Find Nearby Plumbers In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 5 reviews spanning over a decade. Two reviews explicitly describe deceptive pricing practices — quoting one price and billing a significantly higher amount — which severely drags down the pricing and project completion dimensions. The positive reviews praise friendliness, communication, and reasonable prices, but these are largely older reviews (2012, 2015) and lack specific detail. The most recent review (2024) is brief and generic, offering limited evidentiary weight. The two 1-star reviews are specific and consistent in their complaints about bait-and-switch tactics, which is a serious red flag that cannot be dismissed.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: Two separate reviews (2015 and 2016) independently describe identical bait-and-switch pricing behavior — quoting a price then billing significantly more. This is a consistent and specific pattern of alleged deceptive business practice.
• RECENCY WARNING: Most reviews are older than 1 year. Only 1 of 5 reviews is from the past 12 months (2024). The 2024 review is brief and generic with no specifics, limiting its reliability.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 5 total reviews exist. This is an extremely small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEW FLAG: The 2024 5-star review ('Great service - reasonable prices. Dave is my go-to man...') is very short and non-specific, which reduces its evidentiary value.
• SCORE RELIABILITY: With only 5 reviews and a significant split between detailed negative complaints and older positive reviews, this score carries LOW overall reliability.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews — several of which are over 8 years old — and should be considered highly unreliable; the two specific and consistent complaints about deceptive pricing practices are a serious concern that prospective customers should not overlook.

The review set paints a predominantly negative picture of C.F. Acri and Son across most dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently cited concern, with multiple reviewers describing unreturned calls, rude phone staff, failure to follow through on commitments, and no-shows — only one or two reviews offer genuinely positive professionalism remarks. Project completion is similarly troubled, with one reviewer explicitly stating jobs were not fixed on the first visit (or at all), another describing poor workmanship, and a third alleging a potentially defective unit installation; the few positive completion mentions are offset heavily by these serious complaints. Experience scores low due to recurring accounts of poor workmanship and failed diagnoses, though one reviewer praised a technician named John and another credited Bob with a successful repair at a fair price. Pricing receives a modestly positive score, as two reviewers noted reasonable or competitive pricing, but this is tempered by one account of a warranty being withheld after a complaint.

• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2015–2021), with only 2 reviews from the past 12 months (2023–2024). Recency weighting reduces confidence in the current state of the business.
• The two most positive reviews (2024 and 2023) are notably enthusiastic and specific, but they stand in stark contrast to the majority of reviews. No fake review pattern detected, but the positive reviews may not reflect the typical customer experience given the volume of negative accounts.
• One reviewer explicitly states their prior negative review was removed from the platform, which raises a concern about review suppression and means the historical record may be incomplete.
• A recurring pattern of unreturned calls and failure to provide quotes or follow up appears across at least 3 independent reviews (2015, 2021, 2021), suggesting a systemic operational issue rather than isolated incidents.
• The 1-star review referencing landscaping appears to be for a different type of company and may have been posted to the wrong business listing. It was not excluded from analysis but does not contribute meaningfully to HVAC/plumbing scoring.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review set of 9 reviews, a majority of which are older than 3 years, and a significant skew toward negative experiences that consistently cite the same operational failures — giving the low score reasonable credibility despite limited volume.

Rhoads Water Systems presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most discussed dimension and is severely dragged down by two reviews explicitly describing the office secretary as rude, combative, and dismissive — partially offset by consistent praise for the field technicians being polite and efficient. Project completion is similarly split: two reviews describe successful, timely job completion, while one review details a UV light system that was left unfinished and not fully plugged in for over a year — a serious workmanship failure. Pricing received one positive mention of a reasonable price and one negative mention of unexpected $100 in surcharges added to an already large bill, yielding a below-average score. Experience scores modestly above the midpoint, as field technicians demonstrated competence in some visits but the incomplete UV installation represents a significant technical failure that cannot be ignored.

• Small sample size of only 4 reviews — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not definitive.
• Two of the four reviews are older than 12 months (2019 and 2020), reducing their recency weight. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2023).
• A critical workmanship failure was reported: a UV light system was left uninstalled and non-functional for over a year without the customer's knowledge, discovered only by a third-party plumber.
• A recurring pattern of poor office/secretary customer service is noted across two separate reviews from different years (2019 and 2022), suggesting a systemic issue rather than an isolated incident.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to the very small sample size of 4 reviews, two of which are more than three years old, and the high variance between strongly positive and strongly negative experiences — additional recent reviews are needed before this score can be trusted.

MC Plum demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by documented instances of hanging up on customers, rudeness, lack of apology, and poor communication—evident in 8 reviews. Pricing is a major complaint across 8 reviews, with customers reporting excessive charges, hidden fees, inflated estimates, and billing disputes that far exceed market rates. Project completion fails in 7 reviews, with incomplete repairs, callbacks that don't resolve issues, and work that creates new problems requiring external contractors. Experience shows mixed results: while one review praises technical explanation, multiple reviews document poor diagnostics, shoddy workmanship, and failures to identify obvious solutions. The single positive review (2023) is substantially outweighed by consistent negative patterns spanning multiple years.

• CRITICAL: 7 of 9 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed complaints; only 1 five-star review (2023) and 1 two-star review. Pattern suggests systemic operational failures rather than isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews document the same owner/receptionist (Carlotta) behavior: hanging up on customers, dismissive communication, and refusal to address problems.
• Recurring theme of billing disputes: customers charged significantly above estimates, invoiced days/weeks after service for undisclosed parts, and charged for failed repairs.
• Multiple reviews document incomplete work requiring customers to hire competing contractors to finish jobs, indicating fundamental project completion failure.
• The single positive 2023 review lacks specificity and mentions only pleasant demeanor and responsiveness, not quality of work—potential recency bias or insufficient detail to validate against pattern of complaints.
• Reviews span 2013-2023 with consistent negative patterns, indicating long-standing systemic issues rather than temporary problems.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal; it is based on 9 reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific complaints across all dimensions, supported by HIGH confidence in professionalism and pricing data (8 mentions each) and HIGH confidence in project completion (7 mentions), with corroborating evidence of structural business failures including billing practices, customer service, and work quality.

The professionalism score is heavily dragged down by a detailed and credible 1-star review from 2023 describing repeated rudeness, failure to follow through on callbacks, and an abrupt hang-up — behaviors that directly contradict the positive impressions left in older reviews. The three positive reviews mention friendly, efficient service and willingness to go the extra mile, which contributes modestly to project completion and experience scores. However, all three positive reviews are between 9 and 13 years old (2011–2014), making them significantly less reliable indicators of current performance. No pricing information was mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored. The most recent review, and the only one from the past 12 months, is a strongly negative account, which weighs heavily on the overall assessment.

• RECENCY WARNING: The three positive reviews are dated 2011, 2014, and 2014 — all more than 9 years old. The only review from the past 12 months (2023) is a 1-star review. Current performance may be significantly worse than historical scores suggest.
• POTENTIAL GENERIC PRAISE: The three older positive reviews are brief, lack specific detail about the work performed (beyond water heater installation in one case), and use similar enthusiastic language. This pattern warrants mild caution, though it does not conclusively indicate fake reviews.
• PRICING DIMENSION: No reviews mention cost, quotes, or value for money. This dimension cannot be scored and is excluded from the WW Score calculation.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. Scores are based on very limited data and should be treated with significant caution.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to a very small review sample (4 reviews), a large recency gap between positive and negative reviews, and the absence of any pricing data — the score should not be used as a confident indicator of current contractor quality.

This contractor's review set is small (7 reviews) and spans nearly a decade, making recency a significant concern — only one review is from the past 12 months (2023). Professionalism scores are dragged down sharply by multiple serious incidents: a technician harassing a disabled elderly man for payment without notice, a plumber rushing out without showing completed work, and a company requiring upfront payment before even assessing a problem. Pricing is a notable weakness, with complaints about a $4,500 cost overrun beyond the original estimate, a $158 charge for minimal copper pipe work, and general perceptions of being overpriced. Project completion is the most damaging dimension — one review documents a multi-day saga of incorrect repairs, missed callbacks, and new leaks created by the work itself, while another describes a job that changed scope three times. Positive reviews do exist and highlight friendly, fast, and knowledgeable service in specific instances, but they are outnumbered and outweighed by the severity of the negative experiences documented.

• Small sample size of only 7 reviews severely limits reliability — WW Score should be treated as directional only.
• Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (October 2023); 4 of 7 reviews are from 2016 or earlier, reducing relevance to current service quality.
• One review (2022) documents a serious ethical concern: an unannounced visit to a 74-year-old disabled man to demand payment, with no apology offered afterward.
• One review (2015) documents a multi-day pattern of incomplete work, incorrect repairs, missed callbacks, and a technician advising duct tape over a hole in a pipe — a significant workmanship red flag.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small and predominantly outdated review set — consumers should seek more recent and numerous reviews before making a hiring decision.