Find Nearby Plumbers In Hempstead, New York

The reviews for Abner Plumbing paint a consistently negative picture across nearly every dimension analyzed. Professionalism is the most heavily documented concern, with three of four reviews describing serious communication failures including unanswered calls, ignored texts over multiple weeks, and a dismissive phone response to a flooding emergency. Project completion is similarly troubled, with one reviewer describing an abandoned gas load letter task that forced them to hire another plumber entirely, and another describing a recurring sewage smell from an improperly installed pump that was never successfully resolved despite multiple return visits. The one positive review is brief, vague, and lacks any specific detail, limiting its ability to meaningfully offset the pattern of negative experiences. Pricing data was entirely absent from all reviews, so no score could be assigned to that dimension.

• Only one positive review exists (5-star, 2019) and it contains no specific detail about the work performed, pricing, or any dimension beyond a vague expression of gratitude — its reliability as evidence of quality is very low.
• Three of four reviews are 1-star and describe serious, specific failures across communication, follow-through, and workmanship — this pattern is consistent and credible.
• All reviews are dated between 2015 and 2021 — none fall within the past 12 months relative to a 2025 evaluation date. Recency confidence is low and current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• The single 5-star review uses informal language and references a prior relationship ('saved the day again'), which may indicate a personal connection rather than an objective customer assessment.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all older than three years, and should be treated as low-confidence — however, the consistency and specificity of the negative reviews make the poor score directionally credible.

This contractor received overwhelmingly negative feedback across nearly every dimension analyzed. Professionalism was a critical failure point, with multiple reviews citing rude technicians, a customer service representative who hung up on a caller, and a no-show with no communication. Pricing drew serious concern, with two reviews explicitly alleging deceptive or predatory billing practices — including a $500 charge for work identical to a prior $90 job and a $434 charge for a toilet unclog with no explanation provided. Project completion was mixed at best: one reviewer noted a job was completed successfully, but another described pipes being blown out on a simple job and the crew refusing to clean up the resulting mess. Workmanship and technical skill were called into question by the blown-pipe incident and the alleged bait-and-switch on the sink repair, though one reviewer did note a technician who completed a main line clog successfully.

• Four out of five reviews are 1-star; the single positive review (4 stars) also noted customer service issues, making it a partial negative.
• Two reviews allege predatory or deceptive pricing practices — this is a serious consumer protection concern and not merely a quality complaint.
• The most recent review (September 2024) describes active harm — blown pipes and refusal to clean up — suggesting problems have not improved over time.
• Three of the five reviews are older than 12 months (2019, 2021, 2022); however, the pattern of complaints is consistent across all years, including the most recent 2024 review.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific details, varied language, and distinct incidents, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a small but consistently negative and detail-rich review set spanning multiple years, and should be treated as a reliable warning signal despite the limited sample size.

All three reviews are strongly negative, painting a consistent picture of a contractor with serious deficiencies across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is the most consistently cited problem, with all three reviewers describing rude, unresponsive, or disorganized office staff and subcontractors. Project completion is also deeply problematic, with one reviewer describing a three-day no-show to fix incorrectly installed work and another reporting system failure within six months of service with no warranty honored. Pricing concerns were raised in one review, where over $1,400 was charged for what the customer described as short work, with no recourse offered when the repair failed. The overall picture is of a contractor that should be approached with extreme caution.

• All reviews are 1-star with no positive reviews present — this sample may represent a selection bias toward dissatisfied customers, but the specificity and detail in each review suggest genuine experiences rather than fake reviews.
• The most recent review is from January 2021, meaning all reviews are older than 3 years as of 2024. Business practices may have changed since these reviews were written.
• One review (2016) is significantly older than the others and may reflect conditions that no longer apply, though it corroborates the same patterns seen in more recent reviews.
• Claim of subcontracting work to 'drug addicts' is an unverified and potentially inflammatory allegation — treated as an indicator of extreme dissatisfaction rather than a verified fact.
• Only 3 reviews total — the WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all negative and all more than 3 years old, which severely limits its reliability — the score directionally indicates poor performance but should not be treated as a statistically robust assessment.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent failures across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by documented rudeness, non-communication, dispatcher hostility, and aggressive behavior toward customers. Pricing practices are predatory, with customers reporting inflated charges ($350-$650 for minimal work), refusal to provide written estimates, and demands for payment before diagnosis. Project completion is severely deficient, with incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and failure to honor callbacks. Technical competence is questionable, with unlicensed technicians, evasive diagnostic practices, and work that customers later determined could be completed in minutes. The pattern is consistent across all six reviews spanning multiple years.

• CRITICAL: All 6 reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly negative experiences. This is not a fake review pattern (which would show suspicious similarity); rather, it indicates genuine systemic failure.
• Multiple reviews document predatory pricing practices: customers charged $350-$650 for work later determined to be minimal or unnecessary.
• Unlicensed technician documented in at least one review; company allegedly unable or unwilling to provide license information.
• Documented aggressive and hostile behavior toward customers, including yelling, hanging up on complaints, and intimidating conduct.
• Non-communication and failure to honor scheduled appointments explicitly mentioned.
• Reviews span from 2013 to 2024, indicating this is not a recent isolated incident but a long-standing pattern of poor service.
• One review documents technician remaining at customer's home for over an hour after being refused service, causing customer to consider calling police.

This score cannot be calculated using the standard WW formula because all dimensions show catastrophic failure with no redeeming data points. The evidence is overwhelming, consistent, and spans 11 years. This contractor should be considered high-risk and is not recommended for any service.

Only two reviews were submitted, one of which contains no usable text whatsoever — just a period. The single substantive review offers minimal information: that the contractor works alone and will explain the problem if asked. This touches lightly on communication (professionalism) and a basic level of diagnostic ability (experience), but neither is described with enough detail to support a confident or high score. No information was provided on pricing, project completion, punctuality, workmanship quality, or any other meaningful dimension. Scores assigned are conservative and carry very low reliability.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• One review consists entirely of a single period ('.') with no usable content — this review was excluded from scoring.
• Both reviews share the exact same date (2017-05-17), which may suggest they were submitted simultaneously or artificially.
• Both reviews carry a 5-star rating despite containing virtually no substantive content, which is a potential indicator of low-quality or inauthentic reviews.
• All reviews are over 7 years old — recency weighting is severely impacted and scores reflect outdated data.

This score report is not reliable and should not be used to make hiring decisions — the review pool is critically undersized, nearly devoid of usable content, and entirely outdated.

With only two reviews — one extremely negative and one positive — the data is too sparse to draw reliable conclusions. The negative review (2016) describes a serious professionalism failure: the contractor arrived without tools, failed to return as promised, and became verbally abusive when challenged, never completing the job. The positive review (2015) praises reliability, reasonable pricing, and transparent quoting, but lacks specific detail about workmanship or project outcomes. The stark contrast between these two reviews and the age of both (8–9 years old) further limits confidence in any dimension scored.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEWS: Only 2 reviews analyzed. A minimum of 3 is required for a reliable WW Score. Results should not be used for decision-making.
• RECENCY WARNING: Both reviews are from 2015–2016, making them approximately 8–9 years old. They may not reflect the contractor's current quality or practices.
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: One review is 1-star with severe complaints; the other is 5-star with generic praise and no specific project details. The positive review lacks specifics, which slightly raises concern about its authenticity, though this cannot be confirmed with only two data points.
• NO COMPLETION DATA FROM POSITIVE REVIEW: The 5-star review does not confirm a job was completed successfully — it references reliability of showing up and pricing transparency only, not actual work quality or completion.

This WW Score report is not reliable and should not be used to evaluate this contractor — only 2 reviews were available, both are nearly a decade old, and they present directly contradictory experiences with no sufficient volume to determine which is representative.