Find Nearby Plumbers In Buffalo, New York

Reimer's technicians consistently receive strong praise for professionalism, friendliness, punctuality, and clear communication, with dozens of named technicians highlighted positively across recent reviews. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern — multiple independent reviewers across different years report quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors, high-pressure upselling tactics, and charges for work not completed, dragging the pricing dimension down substantially. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, but there are notable failures including an abandoned drain job, a sump pump system that failed within four years, and a case where a wrong furnace model was installed without disclosure. Experience scores well overall due to frequent mentions of knowledgeable diagnostics and skilled workmanship, but is tempered by multiple credible accounts of technicians falsely diagnosing problems to drive unnecessary equipment sales.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant block of reviews dated 2025-06-06 through 2025-06-09 appear to be near-exact or exact duplicates of one another (e.g., the Kenny K drain emergency review, the Derrick filter review, the Kenny sewer jetting review, the Scott furnace tuneup review, and others appear verbatim on multiple dates). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or artificial inflation. Confidence in the recent review cluster is reduced.
• UPSELLING PATTERN — CREDIBLE AND RECURRING: At least 10 independent reviewers across multiple years (2013–2025) describe technicians recommending unnecessary furnace or AC replacements, with second opinions from other companies confirming the existing equipment was functional. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CONSISTENT AND SPECIFIC: Multiple reviewers cite quotes 2x–4x higher than competitors for identical work, including a $15,000 furnace/AC quote vs. a $500 repair, a $6,500 plumbing quote vs. a $1,700 competitor quote, and a $500+ sewer snake vs. $160 elsewhere. These are not vague complaints but detailed, comparable figures.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One detailed 1-star review (August 2024) alleges that employees stole high-value liquor from the customer's home during a water heater installation, and that the supervisor initially agreed to replace items but later cancelled the order. This is a serious integrity flag.
• TECHNICIAN MISCONDUCT: One review (February 2024) describes a technician arriving 2.5 hours late, refusing to perform the scheduled service, aggressively upselling, and becoming verbally abusive and belligerent when asked to leave — requiring the customer to threaten police involvement.
• WRONG PRODUCT INSTALLED WITHOUT DISCLOSURE: One reviewer (2019) reports that Reimer installed a lower-tier furnace model than what was sold, and concealed this until after installation was complete.
• MANY BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 25–30 entries contain no review text, only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and may artificially inflate the star average.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive positive reviews are dated May–June 2025, with the duplicate cluster noted above. Negative reviews span 2013–2024 and represent a longer historical pattern. The recent positive surge warrants scrutiny given the duplication flags.

The WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating recent positive signals, a well-documented and multi-year pattern of aggressive upselling and inflated pricing, and serious individual misconduct allegations that suggest inconsistent service quality depending on which technician is dispatched.

All Aloha Plumbing (recent reviews, 2025) consistently earns strong marks for professionalism, responsiveness, and courteous technicians, with many customers praising named plumbers by name and highlighting emergency availability. However, the review pool also contains a substantial body of older reviews for Professional Plumbing Services (PPS), a separate or predecessor entity, which significantly drags down scores across all dimensions with repeated complaints about abandoned jobs, missed appointments, poor workmanship, overcharging, and dishonesty. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple PPS reviews describing unfinished renovations lasting months, unkept callbacks, and work left in disarray. Pricing is mixed — recent All Aloha reviews are mostly positive on value, but PPS reviews include credible accounts of overcharging, inflated parts markups, and billing for idle time. Experience scores are similarly split, with recent All Aloha technicians praised for skill and problem-solving, while PPS reviews document poor workmanship, incorrect installations, and a gas line improperly installed.

• MIXED ENTITY ALERT: This review set appears to contain reviews for two distinct businesses — 'All Aloha Plumbing' (reviews primarily from 2025) and 'Professional Plumbing Services / PPS' (reviews from 2007–2024). These may be separate companies or a rebranded entity. Scores reflect the combined pool but the two entities have very different performance profiles.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTE: All Aloha Plumbing reviews from 2025 are overwhelmingly positive (mostly 5-star). PPS reviews from 2012–2022 include numerous 1-star complaints. If only the 2025 reviews are relevant, the WW Score would be substantially higher (estimated 85+). If PPS history is relevant to the same operator, the lower scores are warranted.
• FAKE REVIEW FLAG (PPS): One reviewer (2020) explicitly alleges that PPS/Louis Moon fabricated a 5-star review using their name without consent. This raises credibility concerns about some of the generic positive PPS reviews with no detail.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN (All Aloha 2025): Several All Aloha reviews are blank text with only a 5-star rating (at least 5 such reviews detected). These provide no usable data and inflate the star average without substantive evidence.
• ABANDONED WORK (PPS): Multiple independent reviewers describe PPS leaving jobs unfinished — a bathroom renovation taking 10 months, a dishwasher left in the kitchen for days with no callback, a sewer problem unresolved after $835 paid, and a tub installation with ongoing squeaking never remedied.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES (PPS): Documented issues include a gas line installed improperly (fire department called), pipe support made by smashing copper pipe, incorrect vent line installation, broken toilet caused by technician, and a lavatory popup assembly that fell apart immediately after repair.
• OVERCHARGING COMPLAINTS (PPS): At least two detailed reviews describe being charged for technician idle time, parts marked up 4x retail price, charges exceeding quoted amounts, and a $400 quote for a 10-minute job.
• PROJECT DELAYS (PPS): Multiple renovation projects ran significantly over promised timelines — one took 4 weeks instead of 2, another took 10 months, and one job was abandoned entirely with no-shows on scheduled days.
• POSITIVE SIGNAL (All Aloha 2025): Recent All Aloha reviews are specific, name individual technicians, describe real scenarios, and include both 5-star and occasional 3-star honest feedback — suggesting these are largely authentic.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a predictor of current service quality is MODERATE at best, because the review pool conflates two potentially distinct business entities across an 18-year span — prospective customers should weight the 2025 All Aloha reviews heavily and treat the PPS history as a separate risk signal requiring clarification on business continuity.

Advanced Sewer and Drain has a strong historical reputation built on a large volume of positive reviews praising responsiveness, honesty, fair pricing, and technical skill — particularly from the father-son team of Rich and Tyler. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns: multiple reviewers describe incomplete work, abandoned jobs, poor communication, and at least one review alleges the technician arrived intoxicated and left a customer without water. A 2024 review also claims the business may no longer be operating under its original ownership, which introduces significant uncertainty about current service quality. Pricing is generally praised as fair and transparent, but one review alleges an attempt to overcharge a woman by recommending unnecessary excavation. The score is moderated substantially by these negative patterns, particularly around project completion and professionalism, which are the two highest-weighted dimensions.

• OWNERSHIP/CONTINUITY CONCERN: A June 2024 review states 'Advanced is no longer in business' and that callers are redirected to an unknown company with no reviews. This is a critical flag that the entity being reviewed may have changed hands or ceased operations.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: A 2023 review alleges the owner arrived visibly intoxicated, failed to install fixtures, shrugged and left, abandoning a customer without running water — including a recently hospitalized child in the home. This is an extreme professionalism and project completion failure.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple negative reviews (2023, 2023, 2014) describe jobs left incomplete, sewage not cleaned up, drain ports not replaced properly, and sprinkler systems destroyed without disclosure — indicating a recurring project completion problem.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least two reviews (2014, 2019) describe missed appointments, no-shows, or extreme lateness with poor communication, suggesting systemic scheduling and follow-through issues.
• POTENTIAL OVERCHARGING ALLEGATION: One review alleges an attempt to charge $2,500 to clear a main line by digging up a yard, when another company resolved it for $95. A separate review describes a $1,000-to-$1,200 price change with rude behavior when questioned.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are dated 2018–2020 with a cluster of undated reviews all stamped '2020-06-10', suggesting a possible bulk review submission on that date. Reviews from 2022 onward are fewer and include a higher proportion of negative experiences.
• GENERIC REVIEW FLAGS: Several reviews ('Did a great job!!!', 'Saved our bacon!', blank rating with no text, 'Great service_timely and efficient!') contain no specific detail and may inflate the positive review count without adding meaningful evidence.
• TWO BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: Two reviews contain no text content (one 5-star, one 1-star) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given credible allegations of serious misconduct, a possible change in business ownership or operations as of 2024, and a pattern of project completion failures in more recent reviews that suggest meaningful service deterioration from the company's earlier reputation.

Mike receives strong praise across many reviews for punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and fair pricing, with numerous customers describing him as professional, knowledgeable, and easy to work with. However, several serious negative reviews significantly temper the overall score. One reviewer describes abandoned work with two no-show follow-up appointments, a cashed check before job completion, and genuinely shoddy workmanship on a tub faucet replacement. Another details a costly electrical mistake where cut wires left a home without power, and Mike failed to honor his agreed resolution. A third reviewer describes billing disputes over hourly charges that escalated to a court claim. These negative reviews are specific, detailed, and credible, and they reveal meaningful risks around project completion and scope of competency. The majority of reviews are older than five years, with only one review from the past 12 months, which limits confidence in how well this profile reflects current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: The vast majority of reviews are from 2008–2016, with only one review dated within the past 7 years (2018). This profile does not reliably reflect current contractor performance.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RISK: One detailed 1-star review (2009) describes abandoned work, two no-show appointments, cashed payment before job completion, and shoddy workmanship requiring third-party remediation. This is a serious flag.
• WORKMANSHIP RISK: A 2-star review (2012) describes Mike cutting all electrical wires during a renovation, rendering the home without power, and then failing to honor his agreed resolution to cover labor costs — resulting in $600 out-of-pocket for the customer.
• BILLING DISPUTE: A 1-star review (2018) describes a disputed hourly billing arrangement that escalated to a court claim, with the reviewer alleging time was padded including a free estimate and lunch break.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: A 3-star review (2010) describes substandard paint work requiring multiple callbacks, materials charged upfront but barely used, and overall dissatisfaction with workmanship quality.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS: Two separate reviews (2010, 2013) report that Mike never returned phone calls, suggesting intermittent responsiveness issues.
• LOW-CONTENT REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only one word or a single vague sentence ('Perfectly.', 'WONDERFUL', 'na', 'He has done a good job.'). These provide minimal usable data and were weighted minimally.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The mix of detailed positive and negative reviews, varying writing styles, and specific job descriptions suggest the review set is generally authentic.

This WW Score is based on a moderately sized review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by the age of the data (most reviews are 7–15 years old), several credible and detailed negative reviews citing project abandonment, electrical damage, and billing disputes, and a small number of uninformative single-word reviews — prospective customers should treat this score as a historical signal only and seek current references before hiring.

Rainbow Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendly professionalism, and responsiveness, with many customers noting same-day service and clean workmanship. However, the review set contains a significant number of serious 1-star complaints that cannot be ignored, including allegations of incomplete work requiring a second plumber to correct, a collapsed sewer line missed during service, theft of materials, incorrect leak diagnosis, and extremely hostile customer service including threats. Pricing feedback is mixed — most find it fair or reasonable, but at least one reviewer felt overcharged relative to time actually spent. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple explicit accounts of jobs left unfinished or done incorrectly. The review set spans over a decade (2011–2024), meaning many positive reviews are quite old and may not reflect current service quality.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2021. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024), and one of those is vague. Recent negative reviews are sparse but the most recent detailed negative is from 2020.
• MULTIPLE SERIOUS COMPLAINTS: At least 4 reviews explicitly state that Rainbow Plumbing's work had to be corrected or completed by another plumber, which is a significant project completion red flag.
• ALLEGED THEFT: One reviewer (2014) alleges a plumber stole copper pipe from their home. This is a serious integrity concern.
• ALLEGED THREATS AND HARASSMENT: One reviewer (2015) alleges the owner threatened to physically come to their home to collect payment and continued to call and harass them.
• INCOMPLETE JOB / POOR COMMUNICATION: A 2018 review describes a gas line left half-finished, followed by the company yelling at and hanging up on the customer, then refusing to return calls.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several older 5-star reviews (2011–2013) are very brief and generic (e.g., 'The service they did was excellent.' with no detail). These may be authentic but lack specificity. Confidence is not significantly reduced as they are not identical in phrasing.
• ONE REVIEW MARKED 'unknown' WITH NO TEXT: The 2014-06-05 review contains no usable content and was excluded from scoring.
• SPLIT IDENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple named plumbers (Savel Castro, Kevin, Dustin, Marty, Bill) and appear to span geographically distinct service areas, suggesting this may be an aggregated profile for multiple businesses operating under the Rainbow Plumbing name. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect a single consistent operation.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high data reliability due to the volume of reviews (27), but the score should be treated with caution given the serious nature of multiple negative complaints, the wide date range spanning over a decade, and the possibility that reviews represent more than one distinct business operating under the same name.

Quality Plumbing receives consistently strong feedback across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the standout strength, with every single review mentioning punctuality, courtesy, cleanliness, and responsiveness — including a notably detailed account of exceptional callback and scheduling communication. Pricing is praised explicitly in five reviews, with multiple reviewers using phrases like 'fair price' and one noting a charge of under $70 for a repair, suggesting genuine value. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished cleanly and completely, though the relatively small total review pool limits full confidence in the overall picture. Experience is affirmed through references to knowledgeable work across varied tasks including drain clearing, fixture installation, and septic line repair.

• Only 7 reviews total — this is a small sample size and limits statistical reliability of all scores.
• All 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants mild caution; however, reviews contain specific names (Russ/Russell), job details, and varied scenarios, reducing the likelihood of fabrication.
• Several reviews are significantly dated — 4 of 7 reviews are from 2021 or earlier, with two from 2014 and 2016. Recency weighting has been applied conservatively; the most recent review is from June 2023.
• The oldest reviews (2014, 2016) describe the same owner by name and contain specific details, suggesting authenticity, but their relevance to current service quality is limited.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the reviews are specific and credible in content, but the very small sample size (7 reviews) and the age of several reviews mean the score should be treated as a promising but preliminary indicator rather than a definitive assessment.