Find Nearby Plumbers In Hempstead, New York

Rich receives consistently positive feedback on pricing fairness and responsiveness, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out best or fair pricing and quick scheduling. Professionalism scores are pulled down meaningfully by one detailed 1-star review describing yelling, rudeness, and an unexpected late fee — a serious and specific complaint that cannot be dismissed. Project completion is generally strong, with reviewers noting quick and thorough work including physically demanding tasks like crawl space access, though the scope of work (backflow testing) is narrow and relatively simple. Experience feedback is positive but limited in depth, with reviewers praising reliability and competence without extensive technical detail. The recency of reviews is a concern, as the majority of reviews are from 2016–2020, with only one review from 2023.

• Most reviews are older than 3 years; only 1 of 10 reviews is from the past 12 months (2023). The WW Score may not reflect current performance.
• The 1-star review (2019) contains a specific, detailed account of unprofessional behavior including yelling at both the customer and her husband, calling the wrong contact, and charging an unexpected late fee. This is a credible negative signal and has been weighted accordingly in the professionalism score.
• Several 5-star reviews use brief, generic praise with limited specifics (e.g., 'Just as advertised. Very friendly'). While not conclusive, a small number of reviews show limited detail, which slightly reduces confidence in the upper end of positive scores.
• The contractor appears to specialize exclusively in backflow testing, which is a narrow, low-complexity service. Scores — particularly for experience and project completion — should be interpreted in that limited context and may not generalize to broader plumbing work.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the review base is small (10 reviews), skewed toward older dates, and includes one credible and detailed negative review that meaningfully tempers an otherwise positive picture.

Albano Contracting receives broadly positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and technical skill, with multiple reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and willingness to handle urgent situations outside normal hours. The technician Erick and owner Rob are both cited for competence and thoroughness in specific jobs such as a burst pipe repair and water heater diagnosis. However, one detailed 1-star review meaningfully drags down all dimensions — the reviewer describes a $100 charge for a 10-minute visit that amounted to adjusting a boiler dial, with no follow-through on providing an estimate or resolving the underlying issue, raising legitimate concerns about value and project completion. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with only one review from the past 12 months (February 2023), which limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance. Scores have been set conservatively to account for the negative review and the age of most data.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 of 11 reviews is from the past 12 months (February 2023). The remaining 10 reviews span 2016–2021, making it difficult to assess current performance with confidence.
• POSSIBLE GENERIC PRAISE: Several reviews use very brief, non-specific language ('best plumber on planet earth', 'honest, highly skilled, prompt and efficient', 'fast, reliable, and courteous') with no job details. These may be authentic but lack verifiable specifics and should be weighted conservatively.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW SIGNAL: One detailed 1-star review (February 2019) describes a poor experience involving minimal effort, no follow-through on an estimate, and a charge perceived as disproportionate. This is the most detailed negative data point and has been factored into all four dimension scores.
• ONE REVIEW WITH NO SERVICE RENDERED: The August 2016 review describes a cancelled appointment before any work was done. This review has been excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable performance data.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: With only 11 total reviews spanning 7+ years, the dataset is thin. Scores should be treated as indicative rather than definitive.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to low total review volume, the predominance of reviews older than 12 months, and the presence of at least one substantive negative review that tempers otherwise positive signals.

Nature Works scores well across most dimensions, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, responsiveness, technical knowledge, and follow-through on jobs including emergency heating calls and boiler diagnostics. Professionalism is consistently highlighted — reviewers mention shoe covers, courteous attitudes, clear communication, and prompt arrivals. Project completion is strong, with several reviewers noting jobs were finished quickly and correctly, including a case where a part was sourced and installed the next morning. However, pricing is the most polarizing dimension: while the majority of reviewers describe pricing as fair or reasonable, one reviewer explicitly accused the contractor of charging four times the market rate for basic work, which meaningfully drags the pricing score down and cannot be ignored.

• One significant pricing complaint (1-star review, Oct 2024) alleges charges approximately 4x higher than competitors for basic work — this is a serious outlier that materially impacts the pricing score and warrants caution.
• Two reviews posted on the same date (2024-01-09) with very similar content ('got my heat back on,' 'great pricing,' 'very professional') — these may be from the same job or could indicate coordinated review activity. Confidence in those two reviews is reduced.
• The 2023-12-17 review is vague and provides minimal detail ('Can't say enough about this father and son team') — limited usable data extracted from this review.
• Most reviews are from within the past 12 months (2024), which is a positive recency signal, though the total review count of 8 is low for high-confidence scoring.

This WW Score is based on only 8 reviews, which limits statistical reliability; the score should be treated as a reasonable early signal but not a definitive assessment, particularly given the pricing controversy and two potentially coordinated same-day reviews.

The Clogfather demonstrates strong technical competency and generally responsive service, with many customers praising professionalism, speed, and problem-solving ability. However, significant pricing concerns emerge across multiple reviews, with customers reporting overcharges, predatory pricing in emergency situations, and lack of transparency. Project completion shows mixed results—while most jobs are finished promptly, several critical failures exist including incomplete work, property damage, and failure to follow up on emergency callbacks. The company's service quality is highly inconsistent, with excellent experiences alongside serious professionalism lapses including rude staff, disrespectful behavior, and poor communication.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple independent reviews (2024-03-08, 2022-05-01, 2020-08-13, 2021-01-15) report significantly overpriced services and predatory pricing in emergency situations. One customer paid $2400 for hydro-jetting work that other plumbers confirmed was excessive. Another paid $700 for single-side drain clearing when city service costs $350.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between reviews praising 'professional' staff and reviews describing technicians as 'rude,' 'disrespectful,' 'foul-mouthed,' and making 'racist comments' (2019-12-05). This suggests either inconsistent hiring/training or significant behavioral issues with specific technicians.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete work, property damage (broken pipe, sewage flooding basement), and failure to follow up on emergency callbacks (2024-08-13, 2020-05-14). One customer reported technician left without replacing main line cap, causing sewage backup.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2019-2022 (pre-pandemic and early pandemic). Recent reviews (2024, 2023) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality has deteriorated significantly.
• PAYMENT PRESSURE: Multiple reviews mention cash-only demands, upfront $100 service fees, and aggressive payment collection practices, which may indicate financial pressure or questionable business practices.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews from 2020-2021 contain nearly identical phrasing ('Tommy was amazing/professional,' 'reasonable price,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail, though these are interspersed with detailed negative reviews, reducing likelihood of systematic fake review campaign.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 31 reviews with adequate mention counts, the company exhibits extreme inconsistency in service quality and professionalism, with recent reviews showing deterioration. The pricing dimension is particularly unreliable due to legitimate customer complaints of overcharging, and the professionalism score masks serious behavioral issues with certain technicians. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects a company in decline with significant trust and value concerns that outweigh technical competency.

This contractor receives broadly positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and workmanship, with multiple reviewers specifically praising honesty, fair pricing, and technical competence. However, professionalism and project completion scores are meaningfully dragged down by a recurring and explicit complaint about poor emergency responsiveness — at least three separate reviewers noted they could not get timely service during urgent leak situations, which is a significant concern for a plumbing business. Pricing feedback is notably positive, with specific dollar amounts cited that reviewers found surprisingly affordable. The experience dimension reflects solid skill-level praise, including problem-solving and clean workmanship, though most of this evidence comes from older reviews. The overall score is tempered by the responsiveness failures and the heavily dated nature of the review pool.

• RECENCY WARNING: The vast majority of reviews are between 13 and 18 years old (2006–2012), with only one review from the past 3 years (2022). This score should be treated with significant caution as it may not reflect current service quality.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN SUSPECTED: Six reviews dated 2006-01-30 and 2006-02-17 share nearly identical formatting (all-caps, generic praise, no specific details, same date clusters). These reviews appear potentially fabricated or artificially submitted in bulk and have been weighted conservatively.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: At least 3 reviews explicitly describe being turned away or told to wait days during active leak emergencies. This is a substantive and repeated complaint that meaningfully impacts the professionalism and project completion scores.
• ONE REVIEW (2009-05-02, 1 star) contains no actionable detail beyond a geographic refusal and was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score carries LOW-TO-MODERATE reliability due to the extreme age of most reviews, a suspected cluster of fake or bulk-submitted reviews from early 2006, and a small but meaningful pattern of emergency responsiveness failures that represent a real service risk.

All three reviews speak positively about professionalism, citing courteous behavior, responsiveness (including a late-night callback within an hour), floor protection, and follow-through after job completion. Experience and technical knowledge are explicitly praised across multiple reviews, including references to city codes, safety regulations, and honest diagnostics that saved the customer unnecessary costs. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews, with one customer describing a 'great price' and another selecting the contractor after comparing multiple estimates. Project completion is referenced in two reviews, with one noting a full boiler installation completed in a single day and another describing end-to-end handling of the job. Scores are tempered by the very small sample size of only three reviews, which limits statistical reliability.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation and results should be treated with significant caution.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews do contain specific details (late-night callback, floor protection, city code knowledge, sewer line follow-up), the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild scrutiny.
• Two of the three reviews were posted within two days of each other (2022-12-13 and 2022-12-14), which is a minor pattern worth noting. This could be coincidental but may suggest a solicited review campaign.
• No negative or mixed feedback exists in the dataset, making it impossible to assess how the contractor handles problems, disputes, or subpar outcomes.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered a preliminary signal only — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a reliable indicator of consistent contractor performance.