Find Nearby Plumbers In White Plains, New York

Greenwich Drains shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is significantly hampered by documented communication failures—multiple reviews cite unreturned phone calls and unmet permit requirements—though recent positive reviews praise responsiveness and friendliness. Project completion is inconsistent, with one critical failure (wrong deliverable format for town permit) and concerns about recurring issues, offset by successful emergency responses. Experience and pricing are stronger areas, with skilled technical work and reasonable costs noted. The wide variance between 1-star and 5-star ratings, combined with very old reviews (some from 2005–2016), suggests this company may have improved recently but has a documented history of service inconsistency.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 6+ years old (2005–2016). Only 2 reviews are from 2020 or later. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• CRITICAL FAILURE: 2022 review documents failure to meet town permit requirements (DVD vs. USB), with town confirming this is a known issue with this company. This is a project completion failure with legal/regulatory implications.
• COMMUNICATION PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2016, 2016) explicitly cite failure to return phone calls, described as 'very common' by real estate professionals. This is a serious professionalism gap.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide rating spread (1-star to 5-star) with no clear trend suggests inconsistent service delivery or variable team performance.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: One review (2015-12-03) contains only 'unknown' as text with 5-star rating—insufficient data to evaluate.
• SAMPLE SIZE LIMITATION: Only 7 reviews total; confidence in overall score is limited by small sample size.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While recent positive reviews suggest improved professionalism, the 2022 permit compliance failure is a serious red flag, and most data is outdated. The small sample size (7 reviews) and wide rating variance reduce confidence. Recommend requesting recent references and confirming current compliance with local permit requirements before engaging.

All three reviews speak positively to Jerry's professionalism, describing him as honest, reliable, and strong in customer service, which supports a moderately confident professionalism score. His experience and competence are similarly affirmed across all three reviews, though the language is largely generic and lacks specific project detail. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, which describes his rates as fair, yielding a conservative and low-confidence score for that dimension. Project completion is entirely unaddressed across all reviews, so no score can be assigned for that dimension. The overall WW Score is tempered by the very small review pool, the age of most reviews, and the absence of any project-specific detail.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is significantly limited by small sample size.
• Two of three reviews are more than 3 years old (2019 and 2015); the most recent is from 2021. None fall within the past 12 months, reducing recency confidence.
• All reviews use short, generic praise with no specific project details, job types, or concrete examples. This pattern is consistent with either low-effort authentic reviews or potentially coached/fake reviews. Confidence reduced accordingly.
• Project completion dimension has zero data — a critical scoring dimension (35% weight) is entirely absent, which meaningfully limits the WW Score's completeness.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — it is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are outdated, generic in language, and silent on the most heavily weighted dimension (project completion), making it an incomplete and low-confidence representation of this contractor's overall performance.

Kevin Ruby receives strong praise from many customers for punctuality, responsiveness, and a professional demeanor, which drives a moderate-to-good professionalism score. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including two no-shows, a documented case of hanging up on customers, and repeated complaints about a rude or defensive attitude — significantly drags that score down from what a purely positive read would suggest. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly called out overcharging, surprise price increases after job completion, and parts marked up well above retail cost, while only a handful praised fair or reasonable pricing. Project completion is also mixed — several reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion, misdiagnosed problems that required a second contractor to fix correctly, and at least two instances of Kevin not returning to honor a callback, all of which are serious red flags for a plumber. Experience scores moderately; many customers report quick and competent fixes, but a notable number describe wrong diagnoses, inability to solve the problem, and work that did not hold, which prevents a high score.

• Multiple reviews describe a no-show after confirmed appointment (Oct 2024 and Dec 2021), which is a serious reliability concern.
• At least two reviews (Apr 2019) describe the same pipe-burst incident from what appear to be two different customers or household members — this may indicate a pattern of defective work on outdoor pipes rather than a one-off complaint.
• Several negative reviews explicitly allege that Kevin was rude, argumentative, or hung up on customers when complaints were raised — a consistent behavioral pattern across multiple years.
• Pricing complaints span from 2015 through 2023, suggesting a persistent issue with overcharging and lack of pricing transparency rather than isolated incidents.
• One reviewer (Nov 2021) explicitly stated 'He must have paid for any good reviews he received,' and the volume of very brief, generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Professional.', 'Good.', 'Fast and great service!', 'Very professional') with no specifics raises a moderate fake review concern. Confidence is not reduced to LOW because there are also many detailed legitimate positive reviews, but this pattern warrants caution.
• A significant portion of reviews (roughly 55 of 79) are dated before 2022, meaning the most recent data is limited. The most recent review (Oct 2024) is a 1-star no-show complaint, which is the freshest signal available.
• One reviewer (Feb 2020) documented an extensive multi-visit failure where Kevin misdiagnosed the problem across two visits, charged $400, and a third-party plumber ultimately resolved both issues — suggesting potential competency gaps on complex jobs.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (79 reviews) spanning approximately 9 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible patterns of no-shows, pricing disputes, failed workmanship, and customer service complaints that appear consistently across multiple years and are not isolated incidents.

Castle Plumbing & Heating has a mixed but analyzable record across its reviews. Professionalism scores were dragged down significantly by two notable failures: a 2010 complaint about repeated missed callbacks and broken scheduling promises, and a 2019 complaint where the contractor became hostile when the customer sought a second opinion — a serious red flag. On the positive side, multiple reviews praised prompt communication, calling ahead before arrival, and courteous behavior. Project completion is similarly split: several reviews describe jobs completed fully and correctly, but the 2019 review describes six recurring failures on the same home's plumbing, which is a substantial negative data point. Experience scores are moderately positive, with reviewers noting effective diagnosis, quality workmanship, and doing the job right the first time, though the 2019 multi-failure case tempers this. Pricing received limited but positive mentions, with one reviewer explicitly praising fair and satisfying pricing relative to competitors.

• 5 reviews are marked 'unknown' with no review text — these were excluded from scoring as they contain no usable data.
• The majority of usable reviews are older than 5 years, with only one review (2024) from the past 12 months. Recency is very poor and the score may not reflect current service quality.
• The 2019 review describing 6 recurring plumbing failures and contractor hostility toward a second-opinion request is a serious quality and professionalism concern and was weighted heavily in scoring.
• The 2024 review is extremely brief ('Great job, no meaningful complaints') with no specifics — treated as low-information positive signal only.
• The 2017 parking complaint contains no actionable plumbing service data and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• No reviews from 2020–2023, creating a significant gap in the service history record.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the high volume of no-text reviews, the near-total absence of recent reviews, and the presence of at least one serious multi-failure complaint that meaningfully offsets the positive signals from older reviews.

Tri-County Installations shows mixed performance across dimensions. Three reviews praise responsiveness, professionalism, and competent workmanship, with fair pricing noted. However, one detailed 2019 review documents severe failures in communication, scheduling, and follow-through—a technician was never dispatched despite a confirmed appointment window, and the company suggested the customer use a competitor. The professionalism score reflects this contradiction: positive mentions of neat work and professional demeanor are offset by documented communication breakdowns and lack of accountability. Project completion is similarly mixed, with successful job completions noted but undermined by the scheduling failure. The WW Score of 68.3 reflects moderate confidence given the small sample size and the presence of one highly damaging negative review.

• Only 4 reviews analyzed—sample size is small and limits confidence in overall score
• Significant recency gap: three reviews are from 2021 or earlier; only one review from 2023. Most data is 2+ years old
• One highly detailed negative review (2019) documents systemic failures in communication and scheduling that directly contradict positive claims in other reviews. This suggests inconsistent service quality or possible operational changes over time
• Three positive reviews are relatively generic in praise (e.g., 'best for responsiveness,' 'great experience') with limited specific detail, while the negative review is highly specific and credible. This asymmetry warrants caution

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), significant age of most data (2021–2023), and a stark contradiction between three positive reviews and one detailed negative review documenting serious operational failures. The score may not reflect current service quality.

Archer Plumbing shows a mixed professionalism record across only 3 reviews. Two positive reviews highlight courteous, responsive, and skilled service — including a prompt emergency sump pump response and a successful furnace installation — while one negative review describes a significant communication failure where the contractor visited a customer's home, then went silent despite repeated follow-up attempts. Project completion and experience scores are moderately positive but rest on only two reviews each, both of which are over 5 years old. No pricing information was mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• Very small sample size (3 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and not representative of consistent performance.
• All reviews are dated between 2015 and 2021 — none fall within the past 12 months. Recency is poor and current performance cannot be assessed.
• The two positive reviews use enthusiastic, detailed language and appear genuine, but they are 4–9 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• The negative review describes a clear professionalism failure (ghosting a customer after an in-home visit), which meaningfully drags down the professionalism score.
• Pricing dimension has zero data — this is a notable gap for consumer decision-making.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than 3 years, and should be considered highly unreliable as a measure of current contractor performance — significantly more recent reviews are needed before this score can be trusted.