Find Nearby Plumbers In Utica, New York

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans a wide date range from 2014 to 2018, with all reviews now more than 5 years old, severely limiting reliability. Professionalism takes a significant hit from the 1-star review describing a same-day cancellation that caused the customer to lose a day of work, partially offset by one positive mention of a specific technician. Pricing is mixed — one reviewer noted costs were cheaper than expected, while another felt a return-visit charge was excessive. Project completion is similarly split, with one job described as going well despite requiring a callback, and one job never started due to a no-show cancellation.

• All reviews are older than 5 years (2014–2018); no recent data available to assess current performance.
• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with very low confidence.
• The 1-star review describes a reliability failure (no-show cancellation) that is a serious professionalism concern.
• The 4-star review notes a callback was required to fix a leak after the initial job, suggesting incomplete first-visit workmanship.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns, but the 5-star review from 2014 is brief and generic with minimal detail.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 5 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek more current references before hiring.

The professionalism dimension is the most data-rich and paints a deeply negative picture: two recent reviews (July 2024) describe the owner as insulting, condescending, dismissive, and rude to customers — particularly toward women. One older review from 2016 describes a positive, friendly experience, but it is significantly outweighed by the two recent negative accounts and is nearly 8 years old. Pricing was flagged negatively in one review, citing a rate of $275/hour described as far above the typical $100/hour. Project completion and experience each have only one positive data point from the 2016 review, making those scores very low confidence and insufficient to offset the professionalism failures.

• Two of three reviews are from July 2024 and describe severe professionalism failures including verbal belittling, condescension, and dismissiveness toward customers.
• The sole positive review is from August 2016 — nearly 8 years old — and should be given significantly reduced weight under recency rules.
• One reviewer notes the owner also operates under the name 'Scharf Plumbing,' suggesting potential review dilution or reputation management across multiple business listings.
• With only 3 reviews total, the WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as highly unreliable.
• Pricing concern flagged: one reviewer cited $275/hour versus an expected ~$100/hour industry rate, suggesting potential overcharging.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 8 years, with the two most recent reviews being strongly negative — treat this score as a preliminary signal only and seek additional verified reviews before making a hiring decision.

Central Plumbing and Drains demonstrates critically poor performance across all measured dimensions. The company exhibits severe professionalism failures including chronic lateness (2-4 hours), unresponsiveness to callbacks, and lack of transparency in pricing and service delivery. Pricing is the most damaging dimension, with overwhelming evidence of systematic overcharging—customers report 300-1000% markups on simple jobs, hidden fees, and refusal to provide itemized receipts or written estimates. Project completion is severely compromised, with multiple reports of incomplete work, callbacks required to fix initial repairs, and jobs left unfinished. Technical competence is questionable, with customers reporting incorrect diagnoses, unsafe installations, and work that had to be redone by other plumbers. This company preys on vulnerable populations including elderly and disabled customers in emergency situations.

• PATTERN OF SYSTEMATIC FRAUD: 18 of 20 reviews (90%) are 1-star ratings with detailed allegations of overcharging, incomplete work, and deceptive practices. This is not random dissatisfaction but a consistent pattern.
• PREDATORY TARGETING: Multiple reviews explicitly state the company targets senior citizens, elderly women, and disabled individuals in emergency situations when they cannot refuse service.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT: Recurring allegations of charging 3-10x fair market value, double-charging (check + credit card), refusing refunds, and filing fraudulent insurance claims.
• DOCUMENTATION EVASION: Systematic pattern of refusing to provide itemized receipts, written estimates, or detailed invoices—a major red flag for intentional deception.
• INCOMPLETE/UNSAFE WORK: Multiple reports of pipes not glued, shutoff valves not replaced despite charges, unsafe installations, and work requiring complete redo by licensed competitors.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS: Consistent pattern of no-shows, ignored callbacks, broken promises to return, and voicemail-only responses despite claims of 24-hour service.
• RECENCY: 17 of 20 reviews are from 2020-2024 (past 4 years), with 14 from 2022-2024, indicating this is ongoing current behavior, not historical issues.
• ONE POSITIVE OUTLIER: Review from 2023-12-24 (4-star) mentions 'very reliable, very responsible and respectful' but criticizes high cost. This single positive review among 19 overwhelmingly negative reviews may indicate selective service or an anomaly, but does not materially change the overall assessment.

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 20 detailed reviews with consistent, corroborating evidence of systematic fraud, overcharging, incomplete work, and predatory practices. The HIGH confidence across all dimensions reflects overwhelming mention counts (12-18 per dimension) and a clear, unified pattern of misconduct. This company should be avoided entirely.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. While both reviews are positive and mention professionalism (communication, scheduling, responsiveness), pricing (affordable, reasonable), and experience (workmanship, troubleshooting), the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about overall contractor performance.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generic positive language. Cannot assess balance or detect potential issues.
• No negative feedback or specific problem-solving examples provided to validate claims.
• Project completion dimension has zero mentions — no evidence of on-time delivery, follow-through, or callback reliability.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews highlight strong professionalism, particularly around responsiveness and availability during off-hours emergencies, which is a meaningful positive signal. Project completion is well-supported in both reviews, with jobs described as resolved promptly and thoroughly. Pricing is mentioned positively in one review but cannot be weighted heavily with only a single reference. Experience is touched on in one review where the contractor explained the problem and solution clearly, suggesting solid technical communication. With only two reviews total, no dimension reaches even MODERATE confidence, and a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are 5-star with positive sentiment; while not inherently suspicious, the small sample size means no meaningful pattern analysis is possible.
• One review (2023-10-02) is older than 12 months relative to a mid-2025 evaluation date — recency weighting is limited given the small dataset.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present across any dimension — this may reflect genuine quality or simply an incomplete review set.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable as a standalone assessment; significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension score or overall WW Score can be trusted.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While this single review is positive and mentions all four dimensions (communication and service for professionalism, best price discussion for pricing, follow-through on part delivery for project completion, and diagnosis capability for experience), a statistically meaningful WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews. All dimension scores are based on LIMITED evidence from a single data point.

• Only 1 review available — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-mention basis
• Cannot calculate composite WW Score with fewer than 3 reviews

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor performance; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a valid WW Score.