Find Nearby Plumbers In Syracuse, New York

The Crane Company demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. While a small number of reviews (2 out of 10) praise individual technicians for professionalism and efficiency, the overwhelming majority document critical failures in project completion, communication, and pricing integrity. Most damaging are repeated patterns of incomplete work, failure to return for promised callbacks, undisclosed price increases (up to $8,000), and property damage left unrepaired for months. Pricing complaints are particularly severe, with customers charged for duplicate services and unexpected upcharges. The owner's documented unprofessional conduct, including alleged racial slurs, further undermines trust. Only the oldest reviews (2013, 2016) and one recent positive review (2020) provide counterbalance to six highly detailed negative reviews spanning 2018–2023.

• CRITICAL: Owner Mark Crane documented using racial slurs and unprofessional language toward customers (2020 review). This is a serious red flag for business conduct.
• PATTERN: Six of ten reviews (60%) are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints about incomplete work, communication failures, and property damage. These are not generic complaints.
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews document price increases after work begins ($2,000–$8,000 overages) and charges for duplicate services without customer consent.
• PATTERN: Repeated failure to complete promised callbacks and follow-up work. Customers report waiting 2–3 months for promised repairs that never materialized.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2018–2023 (recent), while positive reviews are from 2013, 2016, and 2020. Recent trend is strongly negative.
• QUALITY CONTROL: Multiple reviews document workers cutting corners, not completing paid-for work (e.g., partial gravel fill), and leaving property damage unrepaired.
• The two positive reviews lack specificity and detail compared to negative reviews, which are highly detailed and verifiable. However, they do not appear to be fake—they simply represent a minority experience.

This WW Score of 38.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on substantial evidence (10 reviews with 8–9 mentions per dimension) and reflects a consistent pattern of serious failures in project completion, pricing transparency, and professional conduct. The recent concentration of negative reviews and documented owner misconduct further validate the low score.

The review set is deeply polarized: two 5-star reviews praise the owner's professionalism, knowledge, and value, while four 1-star reviews describe serious and recurring failures across every dimension. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with four reviewers explicitly stating that work was left unfinished, abandoned, or structurally dangerous — including code violations, unfinished floors, dismantled bathrooms, and incomplete tiling. Pricing concerns are severe, with multiple reviewers alleging they paid in full or paid large deposits (up to $15,500 and $22,000) and received little to no completed work in return, amounting to allegations of financial fraud. Experience and workmanship are called into serious question by reports of cut support beams, substandard materials, improper installations, and code enforcement shutdowns. The two positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are insufficient to offset the volume and severity of the negative accounts.

• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers allege the contractor took large deposits ($15,500 and $22,000) and did not complete work or return funds. One reviewer explicitly calls him a 'scam artist' and states he has done this to multiple homeowners.
• CODE VIOLATIONS REPORTED: One reviewer states a code enforcer shut down work due to dozens of code violations, including cutting main structural support beams without replacement, making the home unsafe.
• LICENSING AND INSURANCE CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor does not have a business license and does not carry liability insurance.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Four out of six reviews describe work being left unfinished or abandoned. This is a consistent and recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two positive reviews are from 2022 and 2024. The four negative reviews span 2021–2022. The most recent review (2024) is positive, but the weight of negative evidence from multiple independent reviewers is substantial.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW IMBALANCE: The two positive reviews are notably personal and character-focused rather than project-outcome-focused, which may reflect a different type of customer experience or relationship with the owner rather than standard contracting outcomes.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews appear to be written by distinct individuals with specific details. No identical phrasing or suspicious uniformity was detected.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review set of 6, but the consistency and specificity of the four negative reviews — including named dollar amounts, code enforcement involvement, and structural damage — lend significant credibility to the low scores, and prospective customers should treat this score as a serious warning signal.

This contractor's reviews paint a predominantly negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by two reviews describing rude behavior, threats, and repeated no-shows, with only one review offering positive remarks about responsiveness and reliability. Project completion is a major concern — one reviewer experienced a no-show for follow-up work twice, and another reported the drain backed up shortly after service with the contractor refusing to address it. Experience scores are mixed: one reviewer praised the quality and efficiency of work, while another reported the plumbing failed shortly after service. Pricing received only one mention, a single positive note about fair pricing, which carries very limited weight given the small sample.

• Very small sample size of only 4 reviews — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of long-term performance.
• Two reviews dated 2019-10-16 with identical timestamps (11:33 and 11:20) may suggest coordinated negative reviews or a dispute-related posting pattern — treat with mild caution, though the content is specific enough to appear genuine.
• All reviews are from 2019–2020, meaning no data exists from the past 12 months relative to a current evaluation. Recency is a significant concern — contractor behavior may have changed.
• The single positive review, while detailed and specific, is outnumbered 3-to-1 by negative reviews describing serious conduct and follow-through issues.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all more than 3 years old, and should be considered LOW reliability — the score directionally indicates significant concerns but cannot be treated as a statistically confident assessment of this contractor's current quality.

Three of four reviews describe serious misconduct including taking money without completing work, refusing refunds, forging invoices, and repeatedly changing the company name to evade accountability. One reviewer alleges $10,000 was taken from a combat veteran with no work delivered, and another reports being left without heat or hot water for months after paying upfront. The sole positive review is brief, generic, and lacks detail, raising authenticity concerns. The pattern of low-balling quotes and then demanding more money before completion is cited by multiple reviewers independently, lending credibility to those complaints. Overall, the evidence strongly indicates this contractor poses a significant financial and quality risk to prospective customers.

• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers independently allege the contractor took money upfront and failed to complete work, then refused refunds — a consistent pattern of financial misconduct.
• COMPANY NAME CHANGES: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor operates under multiple business names (including AMR Home Improvements) to avoid accountability — a major red flag.
• FORGED INVOICES ALLEGED: One reviewer claims to have screenshots of forged invoices used to justify withholding a refund.
• ACTIVE LITIGATION: At least one reviewer states they are currently pursuing legal action against this contractor.
• SUSPECTED FAKE POSITIVE REVIEW: The single 5-star review (2019) is extremely brief, generic, and contains no specific details about the contractor or work quality. It stands in stark contrast to the three detailed negative reviews and may not be authentic.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most serious negative reviews are from 2023 and are the most recent, suggesting problems have continued or worsened over time. The positive review is from 2019.

With only 4 reviews and a strong pattern of serious, independently corroborated misconduct allegations, this score carries LIMITED overall confidence in its precision but HIGH confidence that this contractor represents a significant risk — the WW Score of 18.7 should be treated as a serious warning.

All four reviews are negative and paint a deeply concerning picture of this contractor across every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by reports of a technician barging into a home without permission, yelling at a customer, and the company refusing to show up for scheduled appointments without any communication. Project completion is nearly non-existent as a positive — one customer experienced 8 leaks across a brand-new full installation over two years, another had work fail inspection, and a third had a faucet installed that physically could not function. Workmanship quality is described as substandard, including improper use of press fittings, unsupported plumbing, and removal of solid copper in favor of inferior materials. Pricing concerns are also present, with one customer describing an inflated estimate of $1,800 for a simple job completed in under two hours with poor results, and another being charged $100 for a visit that revealed a prior technician's error.

• All 4 reviews are 1-star ratings — this is a strong negative signal and not a fake review pattern; the reviews contain specific, detailed, and credible complaints with named individuals and specific job descriptions.
• One review (2012) is over 10 years old and should be weighted less heavily; however, the pattern of complaints is consistent across reviews spanning 2012 to 2024, suggesting systemic and persistent issues.
• A technician reportedly entered a customer's home without permission on two separate occasions and was verbally aggressive — this is a serious safety and conduct concern.
• Work failed a plumbing inspection on at least one documented job.
• The company reportedly threatened collections before completing or correcting disputed work.
• No positive reviews were provided for analysis — the WW Score reflects only the data available and should not be interpreted as a complete market picture, but the severity and specificity of complaints are credible.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, limiting statistical confidence, but the reviews are highly specific, span over a decade, and consistently describe serious failures in professionalism, workmanship, and project completion — making the low score directionally reliable despite the small sample size.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by chronic tardiness, poor communication, aggressive behavior, and unpredictable availability. Pricing practices are predatory, with estimates escalating dramatically (e.g., $275 to $4,000) and undisclosed charges appearing on final invoices. Project completion is unreliable, with jobs dragged out, incomplete work, and apparent deliberate damage to justify additional charges. Technical competence is questionable, with poor workmanship (stone dislodging from improper cement work) and suspicious on-site damage creation. The pattern of behavior suggests intentional customer exploitation.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (4 of 6) allege deliberate property damage to inflate charges — ripping pipes, destroying walls, creating leaks intentionally
• CRITICAL: Aggressive and threatening behavior documented — threats of legal action, aggressive language, alleged intimidation, and fear of bodily harm reported
• CRITICAL: Severe pricing fraud — estimates increased 1,400% ($275→$4,000); undisclosed charges; final bill 8.5x quoted price ($100→$850)
• CRITICAL: Chronic no-shows and poor scheduling — missed appointments, extreme delays (5+ hours), unprepared arrivals, in-and-out pattern suggesting deliberate time-wasting
• CRITICAL: Refusal to honor agreements — claimed work not included in estimate despite being requested; poor follow-up on callbacks
• All reviews are from 2011-2014 (10+ years old) — no recent data available to assess if behavior has changed
• One review (5-star 'NO SHOW/NO CALL') appears sarcastic or fake given context of all other reviews

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. The contractor exhibits consistent patterns of predatory behavior, fraud, and unprofessionalism across six independent reviews with explicit, detailed allegations. However, all reviews predate 2015, so current operational status is unknown.