks never received.
• CRITICAL: Potential fraudulent financial practices (2018-03-21). Customer reports cancelled service payment was deposited despite promise to shred check.
• CRITICAL: Misdiagnosis and lack of technical competence (2020-07-20). Multiple plumbers failed to identify simple dirty sensor issue that was warranty-covered, costing customer $8,550 in unnecessary work.
• CRITICAL: Predatory sales tactics targeting vulnerable populations (single mothers, military families during COVID). Pressure tactics documented including warranty threats and refusal to provide information over phone.
• CRITICAL: Inconsistent service quality and policy enforcement (2020-12-22). Staff contradicted company policies and each other regarding available services.
• CRITICAL: Suspicious high-pressure recommendations (2024-02-23). Customer obtained second opinion that contradicted Duffett's urgent furnace replacement recommendation; furnace still functioning 2 years later.
• Review recency: 4 of 9 reviews are from 2020 or earlier (pre-2021), but recent 2024 review shows pattern continues. Most damaging reviews are from 2020-2021 period.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 9 reviews with consistent, explicit documentation of serious failures across all dimensions, including financial fraud, misdiagnosis, unresponsiveness, and predatory sales practices. The pattern is corroborated across multiple independent customers over several years, with no contradicting positive evidence of systemic improvement.

The review set is sharply divided: one highly detailed 1-star review from 2024 describes severe professionalism failures including a technician arriving nearly 7 hours late with no communication, verbal abuse toward a customer and her grandmother, and a complete failure to submit required warranty paperwork. This single review heavily drags down professionalism and project completion scores. The two positive reviews (one from 2024, one from 2023) describe prompt service, honest evaluations, reasonable pricing, and satisfactory workmanship, but they lack the depth and specificity to fully counterbalance the serious misconduct documented in the negative review. With only 3 reviews total, no dimension reaches HIGH confidence, and the overall WW Score must be treated with significant caution.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is too small for reliable scoring across any dimension.
• The 1-star review (2024-09-09) is the most recent and most detailed review, describing documented misconduct including verbal abuse, extreme tardiness, and failure to complete administrative follow-through. This recency and specificity gives it elevated weight.
• The two positive reviews are relatively brief and generic in their praise, offering limited specifics about workmanship or process. While not conclusively fake, they do not provide strong counterevidence to the negative review.
• No pricing information was mentioned in the negative review, so the pricing score is based solely on the two positive reviews and should be treated as LOW confidence data.
• Project completion score is severely impacted by the failure to submit warranty paperwork despite multiple follow-up attempts by the customer, their spouse, and the warranty company.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with highly conflicting accounts and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's typical performance — significantly more reviews are needed before any confident assessment can be made.

This contractor has a deeply mixed and concerning review profile. The two older positive reviews from 2017 praise fair pricing, quick response, and courteous service, but these are over 7 years old and carry significantly reduced weight under recency rules. The most recent review from 2022 is a serious red flag: a customer reports a failed A/C installation with zero follow-up communication across all contact channels, suggesting either business closure or complete abandonment of customer obligations. Project completion and professionalism scores are heavily dragged down by this unresolved installation failure and total communication breakdown. With only 3 reviews spanning a wide date range, confidence in this score is very low.

• RECENCY WARNING: The only review from the past 3 years (2022) is a 1-star complaint describing an abandoned installation and complete non-responsiveness. The two positive reviews are from 2017 and are over 7 years old — they carry minimal weight.
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS CLOSURE OR ABANDONMENT: The 2022 reviewer explicitly states the contractor is unreachable across all platforms and speculates the business may no longer be operating. This is a critical risk signal for any prospective customer.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total exist, making any score statistically unreliable. All dimension scores should be treated with extreme caution.
• UNRESOLVED INSTALLATION DEFECT: A brand-new A/C unit installed by this contractor failed and the contractor made no effort to honor any warranty or callback obligation, which is a serious project completion and professionalism failure.

This WW Score has very low reliability due to only 3 reviews, a 5-year gap in review activity, and a critical recent complaint suggesting the business may be inactive or unwilling to honor its work — prospective customers should exercise extreme caution.

The review set presents a deeply mixed picture of Aslan Plumbing. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by two serious complaints: one review describes a technician openly admitting he is not good at returning calls and ignoring an elderly customer, while another documents two years of broken promises, possible dishonesty, and chronic unresponsiveness — both are severe professionalism failures that outweigh the positive impressions from the other two reviews. Project completion is similarly damaged by the two-year unresolved building department sign-off issue, which represents an incomplete and potentially abandoned job obligation, though the kitchen sink installation was completed satisfactorily. Experience scores modestly positive based on the sink installation being described as neat and fine work, but the lingering concern in the negative review that the contractor may be stalling because his work will not pass inspection introduces meaningful doubt. No pricing information was mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• Most reviews are older than 12 months; the most recent review is from January 2022, and two reviews are from 2017–2018, reducing recency reliability.
• The two-year failure to complete a required building department duct test (documented in the 2017 review) is a serious project abandonment flag and may indicate a pattern of non-follow-through.
• One review explicitly raises the possibility that the contractor may have provided false information to the customer about contacting the building department, which is a potential integrity concern.
• The technician's self-admitted poor call-return behavior (negative review, 2021) suggests a systemic communication problem rather than an isolated incident.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and date, and appear authentic.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning several years, two of which are highly detailed negative accounts describing serious ongoing issues, making the score directionally meaningful but statistically limited — treat with caution and seek additional recent references before hiring.