Find Nearby Plumbers In Hempstead, New York

All In One Home Repairs shows a genuinely mixed track record across reviews. Positive experiences highlight responsive communication, fair pricing, and skilled individual workers like Christina and Sal, while serious negative reviews describe abandoned jobs lasting months, rude behavior, unresolved work, and allegations of fraud and unpaid subcontractors. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by the late/attitude incident, the permit expediter fraud allegation, and the ghost-job complaint from Virginia. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with at least two reviews describing jobs that were never finished or left in worse condition than before. The cluster of 9 reviews all dated 2019-06-11 with identical formatting, no specifics, and uniformly 5-star ratings is a strong indicator of fake or solicited reviews, which substantially reduces confidence in the positive signal.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: 9 reviews all share the exact date of 2019-06-11, are uniformly 5-star, use generic praise with no specific details (worker names, job descriptions, addresses), and follow nearly identical sentence structures. This pattern is highly consistent with bulk-submitted or solicited fake reviews. These reviews have been included in scoring but confidence is reduced accordingly.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT — ABANDONED JOB: One reviewer (Virginia, Jan 2021) describes a job contracted in July that was still incomplete in January of the following year, with unreturned calls, unfinished walls, holes in the porch ceiling, and no central air. This is a significant project completion failure.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT — ALLEGED FRAUD: One reviewer (July 2021) describes the permit expediting service as 'plain fraud,' citing no receipt for deposit, no work performed, and rude behavior when a refund was requested.
• NEGATIVE COMPLAINT — UNQUALIFIED WORKERS AND UNPAID SUBCONTRACTORS: One reviewer (Nov 2020) alleges the company hires unqualified workers and does not pay subcontractors, and warns customers to stay away.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most detailed and credible reviews (both positive and negative) are from 2020–2021. The single 2023 review is positive but brief. Most substantive data is 2–4 years old. The 2019 cluster is flagged as likely fake. Score reliability is moderate given age of data.
• MIXED INDIVIDUAL WORKER QUALITY: Reviews suggest significant variance in worker quality. Christina and Sal received strong individual praise, while at least one unnamed technician was described as disheveled, late, and rude. Company-level scores may mask this inconsistency.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the presence of a suspected fake review cluster inflates positive signals, while multiple serious complaints about abandoned work, alleged fraud, and unqualified workers represent material risks that any prospective customer should weigh carefully before hiring.

Three of four reviews describe positive experiences with punctuality, polite communication, and fair pricing, which supports moderate scores in professionalism and pricing. However, one highly detailed 1-star review from 2018 describes a technician collecting payment and abandoning the job entirely — leaving a family without hot water and going completely unreachable — which is a serious project completion failure that significantly drags down that dimension. The positive reviews span from 2017 to 2024, with only one recent review (2024), making it difficult to assess current service quality with confidence. Overall, the small review pool and one severe negative incident prevent a high WW Score despite the otherwise favorable feedback.

• Only 4 total reviews — sample size is very small and scores should be treated with caution.
• One serious abandonment complaint (2018): technician 'Mike' collected $60 and left without completing diagnosis or returning calls, leaving children in a home without hot water. This is a significant project completion failure.
• Three of the four positive reviews are dated 2017–2019, making them 5–7 years old. Only one review is recent (2024). Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific names, details, and varied language, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to an extremely small review pool of only 4 reviews, a significant gap in recent feedback, and one serious unresolved complaint that materially impacts the project completion dimension.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Professionalism scores are dragged down by a critical no-show incident and poor communication, though some reviews praise courtesy and responsiveness. Pricing is viewed favorably where mentioned, but project completion is severely compromised by one detailed account of multiple installation failures (wrong unit type, rotted floors, improper plumbing, repeated callbacks). Experience ratings reflect mixed quality—some reviews cite knowledgeable work, but the heating/air installation failure suggests serious technical gaps. The 6+ year age of most reviews limits current reliability assessment.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 4 of 5 reviews are older than 6 years (2015–2016). Only 1 review from past 3 years. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• CRITICAL QUALITY ISSUE: One detailed 1-star review (2021) documents multiple serious failures: wrong unit installed, structural damage (rotted floors), improper plumbing work, and repeated failed callbacks. This is not a minor complaint and significantly undermines experience and completion scores.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: One review praises professionalism and courtesy; another (2016) documents a no-show with inadequate notice and poor communication from ownership. This suggests inconsistent service delivery.
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS NAME VARIATION: Reviews reference both 'Corey McGee' and 'Magee Bros'—may be same company or related entities. Unclear if all reviews apply to same business.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 1 review in past 3 years) and a serious documented project failure that raises questions about current quality control and technical competency.

Tim Daniels Plumbing shows a deeply polarized performance pattern. Positive reviews (5 total, mostly 2018-2022) consistently praise technical skill, quality workmanship, and professionalism on completed jobs. However, negative reviews (7 total, spanning 2014-2023) reveal severe and recurring professionalism failures: non-responsiveness to inquiries, missed appointments without notification, poor follow-through on callbacks, and alleged aggressive legal intimidation tactics. The company demonstrates strong execution capability when jobs proceed, but systematic failures in communication, reliability, and customer service responsiveness significantly undermine overall trustworthiness. Pricing appears fair when disclosed, but transparency issues and incomplete work documentation create concern.

• SEVERE PATTERN: 7 of 12 reviews (58%) report critical professionalism failures—non-responsiveness, missed appointments, no-shows without notification, and failure to return calls. This is not isolated; it is systemic.
• LEGAL INTIMIDATION ALLEGATION: Review from 2014-03-05 reports owner sent threatening fax with attorney contact information in response to negative review, attempting to suppress customer feedback. This raises serious ethical concerns.
• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Review from 2014-02-15 alleges customer was billed ~$1,600 for unnecessary boiler replacement when only $165 wiring repair was needed. Reviewer reports multiple other customers in night court with similar complaints against this company.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Negative reviews span from 2014 to 2023, indicating problems are not historical—most recent negative review is from 2023-11-07 (no-show/non-responsive). Positive reviews cluster in 2018-2022 but have not continued recently.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: When jobs are completed, workmanship and technical knowledge are praised (5-star ratings). However, execution is unreliable and customer service is poor, suggesting owner/crew quality varies significantly or communication/scheduling systems are broken.
• BBB ACCREDITATION ISSUE: Review from 2017-10-19 documents that company falsely claimed BBB Accreditation on website when BBB records showed business was NOT accredited and had lost accreditation status.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the WW Score of 56.8 reflects the mixed data, the underlying pattern is more concerning than the number suggests: the company has a documented history of non-responsiveness, missed appointments, and alleged fraudulent billing spanning nearly a decade, with the most recent incident in November 2023. Positive reviews reflect good technical work on completed jobs, but the systematic failure to communicate, show up, or follow through on commitments represents a critical business risk. Customers should expect significant friction in scheduling and communication even if final work quality is acceptable.

Intercity Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2015–2020. While positive reviews praise professionalism, competitive pricing, and technical expertise (particularly under technician Kamal), multiple negative reviews document serious failures in project completion, including improper boiler installation, unresolved leaks, poor workmanship, and failure to show up or return calls. The company's responsiveness and follow-through are major weaknesses, with several customers reporting cancelled appointments and no callbacks. Experience quality varies dramatically depending on whether a licensed master plumber or an assistant performed the work. The WW Score reflects this volatility: strong marks for pricing and experience when work is completed properly, but severely undermined by completion failures and professionalism lapses.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2015–2020; only one review from 2020 is recent. Limited current data on whether company has improved.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews (praising Kamal specifically) and 1-star reviews (documenting shoddy work, no-shows, and unresolved issues). Suggests quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned.
• CRITICAL FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviews document incomplete project resolution—leaks not fixed, boiler improperly mounted, callbacks not honored. This directly impacts Project Completion score.
• RESPONSIVENESS RED FLAG: At least 3 reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls or show up for scheduled appointments, indicating systemic communication/reliability issues.
• REVIEW #5 (2019-02-21): Appears to be off-topic philosophical commentary with minimal actionable feedback; treated as neutral/low-signal data.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to age of data (most reviews 2015–2020) and high volatility in customer experience. The score reflects documented patterns of inconsistent workmanship and poor follow-through, but lacks recent reviews to assess whether the company has addressed these issues. Recommend requesting current references before hiring.

This contractor shows a deeply polarized performance profile. Three recent positive reviews (Nov-Dec 2022) praise responsiveness, transparency, and technical skill, suggesting genuine competence. However, two damaging reviews from Jan-Feb 2023 describe catastrophic failures: creating heating system damage, leaving gas valve connections dangerously loose, and charging excessive emergency fees to fix problems the contractor caused. The positive reviews lack specificity about actual outcomes, while negative reviews provide detailed evidence of safety hazards and financial harm. The contractor's identity confusion (Gee HVAC vs. Granty Topline) in one review raises additional credibility concerns. Overall, the evidence suggests inconsistent quality with serious safety and ethical lapses.

• CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE: Two reviews describe dangerous conditions created during service (boiler flooding, gas leak from improperly secured valve connection). One review explicitly states National Grid confirmed gas leak originated from contractor's work.
• ETHICAL CONCERN: Contractor allegedly charged $425 emergency fee to fix problems he created, and initially refused to address safety hazard without additional payment.
• IDENTITY DISCREPANCY: One review notes receipt showed 'Granty Topline Services' instead of expected 'Gee HVAC Services,' with reviewer reporting Granty Topline has 1-star reviews online.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Positive reviews are from Nov-Dec 2022 (generic praise, limited detail). Negative reviews are from Jan-Feb 2023 (specific, detailed accounts of failures). This temporal pattern suggests possible deterioration in service quality or accountability.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing testimonials and accounts of safety-critical failures suggests either highly variable performance or potential review authenticity issues.

This score should be treated with caution. While the MODERATE confidence reflects adequate mention counts, the extreme polarization between reviews and serious safety allegations in recent reports significantly undermine overall trustworthiness; the positive reviews lack specificity while negative reviews provide detailed evidence of harm, suggesting the lower score may actually understate risk.