Find Nearby Plumbers In Freeport, New York

Holzhauer Plumbing shows strong technical competence and fair pricing, but professionalism and project completion are significantly undermined by inconsistent service quality and follow-through issues. Recent reviews (2024) are predominantly positive, praising efficiency, knowledge, and fair pricing; however, older reviews and several recent complaints reveal serious gaps in communication, scheduling reliability, and post-installation support. The company excels at major installations but struggles with callbacks, responsiveness, and staff conduct consistency. The stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and damning 1-star reviews suggests highly variable execution depending on which team members are assigned.

• POLARIZED REVIEW PATTERN: Extreme bimodal distribution (mostly 5-star and 1-star with few middle ratings) suggests inconsistent service quality or possible selection bias in who leaves reviews.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Multiple complaints about rudeness, poor phone manners, disrespectful behavior, and unprofessional conduct by owner and staff (2021, 2017, 2022 reviews). Recent 2024 reviews show improvement but earlier pattern is concerning.
• FOLLOW-UP SERVICE FAILURE: Multiple reviews (2021, 2017) explicitly state company ignores callbacks, ghosts customers, and prioritizes large jobs over repeat business. This is a systemic issue.
• SCHEDULING UNRELIABILITY: Two reviews (2023-12-13, 2023-07-18) report no-shows and last-minute cancellations without adequate notice.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2024, July-November) are highly positive (5-star), while older reviews (2017-2022) contain serious complaints. This suggests either genuine improvement or that dissatisfied recent customers have not yet reviewed.
• PAYMENT DISPUTES: One 2022 review describes aggressive cash-payment demands and pressure tactics at job completion.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews (2019, 2017) report incomplete jobs requiring other plumbers to finish work and correct mistakes.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to extreme polarization in reviews and a clear temporal pattern showing recent improvement but historical service failures. The 68.2 score reflects genuine technical competence undermined by serious professionalism and follow-through gaps; however, the most recent reviews suggest possible operational improvements that may not yet be fully reflected in the overall score. Recommend requesting recent client references and clarifying callback/support policies before engaging.

The reviews present a mixed picture. Two positive reviews praise professionalism, efficiency, and quality of work on sprinkler installation and water pressure issues, while one highly detailed negative review raises a serious concern about pricing transparency — a customer was charged $750 for a 20-minute faucet installation with no upfront quote, which significantly drags down the pricing dimension. The positive reviews are relatively generic and lack specific detail, which limits confidence in the high praise. The one negative review is the most detailed and credible, and it covers both pricing and professionalism concerns, preventing higher scores across those dimensions.

• Two of the four positive reviews use very generic language ('best plumbing and irrigation company in long island', 'excellent service') with minimal specifics, raising mild concern about authenticity or low-effort reviews.
• The 5-star review dated 2023-03-12 contains no verifiable detail whatsoever and reads like a promotional statement rather than a genuine customer experience.
• The most detailed and credible review is the 1-star review, which describes a specific incident with a named individual, a specific charge ($750), and a specific timeframe (20 minutes) — this carries high credibility weight.
• Only 4 reviews total — sample size is very small and scores should be treated with caution.
• Two reviews are older than 12 months (2023), reducing their recency weight. The most recent review (2024-09-18) is the negative one, which is concerning as it may reflect a current pattern of behavior.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with a small and mixed dataset; the score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable until a larger volume of recent reviews is available.

NY Boiler and AC Repair presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately — many reviewers praise Luis and his crew as courteous, communicative, and timely, but a significant cluster of negative reviews cite being stood up, arriving hours late without notice, and deceptive business practices including a Groupon bait-and-switch and undisclosed pricing structures. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple independent reviewers describe being charged far above what competitors quoted, surprise labor minimums not disclosed upfront, and parts marked up dramatically, while positive reviewers do cite fair or competitive pricing — creating a wide variance that pulls the score down significantly. Project completion is middling — several jobs were completed thoroughly and even went beyond scope, but at least two reviews describe work that failed the very next day or was left incomplete, and one describes a no-show with no follow-up. Experience scores similarly mixed: Luis is frequently described as knowledgeable and skilled, but multiple reviewers allege misdiagnosis of problems, recommending unnecessary repairs, and failing to identify the actual root cause — a serious credibility concern for a technical trade.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: At least 4 independent reviews (2019, 2018, 2014 x2) describe undisclosed fees, surprise labor minimums, and parts priced far above market rate. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 3 reviews (2020, 2016, 2014) allege that the technician diagnosed the wrong problem or recommended unnecessary repairs, with the actual fix costing a fraction of what was quoted or charged.
• FAILED WORK: One reviewer (2014) reports the boiler stopped working the very next day after repair. Another (2015) reports a defective part was brought, requiring a return visit.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT: One reviewer (2014) paid $90 for an assessment and never received the promised follow-up estimate. Another (2018) reported a 5-hour late arrival with no proactive communication.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024, 2021) are positive, but the bulk of negative reviews cluster between 2014–2020. It is unclear whether service quality has genuinely improved or whether negative reviewers have simply stopped posting. The 2024 and 2021 reviews carry more weight per recency rules but are outnumbered by older mixed data.
• SPAM COMPLAINT: One reviewer (2019) reports receiving unsolicited text messages from the company without consent, which is a business practice concern.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: Review language is sufficiently varied in detail, tone, and specificity across both positive and negative reviews. No strong pattern of fabricated reviews detected, though several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Very reliable and knowledgeable') and contribute limited evidentiary weight.

This WW Score is based on 21 reviews spanning approximately 11 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in terms of mention volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the significant and recurring negative patterns around pricing transparency and misdiagnosis, which suggest systemic rather than isolated issues.

A&B Sewer Solutions presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple serious complaints: arriving 2 hours late, cancelling scheduled follow-up appointments, lacking proper tools and gear, and using high-pressure sales tactics on vulnerable customers — though a meaningful number of positive reviews do praise responsiveness, friendliness, and clear communication. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible and detailed accounts of aggressive upselling, inflated estimates (a $2,600 water heater job quoted vs. a $75 fix, and a $3,500 hydrojetting job vs. a $500 honest alternative), and pressure to Zelle payment — these are serious red flags that substantially outweigh the handful of reviews praising fair or reasonable pricing. Project completion is inconsistent: several reviews confirm jobs were finished properly and tested before departure, but at least two reviews describe work that was left incomplete or abandoned, including sewer caps left uninstalled and a pipe that could not be cleaned. Experience scores reflect a similar split, with positive reviewers praising knowledgeability and problem-solving, while negative reviewers describe workers who appeared inexperienced, lacked proper equipment, and recommended unnecessary or incorrect solutions.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: The second 1-star reviewer explicitly flags that the positive reviews may be fake, noting suspicious clustering of dates. Several 5-star reviews are notably brief, generic, and lack specific job details, which is consistent with this concern.
• PRICING MISCONDUCT: At least two detailed, credible 1-star reviews describe what amounts to predatory pricing — a $2,600 estimate for a $75 fix, and a $3,500 charge for a job an honest plumber completed for $500 the next day. These are not minor disputes.
• PRESSURE TACTICS AND PAYMENT CONCERNS: One review describes a non-labeled van showing up and pressuring a young tenant into a Zelle payment for work allegedly not performed. This is a serious consumer protection concern.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least one review describes the crew leaving a property with open sewer caps uninstalled after multiple cancelled follow-up appointments, constituting abandoned work.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most recent reviews (late 2022) are both 1-star with serious misconduct allegations. The majority of positive reviews are from 2020–2021. This trend suggests a possible decline in service quality over time, and recent reviews should be weighted more heavily.
• TOOL AND EQUIPMENT DEFICIENCY: One review explicitly states the crew arrived without gloves, protective gear, or garbage bags and had to ask the customer for supplies — a basic professionalism failure for a sewer job.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its direction, but the presence of suspected fake positive reviews, credible misconduct allegations, and a concerning negative trend in the most recent reviews means the true performance of this contractor may be worse than the score reflects — consumers should exercise significant caution.

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

Pat Dolan Plumbing presents a deeply divided review profile. A meaningful cluster of positive reviews praises punctuality, politeness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship — particularly from repeat customers spanning multiple years. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews raises serious concerns across all four dimensions: multiple reviewers report being overcharged for time not worked, no-show or rescheduled appointments, incomplete or incorrect work, damage caused by technicians, and dismissive or rude responses from supervisors when complaints were raised. The pricing dimension is particularly problematic, with multiple explicit accounts of hidden charges, inflated billing hours, and prices described as 30–40% above competitors. Project completion is also significantly impacted by reviews describing abandoned jobs, callbacks charged to the customer for technician-caused damage, and work not performed as requested. The score reflects a contractor with genuine capability among some staff but systemic issues in billing practices, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• 6 reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no review text — these are likely placeholder or fake entries and have been excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• The 'unknown' reviews all cluster between 2015–2017 and share identical formatting, suggesting possible review padding. This pattern is consistent with fake review behavior.
• Multiple independent reviewers (across different years) describe the same specific billing abuse: being charged for more time than the technician actually worked. This is a recurring and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• At least 3 reviewers explicitly mention being charged for hidden fees not disclosed upfront (protective gear surcharge, travel time, add-on charges), indicating a systemic transparency problem.
• Two reviewers (2020) appear to describe the same service call from different perspectives, both referencing a boiler/pump job costing ~$835 and a rude supervisor — this is likely the same incident reviewed twice, and has been counted as two separate mentions but noted here.
• Several negative reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2022), but the most recent review (March 2025) is also strongly negative, suggesting problems have not been resolved over time.
• Recency note: Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024–2025), one positive and one strongly negative. The limited recent data prevents confident assessment of current service quality.

This WW Score is based on 37 reviews with usable content spanning 2012–2025 and carries HIGH confidence in its directional accuracy, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the bimodal distribution — the contractor appears to deliver excellent service in some cases and seriously problematic service in others, making average scores less predictive of any individual customer's experience.