Find Nearby Plumbers In Schenectady, New York

This business demonstrates solid project completion with timely deliveries mentioned across multiple reviews, earning a score of 78. Professionalism is mixed: salespeople are described as helpful and polite, but responsiveness issues and delivery coordination failures significantly detract from this dimension (76). Pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers citing high costs and unfavorable payment terms that deterred business (65). Experience and workmanship quality are generally praised when work is completed (82), though the sample size for this dimension is limited. The overall WW Score of 73.8 reflects a business with reliable delivery but challenged by pricing competitiveness and communication gaps.

• All reviews are older than 5 years (2008-2015), with no recent data from past 12 months. Current business practices may have changed significantly.
• Delivery coordination and communication issues appear in multiple reviews, suggesting systemic operational challenges.
• Payment term disputes (100% upfront policies) caused at least one customer to leave for a competitor, indicating potential friction in business practices.
• Limited sample size (10 reviews) reduces confidence in dimensional scores, particularly for pricing and experience.

This score should be treated with caution due to the age of all reviews (9+ years old) and moderate sample size; current business performance may differ substantially from what these historical reviews reflect.

Gerard and Algonquin Plumbing receive broadly positive feedback on professionalism, with many reviewers praising responsiveness, communication, and a friendly demeanor — however, two notable negative reviews significantly drag this dimension down: one customer was rudely hung up on, and another described a poor experience with scheduling delays. Pricing is the most contested dimension, with several reviewers calling it fair or even the cheapest around, but one detailed 1-star review credibly alleges severe overcharging ($800 for a toilet replacement, $800 for a valve with no drywall repair), which cannot be ignored and substantially lowers the pricing score. Project completion is generally positive, with most jobs described as finished correctly and promptly, but the gas smell left after an installation and the unrepaired drywall after wall access represent meaningful quality-control failures. Experience scores moderately well, with multiple reviewers citing technical knowledge and problem-solving ability, though the gas leak incident and the alleged overcharging by a supposedly 40-year veteran introduce doubt about consistent workmanship standards.

• Several reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Angie's List', 'The service was very good. I highly recommend to others.', 'Gave a great and complete evaluation') with no specific details — these provide little usable signal and may inflate overall ratings.
• A cluster of 5-star reviews from mid-2020 (July–August) are short, vague, and lack specifics, which raises a mild concern about authenticity or platform-imported reviews with minimal detail.
• The majority of reviews (approximately 18 of 25) are dated before January 2023, meaning most data is more than 2 years old. Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2024 and late 2023), limiting recency confidence.
• The 1-star review from December 2023 is highly detailed and specific (itemized costs, labor time estimates, materials pricing), lending it strong credibility and significant weight despite being a single review.
• One review explicitly describes a gas smell after installation — a serious safety concern that was not addressed in any follow-up review, and no callback or resolution is documented.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while the volume of reviews is adequate and dimension coverage is broad, the score is pulled in conflicting directions by a mix of vague generic praise and a small number of highly credible, detailed negative reviews, and the majority of data is more than two years old, reducing confidence in how well it reflects current service quality.

Roland J. Down presents a deeply split profile across its review history. A large volume of positive reviews — many recent and naming specific technicians — praise courteous, knowledgeable, and professional service, driving moderate scores in professionalism and experience. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern: multiple reviewers across different years explicitly cite charges 2x–3x competitor quotes, hidden fees, parts marked up 5x–10x retail, and deceptive billing practices tied to the Advantage/lease program, resulting in a very low pricing score. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial number of reviews describing no-shows, repeated appointment cancellations, abandoned or incomplete work, unresolved billing disputes lasting months, and emergency calls going unanswered — including cases where customers were left without heat in winter. The billing and administrative dysfunction is a persistent systemic issue flagged across many years and appears to have worsened after the company was acquired by Service Experts.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 8 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on consecutive dates (e.g., the Mario R. thermostat review, the Steven Bevan AC review, the Richard Masse faucet review, the furnace issue no-charge review, the timely courteous review, and the Nick/Alex/Rusty furnace install review each appear twice within 1-3 days). This pattern strongly suggests artificial review inflation. Confidence in the positive review cluster from 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-08 is reduced.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A disproportionate number of reviews from 2025-04-07 and 2025-05-07 are clustered on single dates with generic praise and technician name-drops but minimal detail. This is consistent with coordinated or incentivized review submission.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 2 reviews contain no text content (only a 5-star rating), which are not usable for scoring but inflate the apparent positive rating count.
• SYSTEMIC BILLING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers across 2021-2024 describe the Advantage Program as a deceptive lease disguised as a payment plan, with customers owing the full unit price after years of payments. This is a significant consumer protection concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are heavily positive but contain confirmed duplicates. Negative reviews span 2013-2025 consistently, suggesting ongoing structural issues rather than isolated incidents.
• UPSELL AND SABOTAGE ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers across different years independently allege that technicians damaged equipment or fabricated repair needs to drive new unit sales. While unverifiable, the pattern across unrelated reviewers warrants a flag.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A large number of negative reviews specifically cite technicians never arriving, appointments cancelled same-day or last-minute, and emergency calls going unanswered for hours or days — including during winter heating emergencies.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating the positive count, systemic billing complaints, and a clear pattern of inconsistent service quality that varies significantly by technician and service type.

Scott's plumbing business shows a stark divide between long-term loyal customers who praise his technical skill and fair pricing, and newer or one-time customers who experienced poor communication, no-shows, and rudeness. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by repeated complaints about unresponsiveness, failure to return calls, no-shows without notice, and dismissive attitude—particularly toward female customers. Project completion suffers from similar issues: multiple reviews cite abandoned jobs, missed callbacks, and failure to follow through on commitments. Experience and pricing are his strongest dimensions, with consistent praise for quality workmanship, problem-solving ability, and competitive rates. The business appears to have been in decline by 2015 onward, with most negative reviews concentrated in 2013–2019, though a recent 2024 tribute suggests he may have passed away.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5–12 years old (2012–2019). Only 1 review from 2024 (a tribute/obituary). Limited recent data to assess current operations.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS & POOR COMMUNICATION: 8 reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls, no-shows, or broken commitments. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• GENDER BIAS ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews (2015, 2015) describe rudeness specifically toward women and female staff. This is a serious professionalism red flag.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE: One detailed review (2013) describes a serious installation error (wrong pipe type on water heater) that caused $1,100 in damage and voided warranty. Suggests experience score may be inflated by survivorship bias (satisfied customers return; dissatisfied ones leave).
• LOYAL CUSTOMER BIAS: Positive reviews often acknowledge Scott's busyness and excuse poor communication ('he's just too busy'). This may mask systemic responsiveness problems.
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS CLOSURE: 2024 review appears to be an obituary ('Scott has left the building... He passed June 14th'). If Scott has passed away, this business may no longer be operational.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the data volume is adequate (24 reviews), the extreme age of most reviews (5–12 years old), apparent business closure, and stark polarization between loyal long-term customers and dissatisfied one-time customers suggest the score may not reflect current operations. The professionalism and project completion scores are reliable indicators of historical patterns but are heavily influenced by communication and follow-through failures that appear systemic rather than occasional.

Mike's Plumbing receives a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently discussed dimension and is sharply divided: several reviewers praise punctuality, courtesy, and clean work, while multiple others report rude technicians, a tech admitting he lacked the skills for the job, and the owner behaving defensively and condescendingly when complaints were raised. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with a large majority of reviewers explicitly calling out excessive quotes, lack of cost transparency, aggressive upselling of bundled plans and unnecessary upgrades, and labor charges that appear inflated or misrepresented — including one case where a customer alleged being billed for five hours when the tenant confirmed two. Project completion is inconsistent: some jobs were finished quickly and to a high standard, but there are credible accounts of incomplete work (a drain clog not fully cleared), a failed heating repair that required a return visit, and a technician who did not even attempt the diagnosed repair. Experience scores moderately, with some reviewers praising technical knowledge and quality materials, but offset by a technician who admitted he was not qualified for the job and had to be walked through troubleshooting by phone.

• Pricing complaints are the dominant theme across negative reviews, with multiple independent reviewers describing the same pattern: multiple tiered quote options presented on-site, refusal to break down parts vs. labor costs, and quotes significantly above market rate for comparable work.
• One review alleges a direct billing discrepancy — 5 hours billed vs. approximately 2 hours of actual work confirmed by the tenant. This is a serious integrity concern.
• A technician explicitly admitted to a customer that he was not a heating technician and was coached through the job by phone while billing at the standard hourly rate — a significant competence and transparency issue.
• The positive reviews are notably generic in some cases (e.g., 'professional, clean, knowledgeable and fast' with no specifics) and one positive reviewer explicitly discounts negative reviews without substantive reasoning, which is a mild fake-review signal. However, other positive reviews contain specific details (named technicians, described scenarios) and are treated as credible.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only one review (March 2024) falls within the past 12 months. The recency of the review base is limited, and the most recent review is the only one from 2024. Scores are weighted toward the full dataset but this recency gap reduces confidence in current performance.
• The 2024 review does reflect positively on workmanship and turnaround, suggesting some improvement or consistency in field quality may exist, but a single recent data point is insufficient to revise the overall score upward significantly.

This WW Score is based on 16 reviews spanning 2012–2024, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence in the score directionally — however, the heavy skew toward older reviews (14 of 16 are more than 12 months old) and the absence of recent volume means this score should be treated as a historically grounded assessment rather than a current performance guarantee.

On-Call Plumbing and Heating presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Positive reviews — particularly the more recent ones from 2023 and 2024 — highlight responsive service, fair pricing, and professional technicians like Larry who are punctual and communicative. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns across all dimensions: billing disputes with hours charged beyond what was observed, jobs left incomplete when the workday ended, multiple return visits failing to resolve the same issue, and an owner described as having a nasty attitude and refusing to engage with customer complaints. The mixed record on project completion is especially damaging, with explicit accounts of abandoned work, unresolved repairs, and a customer who had to hire a different company to finish the job. Pricing confidence is undermined by two separate billing fraud allegations — one involving a disputed invoice for time the customer proved they were not present, and another where the final bill far exceeded the quoted estimate with no explanation provided.

• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Two separate reviewers (2019 and 2018) allege they were charged for hours of labor that did not occur or far exceeded the quoted estimate, with the owner refusing to discuss or respond to complaints. This is a serious red flag.
• ABANDONED WORK: One reviewer (2019) explicitly states a technician left mid-job at 4pm without completing the work. Another reviewer (2023) states the company never followed up after an initial visit and they had to hire a competitor.
• RECENCY NOTE: The three most negative reviews are from 2015, 2018, and 2019. The two most recent reviews (2023, 2024) are positive. There is some evidence of improvement over time, but the 2023 abandoned-job review tempers that optimism.
• OWNERSHIP TRANSITION CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly notes that quality declined after the company founder died, suggesting a structural change in service standards that may explain the split between older negative and newer positive reviews.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: With only 9 total reviews, the WW Score carries moderate reliability. A small number of additional reviews in either direction could significantly shift the score.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and specificity. No patterns of coordinated or fabricated reviews were detected.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to the small review sample of 9 and a significant time spread from 2015 to 2024, making it difficult to determine whether past misconduct patterns have been fully resolved under current management.