Find Nearby Plumbers In Valley Stream, New York

This contractor's review profile is deeply polarized, with a cluster of highly negative, detailed reviews describing serious failures across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is heavily damaged by documented instances of a tech entering a tub without a drop cloth, an arrogant owner refusing to pay a worker, and repeated failures to return emergency calls. Pricing received the lowest score due to an explicit complaint of a $500 charge for a minor PVC fitting replacement and an undisclosed $100 travel fee, with one reviewer calling it a 'complete rip off.' Project completion is severely undermined by accounts of abandoned work, a disconnected tub stopper left non-functional after a repair, and two separate emergency no-shows. The positive reviews — while present — are largely vague, clustered on the same date (November 2016), and lack specific detail, significantly reducing their credibility and weight against the substantive negative accounts.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Three 5-star reviews share the exact same date (2016-11-18) and are extremely brief and generic ('Professionalism, cleanliness.', 'I am very fussy so I would say their cleanliness...', 'Their professionalism...'). This clustering pattern is a strong indicator of coordinated or inauthentic reviews and their positive signals have been discounted accordingly.
• ONE REVIEW IS BLANK: The 5-star review dated 2016-03-04 contains only a period ('.') with no usable content and was excluded from scoring.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 1 year relative to a current analysis date. The most recent substantive negative review is from 2023, and the most recent positive reviews with any detail are from 2015–2016, making the positive data significantly stale.
• EMPLOYEE COMPLAINT: One review is from a former employee alleging wage theft (non-payment for 3 days worked). While this is an internal/labor matter rather than a customer experience, it is consistent with the pattern of dishonest business practices described in other reviews and has been factored into the professionalism score.
• PATTERN OF DISHONESTY: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly use the words 'dishonest,' 'lied,' and 'rip off,' suggesting a systemic rather than isolated issue.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the negative reviews are detailed, specific, and span multiple years from clearly independent customers, lending them high credibility, but the low total review count and the suspected inauthenticity of several positive reviews limit full confidence in the final score.

This contractor receives a critically low WW Score of 18.5, driven by overwhelmingly negative feedback across all dimensions. Six of eight reviews are 1-star ratings citing severe failures in professionalism (missed appointments, rude staff, zero empathy), pricing (overcharges ranging from $75 to $2,000, hidden fees, bait-and-switch tactics), and project completion (incomplete work, problems recurring within weeks, jobs abandoned). One 5-star review from 2015 praises the company, but it is substantially outweighed by seven negative reviews spanning 2013–2021. The single positive review appears isolated and contradicts the consistent pattern of complaints. Technical competence is questionable given repeated reports of failed diagnostics and incomplete repairs.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF COMPLAINTS: 7 of 8 reviews are 1-star ratings with explicit accusations of fraud, overcharging, and service failure. This is not random dissatisfaction—it is a systemic pattern.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege deliberate overcharging ($75 markup, $2,000 overcharge vs. competitor, $1,000+ water bill from unauthorized tank fill). These are specific, detailed complaints, not vague grievances.
• APPOINTMENT FAILURES: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention missed appointments, no-shows, or extreme delays (3+ hours late). This is a recurring operational failure.
• INCOMPLETE/FAILED WORK: Multiple reviews report problems recurring within weeks or requiring a second contractor to fix the original job. This suggests either incompetence or intentional incomplete work to generate repeat calls.
• STAFF CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe receptionist and staff as rude, unprofessional, and lacking empathy. One review explicitly states the receptionist told a customer to 'go somewhere else.'
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are from 2013–2021 (older), but the most recent review (2021) still reports appointment failures. The single positive review is from 2015 and stands alone against a sea of negatives.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LOW: The 5-star review from 2015 is detailed and specific (mentions two visits, specific appliances fixed, explains why they liked the service). However, it directly contradicts the overwhelming pattern of other reviews and may represent an outlier or a review from a different service period. The negative reviews are highly consistent in their complaints and contain specific dollar amounts and dates, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. Eight reviews with consistent, specific, and detailed complaints across all dimensions provide strong evidence of systemic service failures. The score reflects a contractor with severe operational, financial, and customer service deficiencies.

All four reviews are overwhelmingly negative and paint a consistent picture of a contractor who repeatedly fails to show up for appointments, does not return calls, and abandons post-job obligations. Professionalism scores near zero due to chronic no-shows, unanswered calls, and broken promises documented across all four reviews. Project completion is similarly devastated — multiple reviewers describe unfinished work, uncleaned job sites, unresolved defects, and complete failure to honor callbacks. The one pricing mention is mildly positive (one reviewer felt the price was good initially), but this is heavily undermined by the overall experience. Workmanship quality, where mentioned, was poor — including reversed hot and cold hoses and improperly laid tile that posed a safety hazard.

• All 4 reviews are 1-star ratings — this is a strong and consistent negative signal, not a fake review pattern, but rather a genuine pattern of contractor failure.
• Reviews span from 2014 to 2018 — all reviews are older than 5 years as of 2024. No recent reviews are available, so current performance cannot be assessed.
• Recurring pattern of no-shows after payment is collected, which may indicate deliberate avoidance of post-job obligations.
• One reviewer explicitly mentions intent to file a BBB complaint, suggesting the issues were serious enough to escalate.
• Safety concern flagged: improperly installed tile described as sharp enough to cut bare feet, with a child in the home. Reversed hot/cold hoses also noted as a basic competency failure.
• No reviews with positive data exist in this dataset — the limited pricing score of 50 is based on a single reviewer's initial impression before problems emerged and should be treated with extreme caution.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all of which are negative and range from 6 to 10 years old, meaning confidence is MODERATE at best and the score cannot be considered a reliable representation of current contractor performance — however, the consistency and specificity of the complaints across all reviews strongly supports the low score.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 of 5 reviews contain substantive information; three reviews are either blank or single-word responses. The two usable reviews show mixed signals: one praises cleanliness and work quality but criticizes high pricing ($350 for disposal installation), while the other documents significant appointment scheduling failures (two missed appointments before successful Saturday completion) and expresses dissatisfaction with total cost despite problem resolution. All reviews are older than 7 years (2011–2017), limiting relevance to current service standards.

• Three reviews contain no usable data (two are single periods, one is blank) — suggests incomplete or placeholder entries
• All reviews are 7+ years old (2011–2017); no recent data available to assess current performance
• Extremely small sample size (2 usable reviews) makes any scoring unreliable
• Mixed quality signals: positive workmanship/cleanliness vs. poor appointment reliability and cost concerns
• Possible data quality issue with review submission process

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient usable data (only 2 substantive reviews) and extreme age of all reviews (7+ years old). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.

The two reviews provided are not applicable to contractor/plumber evaluation. The first review (2021) concerns a retail return policy dispute for a drain plug and contains no information about plumbing services, professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience. The second review (2013) is extremely dated (over 10 years old) and while it mentions plumbing work by 'Steve,' it provides insufficient detail to reliably score any dimension. No usable data exists to calculate a WW Score.

• First review is completely off-topic: concerns retail product return policy, not plumbing/contractor services
• Second review is severely outdated (October 2013 — over 10 years old); does not meet recency standards
• Insufficient reviews (n=2) and zero usable data points prevent reliable WW Score calculation

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score. The reviews provided do not contain actionable data about contractor/plumber performance across the four required dimensions.

Only two reviews were available for analysis, which is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. Professionalism is the only dimension with any usable data, and it is sharply divided: one reviewer praises staff as friendly, kind, and excellent in customer service, while the other describes slow service, poor communication, and a frustrating customer experience. No reviews mention pricing, project completion, or technical experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The conflicting signals on professionalism result in a conservative mid-range score of 62.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Reviews are from 2019 — all data is more than 5 years old and may not reflect current business practices.
• Three of four scoring dimensions have zero data and cannot be evaluated.
• The two available reviews are directly contradictory, making even the professionalism score highly unreliable.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — only 2 outdated reviews were available, three dimensions have no data at all, and the sole scoreable dimension produced conflicting signals.