Find Nearby Plumbers In New Rochelle, New York

All four reviews are uniformly negative with 1-star ratings spanning 2015–2023. Professionalism is severely compromised across multiple dimensions: extreme tardiness (3 hours late), verbal abuse including ethnic slurs, threats of violence, inappropriate sexual harassment, and screaming at customers. Pricing complaints appear in three reviews citing overcharges, unnecessary upselling, and inflated service fees. Project completion is critically deficient—work was left incomplete, leaks persisted after multiple visits, and a competitor had to redo the job entirely. Technical expertise is questioned in two reviews, with one plumber claiming old pipes could not be replaced (later disproven by another company). No positive mentions exist across any dimension.

• CRITICAL: All four reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive feedback whatsoever. This represents a uniformly catastrophic service record.
• SEVERE CONDUCT ISSUES: Review from 2018-01-28 documents sexual harassment of customer's wife and inappropriate behavior by plumber.
• THREATENING BEHAVIOR: Review from 2015-03-19 documents plumber making death threats, using ethnic slurs, and screaming profanities at customer for a legitimate scheduling complaint.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews document work left unfinished, leaks persisting after service, and customer needing to hire another plumber to complete repairs.
• RECENCY NOTE: While oldest review is from 2015, negative pattern continues through 2023, indicating systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR WW SCORE: Although four reviews exist, the complete absence of any positive data across all dimensions and the severity of documented misconduct (threats, harassment, profanity) make a traditional WW Score calculation inappropriate and potentially misleading.

This assessment should be treated as highly reliable evidence of severe service deficiencies and serious professional misconduct. The uniformity and specificity of complaints across multiple years, combined with documented threats and harassment, indicate systemic problems that warrant extreme caution. A traditional WW Score cannot be calculated because there is insufficient positive data to create a meaningful composite; instead, this company presents clear red flags across all dimensions.

Insufficient data to calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, below the minimum threshold of 3+ reviews required for trustworthy scoring. Reviews mention professionalism (responsive, quick, clean, honest, reliable) and experience (problem-solving ability demonstrated), but pricing and project completion are mentioned in only 2 reviews each with limited specificity. All reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise language and lack detailed project context.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews provided — below minimum threshold for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of three reviews are significantly outdated (2019 and 2015). Only 1 review from past 12 months (2021).
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: All reviews are 5-star with generic praise ('highly recommend,' 'great,' 'honest and reliable') lacking specific project details or challenges. Language is suspiciously similar across reviews.
• INSUFFICIENT DETAIL: Reviews lack specifics on pricing transparency, timeline adherence, warranty/callbacks, or detailed workmanship quality. Absence of detail combined with perfect ratings raises credibility concerns.
• INCONSISTENT CONTRACTOR NAMES: Reviews reference both 'Vinny' and 'Johny's Plumbing' — unclear if same contractor or different entities.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews minimum required) and concerning patterns of generic praise with outdated data. Do not rely on this assessment for contractor selection.

This contractor shows extreme inconsistency across a very small sample of reviews spanning a decade. Two recent reviews (2019) describe severe professionalism failures including unresponsiveness, disorganization, and excessive pricing. One older review (2014) praises rapid service and reliability. The recency and consistency of negative feedback in 2019 suggests current operational problems, while the single positive review is outdated and may not reflect current performance. With only 3 reviews total and conflicting signals, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable scoring (minimum 5 recommended)
• RECENCY ISSUE: Two negative reviews from January 2019; one positive review from March 2014 (10 years old). Recent reviews heavily negative; older positive review may not reflect current operations
• EXTREME INCONSISTENCY: Ratings range from 1-star to 5-star with no middle ground. Two recent 1-star reviews cite unresponsiveness and high pricing; one 5-star review from 2014 cites excellent service. This suggests either significant operational changes or highly variable service quality
• PROFESSIONALISM CONFLICT: Recent reviews explicitly state 'very unprofessional' and 'unresponsive' (4-day callback delay); older review rates 5-star for professionalism. Confidence in professionalism score is limited by this contradiction and small sample
• PRICING CONCERN: Only one review mentions pricing (negative), describing service as 'amazingly expensive.' Insufficient data to assess pricing fairly

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews) and extreme temporal inconsistency between a decade-old positive review and recent negative reviews. Do not rely on this assessment for contractor selection; seek additional recent reviews or direct references before engaging.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, all uniformly negative with no positive counterbalance. All three reviews explicitly cite severe professionalism failures: non-responsiveness, rudeness, and threatening behavior. Two reviews document catastrophic workmanship failures including a major leak and cabinet replacement. No pricing information provided in any review. The extreme negativity across all dimensions and complete absence of any positive feedback prevents reliable scoring.

• CRITICAL: All 3 reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly severe complaints — no positive reviews to balance assessment
• Two reviews are older than 3 years (2019, 2020); only one review from 2023 provides recent data
• Review from 2020 mentions lien notice filed against homeowner — indicates serious legal/financial dispute
• Review from 2023 indicates long-standing communication failure (2-week non-response on estimate request)
• No pricing dimension data available — cannot assess value or transparency
• Pattern suggests systemic operational and quality failures rather than isolated incidents

This assessment cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and complete absence of positive data; however, the uniformly severe and specific complaints across professionalism and project completion dimensions indicate serious, documented problems that warrant extreme caution.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Review 1 (2021) explicitly criticizes pricing ($200 for a $15 part and 15 minutes of work), raising fairness concerns. Review 2 (2012, over 12 years old) praises professionalism and integrity (no charge when unable to fully resolve), but is severely outdated. Professionalism receives limited support from one mention. Project completion is mixed: one job completed quickly, the other partially completed due to structural constraints. No technical skill or experience details are mentioned. The extreme age gap and small sample size make any aggregate score unreliable.

• Only 2 reviews total — below minimum threshold for reliable scoring
• Review 2 is from 2012 (12+ years old) — recency heavily compromised
• Conflicting pricing signals: Review 1 suggests overcharging; Review 2 suggests fair/ethical pricing — unclear current practice
• No explicit mention of technical skill, experience, or workmanship quality in either review
• Insufficient data to calculate WW Score responsibly

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2), extreme recency issues (one review from 2012), and conflicting signals on pricing practices. Any score would be speculative and should not be relied upon for decision-making.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. The first review is about a hotel in New York and contains no information about plumbing services, contractor work, or any of the four WW Score dimensions. The second review raises fraud allegations regarding business address registration but provides no evaluable information about professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience related to actual work performed. Neither review contains actionable data for scoring.

• CRITICAL: First review is completely off-topic — it describes a hotel stay in New York and is entirely unrelated to plumbing or contracting services.
• Second review alleges fraud regarding business address but does not describe any actual service work, making it impossible to score any dimension.
• No reviews contain evidence of actual plumbing or contracting work performed.
• Dataset is too small (2 reviews) and neither contains usable contractor/plumber evaluation data.

This WW Score cannot be calculated — the reviews provided do not pertain to plumbing or contracting services and contain no evaluable data for any of the four dimensions.