Find Nearby Plumbers In Buffalo, New York

Superior Plumbing & Heating demonstrates severe deficiencies across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by unprofessional behavior including tracking mud/sewage into homes, failing to flush toilets, and disrespecting customer property. Pricing practices are highly problematic, with evidence of extreme overcharging ($749 for a $7 part, $4500 for a $200 job), lack of written estimates, and apparent targeting of vulnerable customers. Project completion shows one positive example of timely work, but this is heavily outweighed by diagnostic failures and incomplete assessments. Technical competence is questionable, with technicians making premature diagnoses without proper investigation. Only one recent review (2020) shows satisfactory service; three reviews spanning 2015–2022 document serious misconduct.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of predatory pricing targeting vulnerable populations (elderly, disabled customers). Multiple reviews document extreme markups (100x+ on parts and labor).
• CRITICAL: Unprofessional conduct including entering homes with dirty boots, using customer facilities inappropriately, and failing to perform basic diagnostics before quoting.
• CRITICAL: Diagnostic malpractice—technicians quoting major repairs without proper investigation, contradicted by second opinions at 95%+ lower cost.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2015–2022. Only one positive review from 2020. Recent review from 2022 documents continued overcharging behavior.
• TRUST ISSUE: One positive review (2020) exists but is significantly outweighed by three detailed accounts of fraud-like behavior and poor workmanship.

This WW Score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. While the sample size is small (4 reviews), the pattern of misconduct is consistent, detailed, and corroborated across multiple independent accounts spanning 7 years, with no evidence of improvement. The single positive review does not offset the severity and specificity of documented overcharging and unprofessional behavior.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent failures across all dimensions. Five of seven reviews are 1-star ratings documenting serious issues: unlicensed work, failure to obtain permits, incomplete projects, price gouging, theft allegations, and complete non-responsiveness to customer concerns. The two positive reviews (from 2021) are contradicted by overwhelming evidence of systemic problems including multiple lawsuits, court judgments, and operating under different business names. The pattern of missed appointments, broken promises, substandard workmanship, and refusal to honor commitments indicates fundamental operational and ethical failures.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document unlicensed operation and failure to obtain required permits, creating legal liability for customers
• CRITICAL: Evidence of multiple lawsuits and court judgments against this contractor (at least 5-7 documented cases across reviews)
• CRITICAL: Contractor appears to operate under multiple business names/DBAs, suggesting potential attempt to evade legal accountability
• CRITICAL: Allegations of theft from customer property during unsupervised work
• CRITICAL: Pattern of price gouging - initial quotes dramatically increased mid-project with refusal to complete original work without additional payment
• CRITICAL: Complete non-responsiveness to customer complaints and attorney communications
• The two positive reviews (2021) predate the most serious allegations and may not reflect current operational status
• Most negative reviews are from 2019-2022; review from 2016 also documents severe quality and ethical issues
• One review explicitly states contractor 'closed their doors and is now working under a new DBA' - suggests ongoing operation despite legal problems

This WW Score of 28.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. The score is based on seven reviews with consistent, detailed, and corroborated evidence of serious failures across all dimensions. Multiple independent customers document identical patterns of unlicensed work, permit violations, incomplete projects, and non-responsiveness. Legal documentation (lawsuits, court judgments, attorney involvement) provides objective verification beyond subjective review content. This contractor presents substantial risk and should be avoided.

This contractor receives a critically low WW Score of 28.3, driven by overwhelming evidence of poor professionalism, predatory pricing practices, and incomplete project delivery. Six of seven reviews explicitly describe unprofessional behavior including rudeness, aggression, bullying customers into unwanted charges, and misrepresentation of services. All seven reviews cite egregious pricing—hidden fees, inflated charges, refusal to provide written estimates, and service charges for free estimates—establishing a clear pattern of financial exploitation. Project completion is severely compromised, with multiple instances of incomplete work, wrong work performed, and abandoned jobs. Only one review (from 2018) is positive; the remaining six span 2013–2017 and consistently describe the same problematic behaviors, suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF PREDATORY PRICING: All 7 reviews cite hidden charges, inflated quotes, or refusal to honor 'free estimates.' This is not coincidental—it reflects deliberate business practice.
• AGGRESSIVE CUSTOMER TREATMENT: Multiple reviews describe the owner/staff as rude, aggressive, and bullying customers into paying unwanted charges. One review documents aggressive behavior at a business location.
• INCOMPLETE/WRONG WORK: Reviews document snaking wrong lines, failing to fix the stated problem, and abandoning jobs without resolution.
• MISREPRESENTATION: Advertised as 'Master Plumber' but sent inexperienced workers; advertised 'free estimates' but charged for them.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The single positive review is from June 2018 (6+ years old). All negative reviews span 2013–2017, suggesting either the business has since closed or the positive review is an outlier. No recent reviews to indicate improvement.
• CREDIBILITY OF NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Negative reviews are detailed, specific, and internally consistent. They describe concrete incidents (wrong line snaked twice, $250 for $30 part, $45 charge for 'free' estimate, $140 charge for no work). This specificity and consistency across independent reviewers indicates genuine customer experiences, not fake reviews.

This WW Score of 28.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on seven reviews with consistent, specific, and corroborating evidence of systematic failures across all four dimensions. The pattern of predatory pricing, unprofessional conduct, and incomplete work is too pronounced and repeated to be coincidental. This contractor should be avoided.

The usable reviews paint a deeply mixed and largely negative picture of this contractor. The two most detailed reviews (both 1–2 star ratings) describe serious workmanship failures including improper window installation with missing screws and flashing tape, floors redone four times, doors that would not shut, and unresolved defects tied to demands for additional payment — all severe project completion and experience failures. Two older positive reviews (2007–2008) mention professionalism, promptness, and willingness to return to fix issues, which moderately offset the negatives but are over 15 years old and carry minimal weight. Pricing concerns are flagged in one review where the contractor demanded an additional $3,000 before completing agreed work, and another reviewer noted they would have been better off paying more to a competitor given the rework costs incurred. Overall, the score is dragged down significantly by documented quality and completion failures in the more recent and detailed reviews.

• Two reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no review text — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• The two 'unknown' reviews are both 5-star ratings with zero detail, which is consistent with potentially fake or placeholder reviews. Confidence has been reduced accordingly.
• All positive reviews are extremely old (2007 and 2008), meaning they are 15+ years out of date and should be given very little weight relative to the more recent negative reviews.
• The most recent substantive reviews (2016) are both highly negative and describe serious, unresolved defects — this recency pattern is a significant red flag.
• One review explicitly describes the contractor demanding additional payment before fixing defects caused by their own poor workmanship, which is a serious ethical and professionalism concern.
• Total usable review count is very low (4 reviews with content), which severely limits the reliability of any score produced.

This WW Score should be treated with very low confidence — it is based on only 4 reviews with usable content, two of which are over 15 years old, and the two most recent detailed reviews describe serious unresolved workmanship and project completion failures.

Norton's receives overwhelmingly negative reviews centered on a consistent and severe pattern of missed appointments, ignored phone calls, and complete failure to follow through on scheduled work — behaviors that devastate both the professionalism and project completion scores. Out of 9 reviews, at least 6 explicitly describe being stood up, having calls screened or ignored, and receiving no callbacks, which is a critical operational failure. The few positive reviews (3 of 9) are older — dating from 2016 to 2020 — and describe good workmanship and fair pricing, suggesting the business may have declined significantly in recent years. The most recent review (June 2023) continues the negative trend, reinforcing that the problems are ongoing rather than historical. Pricing received only one mention and is therefore a low-confidence data point that carries minimal weight in the final score.

• SEVERE PATTERN — No-show and call-avoidance behavior is explicitly described in 6 of 9 reviews, spanning 2018 through 2023. This is not isolated; it represents a systemic operational failure.
• RECENCY CONCERN — All 3 positive reviews are dated 2016–2020. The 4 most recent reviews (2018–2023) are all 1-star. The trajectory of this business is clearly negative.
• PHONE SCREENING BEHAVIOR — Multiple reviewers independently describe the contractor only answering calls from unfamiliar phone numbers, which is a significant red flag for deliberate customer avoidance.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — The 5-star review from 2017-12-31 ('Always answers the phone no matter what') is extremely brief, generic, and directly contradicts the dominant pattern described across multiple detailed negative reviews. It may not reflect genuine experience.
• HOME WARRANTY CONTEXT — At least two negative reviews involve home warranty assignments, suggesting the contractor may be selectively deprioritizing or ignoring lower-margin warranty jobs.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews with a clear and consistent negative pattern in the most recent years; the score is considered moderately reliable given the volume of detailed, specific complaints, though the small total review count limits full statistical confidence.

This contractor has a deeply mixed and largely negative review profile across all four dimensions. Three of the five reviews are 1-star and describe serious failures: a week-long no-show for an estimate, shoddy work requiring a city-forced refund, and a project that ran months over schedule while leaving the property damaged with a clogged sewer line. The two positive reviews are older (2017 and 2018) and describe responsive, reasonably priced, and competent work — but these are significantly outweighed by the more recent negative experiences. The most recent reviews trend strongly negative, raising serious concerns about reliability and workmanship quality.

• RECENCY WARNING: The two positive reviews are from 2017 and 2018. All three negative reviews are from 2019–2021. The trend over time is clearly deteriorating.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the City of Buffalo forced a refund due to shoddy work, indicating a formal complaint or regulatory action was taken against this contractor.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT / DAMAGE FLAG: One reviewer reports the contractor left the property in worse condition than found, with concrete and rocks clogging the sewer line causing basement flooding.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: One reviewer documents a full week of unanswered calls and a broken promise to provide an estimate, suggesting systemic communication breakdown.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 5 reviews total. Scores carry limited statistical reliability and should be interpreted with caution.

This WW Score has LIMITED reliability due to the very small sample size of 5 reviews, but the pattern of serious, specific, and independently corroborated negative experiences — including a city-enforced refund and documented property damage — makes the low score directionally trustworthy.