Find Nearby Plumbers In Altoona, Pennsylvania

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While some customers praise quick diagnostics and punctuality, a detailed 2023 review documents severe failures in project completion (misrouted plumbing, incomplete bathroom work), grossly inflated pricing ($700 for furnace cleaning vs. $125 elsewhere), and unprofessional conduct. Professionalism scores are mixed: positive mentions of communication and timeliness are offset by one report of laziness and one account of extremely poor judgment. The experience dimension shows technical capability in diagnostics but critical failures in execution and planning. The WW Score reflects these contradictions with moderate confidence due to limited review volume and conflicting evidence.

• CRITICAL: One detailed 1-star review (2023-12-27) documents alleged scam behavior including overcharging ($700 vs. $125 market rate for same service), incomplete work requiring full redo by another contractor, and unsanitary conduct. This review is highly specific with corroborating details (attorney general complaint, BBB contact, second contractor confirmation) and carries substantial weight.
• Pricing dimension shows extreme variance: one customer paid $700 for furnace cleaning (flagged as 5.6x market rate by licensed competitor); no positive pricing mentions in any review.
• Project completion failures documented: plumbing rerouted to wrong location (dining room ceiling instead of bathroom), tub left unconnected, floor installed without drain/pipes, requiring complete redo by another contractor.
• Two 5-star reviews (2024-05-10, 2023-12-12) lack specificity and detail; one mentions only first name 'Billie' with generic praise; however, these are not identical in phrasing so fake review pattern is not conclusive.
• Recency note: Most recent reviews (2024-05-10, 2024-04-22) show continued mixed quality; serious allegations from 2023-12-27 remain unresolved and unrefuted.

This score should be treated with caution. While based on 5 reviews, the presence of one highly detailed, specific complaint documenting financial harm, incomplete work, and alleged unethical conduct significantly undermines confidence in the contractor's reliability. The score reflects genuine inconsistency rather than measurement error, suggesting this contractor's quality and ethics are unpredictable and potentially risky.

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and tells a mixed story: older reviews from 2011–2013 describe Mr. Paros as responsive, punctual, and professional, but the most recent review (June 2024) describes a serious failure in responsiveness and customer service, including unreturned calls and an unpleasant interaction. Pricing reviews are also mixed — one reviewer noted his estimate was roughly 70% higher than a competitor's, and another was unexpectedly billed for a faucet she had purchased herself, though that was later corrected. Project completion raised concerns in one review where a job started in July was not fully finished until the following September, causing the customer inconvenience during cold weather. Experience scores are modestly positive, with reviewers noting neat work areas, passed inspections, and informative explanations, though no reviewer described exceptional or standout technical skill.

• Four reviews are labeled 'unknown' with no review text — these provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring.
• The majority of usable reviews are from 2011–2013, making them over 10 years old. Only one review is from the past 12 months (June 2024), and it is strongly negative.
• Recency concern: The single recent review (2024) is a 1-star complaint about poor responsiveness and communication, which may indicate a decline in service quality that older positive reviews do not reflect.
• Overall review volume is very low (11 total, only 7 with usable content), which significantly limits the reliability of any score produced.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — it is based on a small number of reviews, most of which are over a decade old, and the only recent review is a significant negative signal that may outweigh the older positive feedback.

PBCI Allen shows a deeply mixed track record across its 6 reviews. Positive reviews highlight strong professionalism — punctuality, courtesy, communication, and cleanliness — but these are significantly offset by a 2024 review describing a multi-week failure to respond to a documented maintenance issue, and a 2019 review describing an incompetent plumber who caused additional water damage. Project completion is similarly split: several jobs were completed well, but the unresolved commercial maintenance contract and the botched toilet repair represent serious failures. Pricing received limited but positive mentions. The overall score is pulled down substantially by the negative reviews, which describe genuine harm rather than minor dissatisfaction.

• Only 6 reviews total — sample size is very small and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• Reviews span 2015 to 2024 — the most recent review (2024) is a 1-star complaint about an unresolved commercial service failure, which is the most relevant data point for current performance.
• Three of the five positive reviews are from 2019 or earlier, meaning recent performance data is limited to one positive review (2021) and one negative review (2024).
• The 2019 toilet repair review describes active incompetence and property damage — a serious workmanship failure that materially lowers the experience and project completion scores.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with the most recent data pointing to unresolved service failures — the score should be treated as LOW RELIABILITY and prospective customers should seek more current references before hiring.

Adams Plumbing and Heating has a deeply mixed review record spanning 2009–2023, with a clear pattern of serious complaints dominating the majority of reviews. Professionalism is heavily penalized by multiple accounts of unanswered calls, canceled appointments with no notice, rude technicians, and broken promises by the owner — offset only partially by a handful of reviews praising polite and responsive service. Pricing is one of the weakest dimensions, with numerous explicit complaints about undisclosed trip fees, billing for time not worked, charges of $500/hour equivalent, and customers feeling deceived or overcharged — with only a few reviewers finding prices fair or reasonable. Project completion is similarly troubled, with documented cases of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, furnace repairs that failed, incorrect plumbing installations left uncorrected, and a particularly serious allegation of property damage with no restitution. Experience scores slightly higher due to a few reviews praising skilled and knowledgeable technicians, but is undermined by multiple accounts of technicians unable to diagnose basic problems, making issues worse, or performing incorrect installations.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with most negative reviews concentrated between 2014–2019. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2023). The score may not reflect current business performance.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE FLAG: One reviewer (2020) explicitly states that negative reviews are from a prior owner/manager and that current ownership is different. This cannot be independently verified from the review data alone, but it is a meaningful contextual note.
• POTENTIAL FAKE/BIASED REVIEW: The 2020 review urging readers to 'disregard poor reviews' and directing them to Google contains no specific service details and reads as a reputation-management post rather than a genuine customer experience. Confidence in that review is reduced.
• REVIEW 'unknown' (2016-12-21, 5 stars): Contains no text and no usable data. Excluded from scoring.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One detailed review (2017) alleges the owner paid a contractor $200 to silence a complaint from an elderly customer, and failed to honor repeated commitments to repair damage caused during a job. This is a significant integrity flag.
• PATTERN OF BROKEN PROMISES: Multiple independent reviews describe the owner or staff making verbal commitments (refunds, return visits, repairs) that were never honored, suggesting a systemic follow-through problem rather than isolated incidents.
• HIDDEN FEES PATTERN: At least three independent reviews explicitly mention undisclosed trip charges or billing practices that were not communicated upfront, suggesting a structural transparency issue in pricing.

This WW Score is based on 26 reviews with usable data spanning 14 years, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable — however, the heavy skew of negative reviews toward older dates and an alleged ownership change means consumers should weigh recent reviews (2020–2023) more heavily when making a hiring decision.

The review set is small (7 reviews) and deeply mixed, spanning 2015 to 2024, which significantly limits reliability. Positive reviews praise responsiveness, communication, and affordability, but negative reviews — which are detailed and specific — describe serious failures: an abandoned restoration job paid for over a year prior, a wrong furnace nozzle installed by an unqualified technician, and a $297 charge for a job that yielded no resolution. The project completion dimension is particularly damaged by the 2018 review, which documents a multi-year failure to finish paid work. Pricing is similarly undermined by the billing complaint and the furnace review, offsetting the positive affordability mentions. The most recent review (2024) is brief and generic, offering limited evidentiary weight.

• Only 7 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-confidence overall.
• Several positive reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Excellent and honest,' 'always been solid') with no specific job details, which reduces their evidentiary value.
• The 2018 review is highly detailed and documents a multi-year project abandonment after payment — this is a serious red flag for project completion reliability.
• The 2016 furnace review documents incorrect parts installation (wrong nozzle), suggesting a potential competency issue in HVAC-adjacent work.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years; only one review (2024) falls within the past 12 months, and it is too brief to carry significant weight.
• The spread between 1-star and 5-star reviews is extreme with no middle-ground ratings, which may indicate polarized customer experiences or selective review submission.

This WW Score is based on only 7 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with the most recent substantive feedback being several years old, making it a LOW-reliability indicator of current contractor performance — treat with significant caution.

The review set paints a deeply concerning picture of this contractor across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is heavily penalized by multiple accounts of no-call-backs, dismissive responses to complaints, billing disputes sent to collections, and technicians leaving without communicating with the homeowner. Project completion is similarly damaged by recurring reports of incomplete work, disconnected pipes, persistent leaks after service, and refusal to return and fix problems caused during the job. Experience scores reflect a mixed but predominantly negative pattern: several reviews describe shoddy workmanship including disconnected sewage lines, repeated leaks, and unsecured piping, though two positive reviews do cite knowledgeable and efficient technicians. Pricing receives a moderate score because while one reviewer found pricing reasonable and another praised it, a third explicitly called the bill excessive for incomplete work. The two positive reviews are genuine in tone but are significantly outweighed by the volume and specificity of the negative accounts.

• Four of seven reviews are 1-star with highly specific, detailed complaints — these carry strong credibility and significantly drag all dimension scores down.
• The single 5-star review from 2023-11-24 is brief, generic, and lacks any specific detail about work performed. It may warrant limited weight.
• One 5-star review (2023-07-27) references HVAC mini-split installation specifically and includes concrete details (rebate paperwork, warranty filing), suggesting it is genuine.
• The most recent review (2024-03-23) describes an active unresolved dispute including photographic evidence of a disconnected sewage line — this is a serious red flag for both project completion and professionalism.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly negative. The only positive plumbing-related review is from 2019, which is over 5 years old and should be weighted minimally.
• Pattern of refusing callbacks and ignoring voicemails appears in multiple independent reviews (2023-05-27 and 2024-03-23), suggesting a systemic organizational issue rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on 7 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions; while the mention counts provide MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence in the scores, the small total review pool means the score should be treated as directionally reliable but not definitive — the consistent pattern of serious complaints across multiple dimensions does, however, strongly support a low score.