Find Nearby Plumbers In New Rochelle, New York

Freddy demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous behavior across multiple reviews. His pricing is repeatedly praised as fair and reasonable, often beating competitor quotes. Technical expertise is evident through diagnostic accuracy and quality workmanship on complex plumbing and renovation projects. However, a critical 1-star review from December 2022 documents a severe failure in project completion and follow-through: a promised urgent callback never materialized, and the customer was ghosted for a week. This incident significantly impacts the project completion score despite otherwise positive completion records in other reviews.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2022-12-03) reports no-show and ghosting on an urgent callback, directly contradicting the 'reliable' and 'responsive' claims in other reviews. This suggests inconsistent service quality or possible operational issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 10 of 12 reviews are from 2021 or earlier. Only 2 reviews are from 2024 and 2022. The most recent negative review is from December 2022, nearly 2 years old. Current service quality is unclear.
• PATTERN OBSERVATION: The 2022 negative review mentions 'traveling fixer upper' with family in vehicle, suggesting possible operational changes or inconsistency in service delivery model.
• MINOR: Spelling inconsistency in contractor name (Freddy vs. Fredy) across reviews, but this does not indicate fake reviews—likely just customer variation.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency issues (most data from 2021) and one documented service failure that contradicts the otherwise positive narrative; the WW Score reflects historical performance but may not represent current reliability.

Bunce Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and explicitly mentioned quality — reviewers highlight responsiveness, punctuality in emergencies, friendliness, and the convenience of texting the owner directly. Pricing is noted favorably in multiple reviews, with specific praise for honoring estimates even when unexpected additional work arose, which is a strong concrete signal of fair and transparent pricing. Project completion is supported by at least three reviews referencing jobs that were fully finished, including a complex oil-to-gas conversion that passed village inspection, though most reviews are relatively brief and do not go into granular detail about follow-through. Experience and workmanship are praised in general terms across several reviews, with one detailed account of skilled multi-trade work providing the strongest concrete evidence. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool and the age of the reviews, the majority of which are more than two years old.

• All 5 reviews carry a 5-star rating with no negative feedback of any kind — while not conclusive, this warrants mild caution.
• Review language is varied and specific enough across most entries to suggest authenticity, but the small sample size limits confidence.
• RECENCY WARNING: All 5 reviews are older than 12 months as of 2024; the most recent is from February 2022 and the oldest from August 2018. No recent reviews are available to confirm current service quality.
• Only 5 total reviews analyzed — scores should be treated as directional indicators rather than statistically robust conclusions.

This WW Score is directionally positive but should be treated with moderate caution due to the very small review pool of only 5 reviews, all of which are over two years old, limiting confidence in how well they reflect the contractor's current performance.

Larchmont Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous communication across 18 reviews. Technical expertise is well-documented with 12 mentions of knowledgeable, high-quality workmanship. However, project completion reliability is compromised by multiple documented failures to follow through (4 reviews citing no-shows, cancellations, or abandoned work), lowering that dimension to 76. Pricing feedback is mixed: while several reviews praise competitive rates, others report aggressive upselling and lack of transparency, resulting in a 72 score. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects solid fundamentals undermined by inconsistent follow-through and pricing concerns.

• CRITICAL: First review (2019-06-21) alleges the business is a scam operating under false identity, claiming unlicensed plumbers from Queens impersonating legitimate Larchmont Plumbing. This is a serious fraud allegation that contradicts the positive long-term customer narrative in other reviews. This suggests either: (a) the business was compromised/rebranded at some point, or (b) the complaint is misdirected. This creates significant trust uncertainty.
• Multiple generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail ('great', 'unknown', single word praise) from 2012-2016 period suggest possible review padding or low-effort positive submissions, though not definitively fake.
• Recency concern: 28 of 37 reviews are from 2007-2013 (10+ years old). Only 1 review from past 12 months. Recent review data is severely limited, making current reliability assessment difficult.
• Inconsistency pattern: Strong positive reviews from long-term customers (15 years, multiple jobs) contrast sharply with 4 documented failures to show up or complete work (2010, 2012, 2013). This suggests service quality may be inconsistent or dependent on workload/dispatcher.
• One review (2012-06-09) explicitly criticizes dispatch system where customers cannot guarantee same plumber, raising quality control concerns.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While historical data (2007-2013) shows strong performance, the 2019 fraud allegation is unresolved and severely undermines trust; the extreme age of most reviews (10+ years) limits relevance to current operations; and documented no-show/cancellation incidents reveal a pattern of unreliability in follow-through. The score reflects past performance but may not represent current business practices or legitimacy. Verification of business licensing and recent customer references is strongly recommended before engaging.

All four reviews are recent (July–August 2024) and consistently praise CGK Plumbing & Heating across multiple dimensions. Professionalism scores highest, with explicit mentions of punctuality, respectful workers, clear communication, and timely updates from office staff. Pricing is described as reasonable across three reviews, though no specific figures or comparisons are provided to fully validate value claims. Project completion is supported by references to timely job execution and proper cleanup, though no complex or long-duration projects are described. Experience is noted through mentions of knowledgeability and effective problem-solving, but the jobs described appear relatively routine, limiting the depth of evidence.

• Only 4 reviews total — insufficient volume to establish a reliable pattern; WW Score should be treated as preliminary.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language; while not conclusively fake, the absence of any criticism or nuance warrants mild caution.
• Two reviews share the same date (2024-07-19), which may indicate a batch submission — monitor for authenticity.
• Review 3 (2024-07-19) is very brief and generic with no specific details, reducing its evidentiary value.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be considered a preliminary signal rather than a definitive assessment — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted with confidence.

Call The Bee (formerly Aqueduct Services) presents a deeply mixed picture across its review history. Individual technicians — particularly Carlos, Steven, Michael, Nick, Orrett, and Mike — are frequently praised for professionalism, thoroughness, and communication, which drives the professionalism and experience scores into moderate territory. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension: a large and consistent body of reviews spanning multiple years describes quotes that are dramatically above market rate, bait-and-switch tactics, non-refundable dispatch fees, and high-pressure upselling, resulting in one of the lowest pricing scores possible. Project completion is also undermined by repeated complaints about missed appointments, no-shows, failure to follow up after visits, and at least one case where a multi-visit job was never resolved. The overall WW Score of 62.1 reflects a company with capable field technicians but serious systemic issues in pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and customer follow-through.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on two different dates (2025-05-10 and 2025-05-07), including the detailed 1-star complaint and several 5-star reviews. This inflates review count and may distort scoring. Duplicates were identified and counted only once per unique review for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN SUSPECTED: Several 5-star reviews contain only a technician first name and a single generic sentence (e.g., 'Carlos was great!', 'Mike was great!', 'Awesome experience'). These lack specifics and may be solicited or fabricated reviews. Confidence in the positive signals is reduced accordingly.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 12 reviews contain no text — only a star rating (mostly 5 stars). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND CONSISTENT: Multiple independent reviewers across a span of years (2013–2025) describe quotes that were 2x to 10x above market rate, with specific dollar amounts cited. This is not isolated — it represents a systemic pattern. The pricing score of 28 reflects this strongly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with usable content are from 2024–2025 and are within the past 12 months, which is a positive signal for recency weighting. However, the pricing and no-show complaints also appear in recent reviews, indicating these issues have not been resolved.
• SCHEDULING AND FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple reviews across different years describe canceled appointments, no-shows without notification, and technicians who never called back after visits. This is a recurring operational failure, not an isolated incident.
• COMPETENCE CONCERN: At least one detailed review (2023) describes 7 failed visits for a plumbing venting issue that was never resolved, with the reviewer concluding technicians lacked the expertise to solve the problem. A separate 2018 review alleges a technician may have deliberately misdiagnosed an HVAC system. These are serious flags on the experience dimension.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, suspected solicited 5-star reviews, and a well-documented pattern of pricing complaints that is both severe and consistent across many independent reviewers.

Comfort Control exhibits significant inconsistency across service quality dimensions. While recent reviews (2024, 2023) praise professionalism, responsiveness, and technical knowledge, older reviews (2006-2019) reveal persistent problems with pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and follow-through. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented unprofessional behavior, late arrivals, and rude staff interactions. Pricing is a major weakness, with multiple customers reporting bills 2-3X higher than quoted estimates, double-billing practices, and overcharges for parts and labor. Project completion suffers from missed appointments, incomplete work, and warranty service failures. The company shows capability in technical execution but fails consistently in customer service delivery and business practices.

• CRITICAL: Severe pricing complaints across multiple years (2016, 2013, 2014, 2009) with documented evidence of flat-rate overbilling, double-billing overlapping services, and quotes that bear no relation to final invoices. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: Most recent reviews (2024, 2023) are highly positive, but reviews from 2006-2019 show consistent negative patterns. The company may have improved recently, but historical data suggests caution.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document rude staff, poor attitudes, late arrivals, and disrespectful treatment of customers' time. One review specifically names 'Remy' as unprofessional and crass.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY: Repeated failures to honor appointment times, no-shows without notice, and inability to schedule service for months despite warranty obligations.
• TECHNICAL COMPETENCE QUESTIONS: One review documents misdiagnosis (pilot assembly vs. loose wires), another shows sloppy wiring, and a third documents installing undersized replacement compressor (5-ton vs. 6-ton ordered).
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple customers report being charged for warranty-period service and having warranty work delayed or refused.
• CONSUMER COMPLAINTS: At least two reviews mention involvement of consumer protection agencies (NY Attorney General, Westchester County Consumer Affairs, Department of Consumer Affairs).

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to significant temporal inconsistency in the data. Recent reviews suggest possible improvement, but the weight of historical evidence (14+ years of complaints about pricing, scheduling, and professionalism) indicates systemic business practice issues that may not have been fully resolved. The WW Score of 54.8 reflects a company with technical capability but serious customer service and ethical concerns.