Find Nearby Plumbers In New Rochelle, New York

Expert Services exhibits significant inconsistency across all dimensions, with a concerning pattern of decline over time. While some customers report professional, timely service and quality workmanship (particularly in earlier reviews from 2005-2013), the majority of recent and mid-period reviews document serious issues: chronic non-responsiveness, missed appointments, incomplete repairs requiring multiple callbacks, and aggressive pricing practices. Pricing emerges as the weakest dimension, with repeated complaints of extreme markups (parts marked up 8-16x retail cost), hidden charges, and refusal to negotiate or provide discounts. Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete work, failed repairs, and lack of accountability. Professionalism scores reflect mixed technician behavior—some courteous and punctual, others rude and dismissive—alongside systemic communication failures and unresolved billing disputes.

• CRITICAL: Strong evidence of business decline. Early reviews (2005-2007) are predominantly positive (5-star); reviews from 2007 onward show dramatic deterioration, suggesting ownership/management change or operational collapse.
• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews document extreme parts markups (e.g., $12 part charged at $100; $55 part charged at $129; $280 control board for $100 part). This is not isolated—it is systematic.
• UNRESOLVED BILLING DISPUTES: Review from 2011 documents $11,367.45 duplicate invoice that company refused to refund despite repeated appeals. Review from 2018 documents unauthorized recurring charges after customer moved, with promised refunds never issued. Review from 2007 documents warranty disputes and credit card chargebacks.
• REPEATED INCOMPLETE REPAIRS: Multiple reviews (2014 washing machine repair required 5 visits; 2007 toilet repair failed and had to be redone by competitor; 2007 heater repair required 3 visits with warranty disputes) indicate systemic inability to diagnose and complete work correctly.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Chronic pattern of unanswered calls, voicemail ignored, no-shows, late arrivals without notification, and refusal to return calls post-payment. This appears across multiple reviews spanning 2007-2018.
• ACCOUNTABILITY AVOIDANCE: Multiple reviews document technicians blaming customers for problems, refusing to accept responsibility for damage (e.g., 2014 dryer vent piping damage blamed on birds), and company refusing to negotiate or offer goodwill adjustments.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2007-2018 period. Most recent reviews (2018) are extremely negative. Oldest positive reviews (2005-2006) are now 17+ years old and may not reflect current operations.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Two reviews (2016-01-27 and 2015-02-12) are marked 'unknown' or contain generic praise with no specifics and no dates, suggesting possible fake positive reviews inserted to offset negative feedback.

This WW Score of 48.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 33 substantive reviews with consistent, detailed evidence across all dimensions. The pattern of decline from 2005-2018, combined with documented billing fraud, repeated incomplete repairs, and systematic pricing abuse, indicates serious and ongoing operational problems. This company should be approached with extreme caution.

Chaim Cohen Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across nearly every dimension analyzed. Professionalism is the most critically damaged dimension, with 10 or more reviews explicitly describing the owner as rude, overbearing, verbally abusive, threatening, and dismissive — including a reported instance of misogynistic language and legal threats against a reviewer. Pricing is consistently flagged as excessive and non-transparent, with multiple reviewers citing charges they considered unreasonable for the scope of work performed. Project completion is mixed at best: a small number of positive reviews describe competent, thorough work, but multiple reviews describe abandoned jobs, faulty installations never corrected, and a contractor who removed his name from permits years after project completion. Technical experience shows a similar split — a handful of satisfied customers praise the quality of work, while several others describe dangerous or substandard installations requiring correction by other contractors.

• ATTITUDE PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years (2014, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2024, 2025) independently describe the owner as rude, overbearing, and dismissive — this is a consistent and credible behavioral pattern, not isolated incidents.
• LEGAL THREAT FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the owner threatened legal action if a negative review was posted. This is a significant red flag regarding business ethics and transparency.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer describes a $20,000 heating system installation that failed in freezing temperatures (22°F), with the company refusing to respond without a $500 fee. The customer reportedly had to manually ignite the furnace themselves, creating a serious safety hazard.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: At least two reviews describe work that was left incomplete or improperly completed, with the contractor refusing to return or take responsibility.
• PERMIT REMOVAL FLAG: One reviewer states the contractor removed his name from permits five years after job completion — a potential legal and ethical violation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) continue to reflect the same negative patterns seen in reviews dating back to 2014, suggesting no meaningful improvement in business conduct over more than a decade.
• POSITIVE REVIEW SCRUTINY: The three 5-star reviews are sparse in specific detail relative to the volume of negative reviews and may reflect outlier experiences or personality compatibility rather than consistent service quality. One 5-star reviewer explicitly speculates that negative experiences may be due to 'a clash of personalities,' which is inconsistent with the volume and severity of complaints.
• RECENCY WEIGHTING: Reviews from 2014–2019 were given reduced weight relative to 2024–2025 reviews, though the behavioral patterns are consistent across all years.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews spanning over a decade with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, and the score of approximately 28 should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's documented performance — the consistency of negative feedback across time, reviewers, and dimensions significantly increases confidence in this low score.

This contractor receives a critically low WW Score of 24.8, driven by severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is the primary failure point, with all five reviews documenting rude staff, non-responsive communication, missed appointments, and broken promises. Project completion is severely compromised, with multiple reviews reporting incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and refusals to honor callbacks. Pricing concerns appear in three reviews, with customers reporting inflated costs and lack of transparency. The only modest bright spot is experience, where two reviews acknowledge the plumber's technical competence when present, but this cannot offset systemic operational failures.

• CRITICAL: All five reviews are 1-star ratings (four explicit 1.0 ratings, one 3.0 that is highly negative). This is not a fake review pattern but rather a genuine pattern of severe customer dissatisfaction.
• BUSINESS MODEL ISSUE: Multiple reviews (3 of 5) explicitly identify this as a 'referral service' or 'clearing house' that farms out work to random plumbers, creating accountability and consistency problems.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Consistent pattern across reviews of non-responsive staff, unreturned calls, bounced emails, and failure to provide direct contact information.
• SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple reviews document missed appointments, last-minute cancellations due to 'family emergencies,' and failure to notify customers of changes.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Two reviews explicitly document jobs left unfinished or non-functional, with refusal to complete work without additional payment.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2014-2019, with most older than 5 years. However, the 2019 review shows the same pattern persists, suggesting systemic issues are not recent anomalies.
• NO FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Despite uniformly negative ratings, reviews contain specific, detailed complaints with different scenarios and legitimate grievances. This appears to be genuine poor service, not fabricated reviews.

This WW Score of 24.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on five detailed reviews with consistent patterns of failure across professionalism, completion, and pricing, with HIGH confidence in the professionalism dimension (5 mentions) and MODERATE confidence in pricing and completion (3-4 mentions each). The uniformly negative feedback reflects genuine systemic operational failures rather than isolated incidents or fake reviews.

This contractor's review set is small (4 reviews) and spans 2016–2020, meaning all reviews are older than 4 years and carry reduced recency weight. Professionalism is severely damaged by two explicit negative accounts: one describing staff as rude, dismissive, and hanging up on customers, and another describing the company as unreachable despite advertising 24/7 availability — both are serious failures. The two positive reviews (from 2016 and 2017) describe fast response times and a plumber who communicated well and solved the problem, which partially supports project completion and experience scores, but these are outweighed by the more recent and more damaging negative accounts. Pricing received a single positive mention of affordability, yielding a conservative LIMITED-confidence score. Overall, the pattern suggests a business with inconsistent service quality and notable professionalism concerns.

• All 4 reviews are older than 4 years (most recent: March 2020); no recent data is available to assess current service quality.
• The two positive reviews (2016, 2017) are the oldest in the set and use somewhat generic praise language with limited specifics, which slightly reduces their reliability.
• The business advertises 24/7 availability but one reviewer explicitly documented being unable to reach anyone on a Saturday evening — a direct contradiction of the business name and a significant trust concern.
• Small sample size of only 4 reviews means all dimension scores carry LOW overall reliability regardless of confidence label assigned per dimension.

This WW Score should be treated as very low reliability due to the extremely small review sample (4 reviews), the age of all reviews (none within the past 4 years), and the presence of serious, specific professionalism complaints that significantly drag down the overall score.

The overwhelming majority of reviews across all four dimensions are deeply negative, painting a consistent picture of a contractor with serious ethical and operational failures. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated no-shows, broken promises, rude owner interactions, and threatening behavior toward customers who questioned charges. Pricing is the single most condemned dimension, with numerous reviewers independently describing charges that were two to five times higher than competitors, unauthorized card charges, and bait-and-switch pricing tactics. Project completion is critically undermined by multiple accounts of work that failed within days, refusal to honor callbacks, and one detailed account of a boiler installation so negligent that a subsequent contractor described it as 'completely negligent and irresponsibly done.' Experience scores marginally higher only because a small number of reviews (3 out of 18) describe satisfactory or positive outcomes, but even these are outweighed by accounts of incorrect installations flagged by the gas company and fundamental technical errors. The rare positive reviews are sparse, older, and lack the specificity seen in the negative reviews.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR SOLICITED REVIEWS: The 3 five-star reviews (out of 18 total) are notably brief, generic, and lack the operational detail present in nearly all negative reviews. Two of the three positive reviews are from 2012 and 2015, making them over 8 years old and of very limited relevance to current performance.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2022–2023) are all 1-star and describe the same patterns of dishonesty and overcharging seen in reviews going back to 2013, suggesting no improvement over time.
• UNAUTHORIZED CHARGES: At least two reviews explicitly describe unauthorized credit card charges, which may constitute fraud and goes beyond typical contractor complaints.
• PATTERN OF PREDATORY PRICING: Multiple independent reviewers describe being quoted prices 3–6x higher than market rate, with at least one reviewer targeting elderly/senior customers, suggesting a systemic and deliberate pricing strategy rather than isolated incidents.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe the owner personally engaging in rude, threatening, or dishonest behavior, indicating the problems are structural and not limited to individual technicians.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One review describes an installation so incorrect that the gas company had to shut off gas immediately upon inspection — a potential safety hazard that elevates the severity of the experience failures beyond mere dissatisfaction.

This WW Score is based on 18 reviews with strong cross-dimensional coverage and a highly consistent negative pattern spanning over a decade, making it a reliable and trustworthy reflection of this contractor's performance — the score of approximately 22 should be taken seriously as a strong warning against hiring this company.

This contractor's review profile is heavily negative, with 4 out of 6 reviews being 1-star and describing serious failures across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is the most consistently cited problem: multiple reviewers describe staff hanging up on customers, failing to show up for confirmed appointments without notification, and rude or dismissive behavior. Pricing transparency is a major red flag, with at least two reviewers explicitly describing quotes that were dramatically changed without explanation — one doubling, one nearly tripling within minutes — suggesting deceptive or disorganized billing practices. Project completion is also poor, with one technician doing nothing during a service call and another failing to appear twice. The two positive reviews (one from 2012 and one from 2017) provide limited counterbalance and describe responsiveness and professionalism, but they are significantly outnumbered and outdated relative to the negative reviews.

• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent negative reviews are from June 2018, while the two positive reviews date from 2012 and 2017. The negative reviews are more recent and should carry greater weight.
• PRICING INTEGRITY FLAG: At least two separate reviewers describe quotes being significantly increased (doubled or nearly tripled) within a very short timeframe with no explanation, suggesting a pattern of bait-and-switch pricing.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers describe staff hanging up on customers who asked questions or requested a manager — this is a consistent and serious pattern, not an isolated incident.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: One reviewer describes being stood up twice in a single day for a confirmed appointment with no proactive communication from the company.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as directional only and not fully reliable due to the small sample size.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK: No strong indicators of fake reviews detected. The positive reviews are brief but contain some specific detail (name 'Dave Nelson', specific repairs listed). The negative reviews are detailed, independently written, and describe distinct incidents.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning 2012–2018, all of which are now more than 5 years old, making it LOW reliability for assessing current service quality — however, the consistent pattern of serious complaints across pricing, professionalism, and follow-through warrants significant caution.