Find Nearby Plumbers In Hempstead, New York

Bruno Plumbing & Heating scores reasonably well on professionalism, with a large number of reviewers praising punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness — though several notable negative experiences (a technician walking off a job, failure to provide emergency service in freezing weather, and a misdiagnosis with no accountability) drag the score down meaningfully. Pricing is the single largest weakness in this dataset: across dozens of reviews spanning multiple years, customers consistently describe prices as high, excessive, or significantly above competitor quotes, with specific complaints about inflated parts costs, unexplained service fees, and refusal to offer discounts to repeat or senior customers. Project completion is generally solid — most jobs were finished and followed through — but there are documented cases of abandoned work, failed drain clearing, and a cashed check with no follow-through. Technical experience and workmanship are broadly praised, with many reviewers noting skilled, knowledgeable technicians, though the misdiagnosis incident and one unresolved pipe situation temper the score.

• A significant number of reviews (approximately 12) contain only 'unknown' or a single punctuation mark with no usable text — these were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• The majority of reviews (roughly 70 out of 82) are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2010–2016. Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2023–2024). Recency weighting significantly limits confidence in current performance.
• The most recent substantive review (April 2024, 1-star) describes a contractor cashing a check and refusing to complete work — a serious allegation that, if accurate, represents a significant integrity concern.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2010–2011 contain very brief, generic praise with no specifics ('It went very well', 'They were prompt and nice', 'It was fine') which may reflect low-effort reviews rather than fake ones, but reduces the evidentiary value of those entries.
• Pricing complaints are unusually consistent and specific across many independent reviewers spanning multiple years, suggesting a systemic pattern of high pricing rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews but is significantly undermined by recency — the overwhelming majority of data is 7–14 years old — and should be treated as a historical profile rather than a reliable indicator of current service quality.

Cox Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested area: many positive reviews praise punctuality, courteous technicians, and good communication, but multiple credible negative reviews describe a plumber refusing to do work and walking out, a missed appointment window with no apology, and a complete failure to follow up on a quoted job for nearly a month. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with several detailed and specific complaints about bait-and-switch hourly rates, charges for visits where no work was completed, and an $8,000 estimate that a competitor resolved for $300 — these are serious red flags that drag the score down significantly. Project completion is similarly split: many reviewers report jobs finished cleanly and on time, but there are credible accounts of no-shows, abandoned assessments, and one instance of shoddy shortcut work that required a costly redo. Experience scores moderately well, with several reviewers praising technical skill on complex jobs like boiler replacements and repiping, though the shortcut piping incident and the failed heating diagnosis temper confidence. The overall picture is a contractor with a capable core team but serious and recurring operational and pricing integrity problems.

• 14 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several older 5-star reviews (2011–2013) use very similar generic praise language ('great guys', 'fair', 'trustworthy') with no specifics. These may be from personal acquaintances or early reputation-building and are treated with reduced weight.
• A notable ownership/management change is referenced in a 2023 review (original owner Jimmy died, company sold). Reviews before and after this transition may reflect two meaningfully different business operations. Post-2023 reviews skew more negative.
• The bait-and-switch pricing complaint (2024) is highly specific and detailed — quoted $225/hr, billed at $337.50/hr with no prior disclosure of two-person rate — and represents a serious consumer protection concern.
• The $160 charge for a 15-20 minute visit where no repair was performed, combined with the technician's own admission ('I go to houses for two minutes, flip a switch and happily charge $200'), suggests a systemic diagnostic fee practice that is not being disclosed upfront to customers.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2023–2025) are disproportionately negative compared to the 2017–2022 period. This trend is meaningful and suggests a decline in service quality or management following the ownership transition.

This WW Score is based on 38 reviews with substantive content across a span of 14 years, with sufficient mention counts in all four dimensions to carry HIGH confidence labels, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the clear post-ownership-change decline in quality and the presence of multiple specific, credible pricing and no-show complaints in the most recent 24 months.

Universe Home Services demonstrates strong professionalism with punctual, courteous technicians who communicate clearly and explain work thoroughly. However, the company is significantly undermined by widespread pricing concerns—customers consistently report charges 2-10x higher than market rates, with evidence of aggressive upselling and predatory practices, particularly in AC/heating repairs. Project completion is generally solid with good follow-through, though some customers report multiple visits for the same issue. Technical expertise is evident, but pricing practices create substantial trust deficits that overshadow operational strengths.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing abuse pattern. Multiple detailed complaints (50+) document charges of $600-$3,500 for parts costing $20-$250. Examples: $725 for $66 capacitor (11x markup), $3,200 for $250 motor (13x markup), $2,800 for $58 valve (48x markup). This suggests intentional price gouging, not market variation.
• PREDATORY SALES TACTICS: Documented pattern of technicians recommending unnecessary replacements (entire AC units when only repairs needed), then salespeople following up with inflated quotes. Multiple customers report being told systems 'must be replaced' when competitors fixed same issue for 10-20% of quoted price.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCENTRATION: Highly suspicious clustering of 80+ nearly-identical 5-star reviews (June 2025, May 2025) with generic praise ('very professional,' 'highly recommend,' 'great job') and minimal specifics. Repetitive phrasing across reviews suggests artificial inflation. These reviews lack the detailed narratives present in legitimate negative reviews.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH ESTIMATES: Multiple complaints that estimates given over phone differ dramatically from final bills. Service calls quoted as $110-$150 become $400-$600+ after technician assessment.
• POOR ACCOUNTABILITY: Numerous complaints of no-shows, cancellations without notice, and management refusing callbacks. Service contract holders report being deprioritized despite paying annual fees.
• WARRANTY MISREPRESENTATION: Customers report being told warranties cover work when they don't, or warranty periods being shorter than promised (3 months vs. 1 year).
• INSTALLATION QUALITY ISSUES: Multiple reports of defective installations requiring 3-6 return visits to fix (AC units leaking, gas leaks, reversed wiring, improper connections). One customer reported 20 visits for single AC installation.
• GENDER-BASED TARGETING: Multiple female customers report being condescended to, 'mansplained,' or charged differently than male customers for identical work.
• RECENCY BIAS: Negative reviews cluster in 2023-2024 (recent), while positive reviews cluster in 2012-2015 and suspicious 2025 batch. Suggests company practices have deteriorated or review manipulation is recent.

This WW Score should be treated with EXTREME CAUTION. While the 68.2 reflects genuine operational competence in professionalism and experience, it is severely distorted by systematic pricing abuse that constitutes potential fraud. The 50+ detailed, specific complaints about 5-20x markups, combined with documented predatory sales tactics and suspicious clustering of generic 5-star reviews, indicate the company engages in intentional consumer exploitation. The score does not reflect the actual risk to consumers, which is substantially higher than the number suggests. Customers should obtain independent quotes before engaging this company and verify all pricing claims with third parties.

Doodyman to the Rescue shows significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While professionalism scores reasonably well (71) with many positive mentions of punctuality, politeness, and cleanliness, this is heavily undermined by severe pricing concerns (48). Numerous reviews document aggressive upselling, bait-and-switch tactics, and quotes 2-5x higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion (65) is compromised by multiple reports of incomplete work, failed repairs requiring callbacks, and warranty disputes. Experience (68) reflects mixed technical competency—some reviews praise skilled technicians, while others document misdiagnosis, incompetent work, and damage to customer property. The company's pattern of high-pressure sales tactics combined with inconsistent workmanship creates substantial trust issues.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing abuse documented across 32+ reviews. Pattern includes: advertised low prices ($75) followed by 3-5x markup at job site, aggressive upselling of unnecessary services (camera inspections, full line replacements), and refusal to honor quoted prices.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reports of misdiagnosis and incompetent work. Examples include: claiming collapsed pipes when none existed, recommending $6,000 jobs that competitors completed for $250-$350, and failing to properly diagnose actual problems.
• CRITICAL: Warranty disputes and refusal to honor guarantees. At least 5 reviews document company refusing to honor 10-year warranties on sewer work, claiming new problems despite identical symptoms.
• CRITICAL: Property damage and unprofessional behavior. Multiple reviews document: feces left in customer homes/businesses, broken toilets and fixtures, damaged personal items, and verbally abusive/threatening behavior by technicians.
• CRITICAL: Failure to complete work properly. Multiple reviews document: work requiring immediate callbacks, pipes broken during installation, leaks after repair, and incomplete installations.
• Pattern of fake or suspicious reviews: Approximately 25-30 reviews contain generic 5-star praise with minimal detail (e.g., empty reviews, single-sentence praise). However, these are balanced by detailed negative reviews with specific dollar amounts and technical details, suggesting some authenticity to complaints.
• Recency concern: Most recent reviews (2025) show continued pricing complaints and service issues, indicating problems are ongoing, not historical.
• Potential bait-and-switch business model: Consistent pattern across decades of reviews suggests systematic practice of low advertised pricing followed by dramatic markup and upselling.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be treated as a STRONG WARNING SIGNAL. Despite HIGH confidence based on 104 reviews, the score reflects a company with serious systemic issues in pricing transparency and work quality. The abundance of detailed negative reviews documenting specific financial harm, misdiagnosis, and property damage—many from different time periods and geographic areas—suggests these are not isolated incidents but rather consistent business practices. Customers should exercise extreme caution and obtain multiple independent quotes before engaging this company.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Professionalism scores are dragged down by serious communication failures (no callback on emergency service) and unprofessional billing practices (bait-and-switch pricing, overcharging). However, positive reviews praise politeness, timeliness, and expertise in specialized areas like steam heat systems. Pricing is a major concern with multiple reviews documenting questionable charges and lack of transparency. Project completion and experience dimensions are supported by positive feedback on quality work, but the limited mention count and recency issues (most positive reviews are 3+ years old) reduce confidence.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple reviews (Jan 2024, May 2022) document billing discrepancies and overcharging. Jan 2024 review shows quoted $257 but charged $426 (66% markup). May 2022 review documents $656.50 charge for consultation only with no actual repair work performed.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Nov 2022 review documents complete failure to callback on emergency service (hot water heater), forcing customer to hire competitor.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are dated 2019-2022 (3-5 years old). Most recent reviews (2024, 2022) are negative or mixed, suggesting potential service quality decline.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Sharp contrast between glowing testimonials (5-star, praising integrity and professionalism) and detailed negative experiences (1-2 star, documenting deception and poor service). This inconsistency warrants caution.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While based on 7 reviews with usable data, the stark polarization between positive and negative feedback, combined with documented billing fraud in recent reviews and communication failures, suggests the contractor's service quality or business practices may be unreliable. The positive reviews are significantly older, which may not reflect current operations.

This contractor exhibits a stark and troubling pattern of inconsistency. Early reviews (2008–2010) consistently praise professionalism, punctuality, skill, and fair pricing, with multiple clients highlighting reliability and craftsmanship. However, reviews from 2011 onward reveal a dramatic deterioration: no-shows without notice, failure to confirm appointments, avoidance of communication, unprofessional behavior including yelling at clients and elderly tenants, and retaliatory actions (throwing concrete powder down drains, removing fixtures). Project completion scores are severely impacted by abandonment, non-responsiveness, and incomplete work. While technical skill remains evident in positive reviews, the contractor's behavioral and reliability issues—particularly in recent years—substantially undermine overall trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL: Temporal pattern suggests genuine decline in service quality. Early reviews (2008–2010) are uniformly positive and detailed; later reviews (2011–2016) are uniformly negative with specific complaints about no-shows, communication failure, and hostile behavior. This is NOT a fake review pattern but evidence of real deterioration.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent substantive review (2016) describes severe behavioral issues including yelling at elderly tenant, deliberate property damage, and abandonment of work. This is the most recent detailed account and paints a very negative picture.
• INCONSISTENCY RED FLAG: The contractor appears to have been reliable and professional for approximately 2–3 years (2008–2010), then experienced a sharp decline coinciding with personal business ventures (restaurant partnership mentioned in 2016 review). This suggests external factors may have affected service quality.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Multiple reviews cite failure to confirm appointments, non-responsiveness to emails/calls, and avoidance of contact. This is a recurring theme in negative reviews.
• BEHAVIORAL ESCALATION: Reviews show progression from minor reliability issues (2011–2013) to serious behavioral problems including verbal abuse and property damage (2016).

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on substantial data (18 reviews), the extreme polarization between early positive reviews and later negative reviews, combined with the most recent review describing serious misconduct, suggests the contractor's current reliability is significantly lower than the overall score indicates. The 2016 review is the most recent substantive account and should be weighted heavily in any hiring decision. This contractor appears to have been trustworthy in 2008–2010 but is NOT recommended based on 2011–2016 evidence.