Find Nearby Plumbers In Freeport, New York

Jason's Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. Positive reviews (2019, 2018, 2016) praise professionalism, fair pricing, quick response, and honorable conduct, including one instance where Jason refused payment when unable to complete work. However, negative reviews reveal serious concerns: billing disputes with alleged double-charging and home liens (2017), incomplete repairs that worsened problems (2014), lack of licensing claims, poor follow-up on receipts (2019), and overpricing for simple jobs (2018). The pricing dimension is particularly problematic, with evidence of both "very reasonable" rates and charges of $600 for 2 hours of work or $6,000 for a single bathroom repair. Project completion shows mixed results with some jobs completed satisfactorily but others abandoned or made worse. The WW Score of 58.3 reflects this volatility and the serious red flags present in the review history.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews allege serious legal/financial misconduct including home liens, foreclosure threats, and alleged double-billing (2017 review). This is a major red flag requiring verification.
• CRITICAL: Review from 2014 alleges company is not licensed and failed to fix problem, making it worse. Licensing status should be independently verified.
• SEVERE PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Reviews describe both 'very reasonable pricing' and egregious overcharging ($600 for 2 hours, $6,000 for bathroom repair). This suggests either highly variable pricing practices or potential predatory billing.
• FOLLOW-UP ISSUES: 2019 review reports months-long failure to provide receipt despite multiple calls, indicating poor administrative professionalism.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2014-2017 (older than 5 years). However, a 2019 negative review about receipt issues suggests ongoing problems. Most recent positive review is 2019.
• PATTERN ALERT: The stark 5-star vs 1-star polarization with no middle-ground reviews is unusual and warrants caution. However, the negative reviews contain specific, detailed allegations (lien, foreclosure, licensing, double-billing) that appear credible rather than generic complaints.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on adequate mention counts, the extreme polarization between reviews, serious allegations of legal misconduct and unlicensed work, and significant pricing inconsistencies suggest this contractor carries substantial risk. Independent verification of licensing status and legal history is strongly recommended before engaging services.

Erik Matthews Plumbing & Heating exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile with stark contradictions across reviews. While some customers report exceptional professionalism, responsiveness, and quality workmanship (particularly in 2014-2022 reviews), a substantial number of recent and older reviews document serious concerns: overcharging (quotes of $400 becoming $1000+), incomplete work, unresponsiveness to callbacks, alleged licensing violations, and confrontational behavior with customers. Pricing emerges as the weakest dimension with consistent complaints of bait-and-switch tactics and inflated charges. Project completion shows mixed results with some jobs completed promptly while others are abandoned or require costly callbacks. The contractor's professionalism is undermined by reports of rudeness, ghosting, and confrontational interactions, though some crew members (particularly Zak and Anthony) receive individual praise.

• CRITICAL: Extreme polarization suggests either significant business practice changes over time or potential fake positive reviews. Positive reviews cluster in 2014-2023 with highly specific praise and emotional language, while negative reviews span 2015-2024 with detailed, specific complaints about overcharging and non-responsiveness.
• PRICING RED FLAG: At least 8 reviews explicitly document overcharging, bait-and-switch quotes, or charges far exceeding estimates. This is the most consistently documented problem across the review set.
• RESPONSIVENESS ISSUE: Multiple reviews (2016, 2021, 2022) document ghosting, failure to return calls/texts, and unresponsiveness to warranty issues and emergency situations.
• LEGAL/COMPLIANCE CONCERNS: One review mentions operating under someone else's license; another references small claims court judgment for $2,925 for double billing; one mentions investigation for unprofessional business practices.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Significant inconsistency in crew quality—some workers (Zak, Anthony, Luz) receive individual praise while others are criticized for poor workmanship, incomplete jobs, and using incorrect materials.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Most negative reviews are from 2015-2022 (older), but recent reviews (2024, 2023) include both glowing praise and serious complaints about incomplete work and rudeness, suggesting ongoing issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW MARKERS: Some positive reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('stand up guy,' 'highly recommend,' 'exemplary work') and lack specific technical details. One 2019 review explicitly dismisses other negative reviews as 'embellishments' without addressing specific complaints.

This WW Score of 52.3 should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH confidence in the data volume. The extreme polarization (13 five-star reviews vs. 14 one-star reviews) and documented legal/compliance issues suggest this contractor has serious, persistent business practice problems that outweigh positive individual experiences. The consistent pattern of overcharging complaints and unresponsiveness across multiple years indicates systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. Customers should request detailed written estimates, verify licensing independently, and consider the substantial risk documented in recent and historical reviews.

This company exhibits severe inconsistency across reviews, with a catastrophic 1-star review from 2023 detailing multiple failed jobs, broken fixtures, incompetent workmanship, and refusal to compensate for damages, directly contradicting five older 5-star reviews (2015–2020) praising speed and affordability. The recent negative review provides extensive specific evidence of poor experience and project completion failures, while older positive reviews lack detail and appear generic. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented unprofessional behavior (watching YouTube videos during repairs, extended idle time charged to customer, cursing). Pricing remains competitive based on available data, but quality and reliability are severely compromised.

• CRITICAL: Extreme recency bias detected. The most recent review (2023-01-05) is a detailed 1-star complaint; all positive reviews are 3–8 years old (2015–2020). This suggests significant service degradation over time.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Five older reviews (2015–2020) are generic praise with minimal specifics ('excellent service,' 'very professional,' 'best plumbers'). The single recent review is highly detailed and specific, suggesting older reviews may lack credibility or represent different service quality era.
• SEVERE QUALITY ISSUES: The 2023 review documents multiple catastrophic failures: incorrectly installed faucet, broken $600 vanity, broken drawer caulked together, worsened water heater leak, and refusal to compensate. These are not minor complaints.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: Documented unprofessional behavior includes technician watching YouTube videos during repair work, extended idle time charged to customer, cursing, and company refusing to send different technician despite customer request.
• POTENTIAL SERVICE DECLINE: The stark contrast between old 5-star reviews and recent 1-star review suggests this company may have experienced significant quality degradation, staff turnover, or operational changes.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the MODERATE overall confidence reflects adequate mention counts, the extreme temporal disparity (recent catastrophic failure vs. old generic praise) and documented service quality decline make this score unreliable for predicting current service quality. The 2023 review provides far more credible evidence than older reviews; potential customers should heavily weight the recent negative experience and the company's refusal to compensate for damages.

This review set is heavily contaminated by reviews that are clearly not about a plumbing contractor — a large portion of reviews describe experiences with Allied Universal Security Services (a security staffing company), a building security guard incident, and unrelated employment grievances, none of which pertain to plumbing work. Only approximately 35 reviews contain usable data relevant to a plumbing contractor. Among the plumbing-relevant reviews, professionalism is a deeply mixed picture: several customers praised specific plumbers (Carlos, Cody, Ray, Mr. Santos) as courteous and knowledgeable, while multiple others reported no-shows, extreme lateness, poor communication, and bait-and-switch behavior. Pricing is a significant concern, with multiple explicit complaints about charges of $275/hour, $300+ service fees, and charges applied before work was performed or when plumbers failed to show. Project completion scores moderately — several jobs were completed well and on time, but there are credible accounts of abandoned appointments, uncharged credit cards before arrival, and at least one instance of a $1,000 charge with no resolution. Technical skill, where mentioned, was generally positive among satisfied customers.

• MAJOR DATA CONTAMINATION: A substantial portion of reviews (estimated 25-30 out of 68) are clearly not about plumbing services. They describe Allied Universal Security Services employment disputes, building security guard conduct, ADA complaints at government offices, and parking lot incidents. These reviews have been excluded from scoring but inflate the total review count and skew the star rating distribution significantly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2022-02-11 contain nearly identical text ('charged me a 1000 dollars and still don't work. Scumbag company.' and 'scumbag company. charged me a 1000 dollars and didn't get my toilet fixed.'). This may represent a single customer posting twice or a coordinated negative review attempt.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15-16 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These provide no usable dimensional data and were excluded from scoring. The high volume of blank 5-star reviews is a mild fake review concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most substantive and detailed plumbing reviews date from 2017–2023. Only one clearly plumbing-relevant review exists from 2024 or later (April 2023 sewerage job). The most recent reviews are dominated by non-plumbing content.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN: At least two independent plumbing customers (2019 and 2020) explicitly describe a bait-and-switch pricing pattern — plumbers quoting one scope of work and delivering less while charging the full amount. This is a credible and serious pattern, not an isolated complaint.
• CREDIT CARD CHARGED BEFORE SERVICE: One reviewer explicitly states their credit card was charged the day before the plumber arrived, and the charge was not reversed despite a no-show scenario. This is a significant business practice concern.

The WW Score for this contractor should be treated with LOW-to-MODERATE trust: the review pool is severely contaminated with off-topic reviews unrelated to plumbing, blank reviews reduce usable data, and the plumbing-specific reviews span a wide date range (2013–2023), meaning recent performance is difficult to assess with confidence.

This contractor exhibits a deeply polarized performance pattern with severe reliability and follow-through issues dominating the record. Positive reviews (4 five-star ratings) praise responsiveness and problem-solving on emergency calls, but are heavily outweighed by 6 one-star reviews documenting systematic failures: incomplete repairs requiring multiple callbacks, non-responsive communication, abandoned work, and refusal to honor commitments. Critical failures include an elderly customer charged $800 for unresolved heating issues with no refund, AC units left non-functional after paid service, and a pattern of avoiding customer contact after failed work. While some customers report fair pricing and technical competence on successful jobs, the overwhelming evidence shows unreliable project completion and poor follow-through that directly contradicts the positive testimonials.

• SEVERE POLARIZATION: 4 five-star vs 6 one-star reviews with no middle ground suggests either dramatically inconsistent service quality or potential review manipulation. Positive reviews lack specificity about actual repairs; negative reviews are detailed and consistent in describing abandonment patterns.
• PATTERN OF NON-COMPLETION: Multiple reviews (2020, 2019, 2016, 2015) document identical failure modes—incomplete repairs, customer attempts to stop technician from leaving, refusal to return calls, and non-refunded deposits. This is not isolated incidents but systematic behavior.
• ELDERLY CUSTOMER EXPLOITATION: Review from 2020 documents charging $200 per visit (4 visits = $800) for unresolved heating issue, then refusing to refund promised partial reimbursement. Raises ethical and legal concerns.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: At least 5 reviews explicitly mention non-responsive phone/text communication, avoided callbacks, and office phones turned off intentionally.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 4-9 years old (2015-2020), with only 2 recent reviews (2023). However, the 2023 positive review is about a different company (Roter Rooter comparison) and the 2023 negative review describes deposit theft and no-shows—equally severe. Cannot assume improvement over time.
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS TRANSITION: Reviews reference both 'Fascaldi Plumbing' and 'Louis Fascaldi' as owner. Unclear if this is same entity throughout timeline or if business changed hands. This ambiguity affects reliability of trend analysis.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 11 reviews with moderate mention counts across dimensions, the extreme polarization (36% five-star, 55% one-star) and documented pattern of systematic failures in project completion and communication suggest this contractor poses significant risk. The positive reviews, though genuine-sounding, are insufficient to offset the consistency and severity of documented abandonment and non-completion issues. Recommend independent verification and reference checks before engagement.

Anthony's Any Sewer Any Drain has a deeply polarized review profile, with strongly negative reviews significantly outnumbering positive ones in recent years. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and scores poorly due to multiple accounts of rude attitudes, missed appointment windows, broken promises, and a deeply troubling racism complaint from staff. Pricing is the single worst-performing dimension, with multiple independent reviewers citing charges that were two to three times higher than competitor quotes, hidden charges, and work billed for damage the company itself caused. Project completion is mixed — some positive reviews praise fast, thorough work, but negative reviews document unfinished jobs, a dishonored 30-day guarantee, and work left to code violations. Experience scores slightly higher due to a handful of credible positive reviews praising technical competence, but is undermined by accounts of cracked pipes, improper fittings, and unnecessary work being quoted.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2016–2019, while the most recent reviews (2020–2024) are predominantly 1-star. The trend is clearly negative and worsening over time.
• OVERCHARGING PATTERN: At least 4 independent reviews explicitly cite being charged 2–3x market rate, with one case involving a formal arbitration filing through Home Advisor. This is a strong and consistent signal, not an isolated complaint.
• WORKMANSHIP LIABILITY: One reviewer documented that Anthony's worker cracked a running trap and then charged the customer to replace it. A separate reviewer reported a broken laundry sink. These suggest a pattern of damage-and-charge behavior.
• GUARANTEE VIOLATION: One reviewer documented that Anthony refused to honor an explicit 30-day written guarantee on a drain unclog, then denied the original charge was made despite a written invoice.
• RACIST CONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer reports a company receptionist made an explicitly racist remark during a billing dispute. This is a serious flag regarding company culture and conduct.
• DRIVING CONDUCT REVIEW: One review (1-star) is solely about a company driver's dangerous road behavior and contains no usable data about plumbing services. This review was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Positive reviews tend to be brief, generic, and lacking specific detail (e.g., 'Anthony was great,' 'fast, friendly, and professional'). While not conclusive, the contrast between vague praise and highly detailed negative reviews slightly reduces confidence in the positive signals.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews spanning 2012–2024 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution given the strong negative recency trend — customers hiring this contractor today are far more likely to have an experience resembling the 2020–2024 reviews than the older positive ones.