Find Nearby Plumbers In Syracuse, New York

AP Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for professionalism and technician demeanor — the majority of substantive reviews praise individual technicians as courteous, punctual, and communicative — but this is heavily counterbalanced by a very large volume of serious pricing complaints spanning the entire review history. Pricing is the single most-mentioned dimension and is overwhelmingly negative: dozens of reviewers across many years describe charges they consider grossly inflated for simple jobs (e.g., $400+ for a 15-minute faucet swap, $800–$2,000 to clear a drain, $1,200+ for a garbage disposal install), and multiple reviewers explicitly accuse the company of targeting elderly or vulnerable customers. Project completion is moderate: most jobs are finished, but there are meaningful complaints about return visits for the same problem, abandoned work orders, no-shows, and at least one case of a gas leak caused by improper installation. Technical experience is generally rated positively by satisfied customers, though several reviews describe technicians who failed to diagnose problems that were quickly found by others, undermining confidence in consistency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates within the same week (e.g., the Kendal Rosa review from 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06 are identical; the 'On their second trip back' 1-star review appears twice; the 'KendL was very professional' review appears twice; the 'Really enjoyed my experience with Kendal Rosa' review appears twice; the 'David was great' review appears twice; the 'Kendal solved the issue' review appears twice; the 'Honest work done well' review appears twice). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform duplication artifacts. Confidence in the June 2025 review cluster is reduced.
• LARGE VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence in high concentration around specific date clusters (June 2025, May 2025) is consistent with fake review padding patterns.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPAN OVER 15 YEARS (2006–2025): This is not an isolated pattern. Dozens of independent reviewers across multiple platforms and time periods describe the same core complaint — high flat-rate pricing, $89 dispatch fees, and charges perceived as exploitative for short or simple jobs. This is a structural business practice, not an anomaly.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews specifically name a manager ('Jason') as rude, dismissive, and unwilling to resolve legitimate complaints. One review describes a gas leak caused by improper installation followed by inadequate customer service response. These are serious operational red flags.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are heavily skewed toward 5-star ratings, many of which are blank or duplicated. Reviews from 2019–2024 contain a disproportionately high volume of 1-star pricing and professionalism complaints. The recent positive cluster should be treated with skepticism given the duplication evidence.
• ELDERLY TARGETING ALLEGATIONS: At least four independent reviews explicitly state that AP Plumbing took financial advantage of elderly or fixed-income customers. This is a serious reputational and ethical flag.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe jobs that were not fixed on the first visit, return visits that introduced new problems, and instances where the company refused to honor callbacks without additional dispatch fees.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set spanning over 15 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of duplicate and blank review padding in recent months, systemic pricing complaints that are deeply consistent across independent reviewers, and serious isolated incidents involving gas leaks, abandoned work, and alleged elder financial exploitation.

Fonseca and Griffin Plumbing shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While most reviews praise professionalism, technical skill, and responsiveness (5 positive reviews with strong marks for knowledge and politeness), one catastrophic 1-star review documents severe project failures including roof damage, permanent floor staining, incomplete repairs, and poor follow-through. Pricing feedback is mixed: some customers report fair value, while others experienced significant quote discrepancies and perceived owner indifference to cost concerns. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with the major review detailing abandoned work, failed repairs requiring customer intervention, and lack of accountability between co-owners.

• CRITICAL: One extremely detailed negative review (2021-10-27) documents multiple severe failures: property damage (roof, flooring), incomplete work, communication breakdown between co-owners, failed callback commitments, and customer forced to fix contractor's mistakes. This is not a minor complaint but a systemic failure case.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between 5 positive reviews (2019-2021) and 1 catastrophic negative review (2021-10) suggests either significant quality degradation, inconsistent technician performance, or serious accountability issues between Zane Fonseca and Dustin Griffin.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Two reviews (2021 and 2019) explicitly mention quote discrepancies and owner defensiveness about pricing. One customer reported being quoted ~$300 but charged $400+ with owner showing indifference to concerns.
• OWNERSHIP ACCOUNTABILITY: The major negative review highlights co-owners deflecting responsibility to each other, with Zane refusing to take ownership of Dustin's work despite being the booking contact.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most positive reviews are from 2019-2021; the catastrophic review is from October 2021, suggesting potential recent quality decline or specific technician issues.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 62.8 reflects mixed data, the weight of the catastrophic project failure review—which documents systematic failures across multiple dimensions—suggests the company carries significant risk. The stark contrast between glowing reviews and one detailed disaster indicates either inconsistent quality control or serious issues with specific technicians. Customers should demand written estimates, verify technician assignment, and consider the documented accountability gaps between co-owners before engaging this company.

This contractor has a mixed record across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is sharply divided: multiple reviewers praise quick response times and courteous service, while one reviewer explicitly describes unprofessional phone behavior and a cancellation, and another notes a complete failure to respond to emails. Project completion is a notable concern — one reviewer reports a job left half-finished requiring a second company, and another states the plumber made the problem worse, which significantly drags down that dimension. Pricing received only one mention (described as reasonable), so that score carries very low confidence. Experience scores moderately, with positive outcomes in some visits but a documented instance of worsening a plumbing issue undermining confidence in technical skill.

• Small sample size of only 5 reviews — scores should be treated as preliminary and not fully representative.
• One review is from 2016, which is over 8 years old and was given reduced weight in scoring.
• Two reviews are from 2022 or earlier, meaning only 2 of 5 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2023–2024).
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 8 years, with significant recency gaps, making it LOW reliability — treat as a directional signal only and seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

The review set is small and spans a wide date range (2012–2020), making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions about current performance. Two positive reviews highlight helpful technicians, good communication, punctuality, and solid technical work including camera scoping and septic replacement in a tight space. However, the negative review is serious and specific: it describes the job site being left in a dangerous and messy state, unhelpful responses to complaints, hidden commission-based incentives that cast doubt on the necessity of recommended repairs, and a cost that was 10x the expected amount. These concerns significantly drag down professionalism, pricing, and project completion scores. The mixed signals across such a small sample prevent any dimension from scoring with high confidence.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• The most recent review is from 2020 and the oldest is from 2012. The negative review is from 2012, which may not reflect current practices, but the 8-year gap between reviews makes trend analysis impossible.
• The 1-star review raises a serious concern about commission-based technicians potentially upselling unnecessary work — this is a structural business practice flag, not just a one-off complaint.
• The negative review explicitly describes a safety hazard (old septic parts buried in lawn debris) and an unresponsive customer service response, both of which are significant red flags for residential work.
• No reviews are from the past 12 months. All data is at least 4 years old, reducing reliability for assessing current contractor quality.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 8 years, with no recent data, and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of this contractor's current quality or consistency.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews. Two recent positive reviews (October 2023) praise responsiveness, knowledge, and friendliness, with strong communication and technology integration noted. However, a December 2023 review documents critical failures: no-shows on two of three appointments, a 40-minute late arrival, incomplete work (sink still leaking), and non-responsiveness to follow-up. The project completion dimension is heavily damaged by documented abandonment and unresolved issues. Professionalism scores are pulled down by unreliability and poor communication despite some positive interpersonal feedback.

• CRITICAL: Severe inconsistency between positive reviews (Oct 2023) and damaging negative review (Dec 2023) suggests possible recent deterioration in service quality or operational issues.
• The December 2023 review documents multiple serious failures: two no-shows, late arrival, incomplete work, and non-responsiveness—these are red flags for reliability.
• Only 3 total reviews limits confidence in overall assessment; sample size is very small.
• Positive reviews lack specific detail about actual work quality or outcomes, while negative review is highly specific and credible.
• The most recent review (Dec 2023) is the most damaging and should be weighted heavily as it may reflect current operational state.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and stark contradiction between positive and negative feedback. The December 2023 review documents serious, specific failures that directly contradict earlier praise, suggesting either a recent operational breakdown or inconsistent service delivery. Additional recent reviews are needed to determine if the December issues represent an anomaly or a pattern.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency in service quality and reliability. While some reviews praise quick response and professional demeanor (Brian's work), multiple detailed complaints document chronic non-responsiveness, incomplete projects, missed appointments, and unprofessional behavior. A major red flag is the extensive 2021 review detailing a $40K job abandoned mid-completion with property damage and ongoing legal investigation by NYS Attorney General. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented rudeness, no-shows, and poor communication. Project completion is critically weak due to multiple incomplete jobs and abandoned work. Pricing concerns emerge from hidden service charges and disputes over estimate fees.

• CRITICAL: Ownership change noted (Mike Courcy/Courcy Enterprises acquisition) with dramatic quality decline post-acquisition. NYS Attorney General investigation for fraud mentioned in 2021 review.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most negative reviews are 3+ years old (2007, 2016, 2020, 2021), but the 2021 review is extremely detailed and serious, describing $40K job abandonment and property destruction. Recent positive reviews (2023) may reflect different management or cherry-picked positive cases.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: Multiple reviews document missed appointments, failure to show up as promised, and poor communication about scheduling.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 3 reviews explicitly mention jobs not completed or abandoned mid-project.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (quick, professional, efficient) and devastating 1-star reviews (unprofessional, non-responsive, incomplete). This suggests either highly variable service quality or potential review manipulation.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization in reviews and serious unresolved allegations. The 2021 fraud investigation and documented $40K job abandonment are material concerns that outweigh positive recent reviews. Recommend independent verification and checking current business status before engaging.