Find Nearby Plumbers In Scranton, Pennsylvania

Two positive reviews highlight strong professionalism, friendliness, and technical knowledge — particularly in diagnosing complex septic and water softener issues. However, the third review is a detailed and credible 1-star account describing poor attitude, an incorrect diagnosis, refusal to complete the job, and a $145 charge for no actionable work, which significantly drags down all dimensions. Pricing is mixed: one reviewer found it reasonable, while another felt charged unfairly for a failed service call. Project completion is a notable concern, as the negative review describes an outright refusal to complete the job on the day of service. With only 3 reviews total, confidence across all dimensions remains low and the score should be interpreted cautiously.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as highly preliminary.
• The negative review (1-star, 2019) is detailed, specific, and credible — it describes a misdiagnosis, unwillingness to work, and an unjustified service charge, all of which are serious red flags.
• The two positive reviews are older (2020 and 2021) and the negative review predates them (2019), so recency weighting slightly favors the positive reviews, but the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present — it is unknown whether service quality has improved or declined recently.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 2019–2021 and should be considered highly unreliable — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a meaningful indicator of contractor quality.

R.N. Fitch & Sons presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily penalized dimension: while three reviews describe courteous, responsive, and professional behavior, one review contains an extremely serious and detailed account of a technician using sexist, abusive language toward a customer, and the owner compounding the situation by threatening the reviewer and refusing to engage with her directly — this single incident carries significant weight and cannot be dismissed. Project completion is similarly split: several jobs were completed on time and thoroughly, but one review describes a technician leaving a job unfinished after causing a new problem through his own error, and another review describes a complete failure to return a customer's call. Pricing and experience reviews are more positive where mentioned, with fair pricing noted by multiple reviewers and skilled diagnostics praised, but the fabricated capacitor issue described in the 1-star review raises a serious concern about technical integrity. Overall, the positive reviews are outweighed in severity by the negative ones, particularly given the gravity of the misconduct described.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One detailed 1-star review (2024) describes a technician using sexist and profane language toward a female customer, telling her to 'learn her place,' and the business owner subsequently threatening the customer to remove the review rather than apologizing. This is a significant red flag for professionalism and business ethics.
• TECHNICAL INTEGRITY CONCERN: The same 1-star review credibly alleges that the technician first caused a problem by overfilling freon, then falsely diagnosed a capacitor issue that a subsequent contractor confirmed did not exist. This directly impacts the experience/workmanship score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most positive reviews (2019 and 2020) are more than 4 years old and predate the most recent negative reviews from 2024. The two most recent reviews (April–May 2024) include the most serious complaint and a no-callback complaint, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 reviews total were available for analysis. This is a very small sample and limits the reliability of all dimension scores. All scores should be treated with caution.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing patterns were identified.

This WW Score has LOW overall reliability due to the very small review sample (6 reviews), the significant age gap between positive and negative reviews, and the presence of a highly detailed and credible serious misconduct complaint that materially drags down multiple dimensions.

The review pool is heavily split between a cluster of recent 5-star reviews (primarily 2025, appearing to cover a Mr. Rooter franchise) and a cluster of serious 1-star reviews (primarily 2019–2024, appearing to cover Reliable Sewer & Drain). Professionalism scores moderately well due to numerous explicit mentions of courteous, prompt, and professional technicians, but is dragged down by multiple reviews citing rude staff, no-shows, and dismissive attitudes. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out overcharging, bait-and-switch quotes, hidden fees, and prices that ballooned far beyond initial estimates. Project completion is severely impacted by reviews describing unfinished work, failed repairs requiring callbacks, abandoned warranty obligations, and work that caused additional damage. Experience scores mid-range because while many technicians were praised for knowledge and skill, several reviews document incorrect installations, improper workmanship, and repairs that failed within days.

• POSSIBLE MIXED ENTITY PROBLEM: The review pool appears to contain reviews for at least two distinct businesses — 'Mr. Rooter Plumbing' (referenced in multiple 2025 reviews with named technicians like Clinton Walker, Keyfer, Pascual, Jeff Larson, Tun, Jacky) and 'Reliable Sewer & Drain' (explicitly named in multiple 1-star reviews from 2019–2024, with owner Nicholas Roland Villar referenced). Scores may reflect two different companies and should be interpreted with caution.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: The 2025 Mr. Rooter reviews show a pattern of generic praise, many with named technicians but very similar phrasing ('very professional,' 'prompt,' 'courteous'). Several reviews are blank (rating only, no text). This pattern warrants moderate suspicion of review padding, though some reviews do contain specific details that reduce this concern.
• 7 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most damaging reviews (warranty abandonment, property damage, theft allegation, failed repairs) are from 2019–2024. The most positive reviews are clustered in 2025. This temporal split may reflect either a genuine improvement in service quality or a review-padding campaign to offset prior negative reviews.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One review (2021) alleges a technician stole the reviewer's wife's wedding ring. This is an unverified but severe claim that significantly impacts trustworthiness.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One review (2024) describes rerouted plumbing to the attic with a 10-year warranty, followed by complete non-responsiveness from the company when warranty service was needed.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One review (2023) describes property damage (ceiling cracks, water staining) caused during installation, followed by a denied insurance claim and no resolution after nearly 3 months.
• One review (2024) describes frozen pipes resulting from improper Pex installation in an unconditioned attic space — a code and safety concern indicating potential workmanship deficiency.

This WW Score has LOW-TO-MODERATE reliability due to strong evidence that reviews from at least two distinct business entities have been aggregated together, a temporal split between heavily negative older reviews and suspiciously clustered positive recent reviews, and multiple serious unresolved allegations including theft, warranty abandonment, and property damage.

This company exhibits severe professionalism issues that dominate the review record. While two older reviews (2016–2017) praise responsiveness and technical skill, a detailed 2013 emergency service complaint documents unprofessional behavior including owner yelling at a distressed customer, failure to arrive with necessary equipment, and poor follow-up. A 2019 review documents refusal of business based on past payment disputes with subcontractors. Pricing concerns appear in two reviews, with one customer reporting suspected overcharging. Technical competence is evident in positive reviews, but execution and customer service reliability are severely compromised by the documented incidents.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews document severe professionalism failures—owner yelling at customer during emergency, refusal of business based on past disputes with third parties. These are not isolated complaints but pattern indicators.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 6–11 years old (2013–2017). Only one recent review (2019) is available, limiting ability to assess current business practices.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE FAILURE: 2013 review documents catastrophic emergency response—technician arrived without required equipment (sump pump) despite customer explicitly stating the problem, resulting in property damage and customer distress.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Customer reports suspected overcharging on multiple occasions (2013 review mentions 4th visit overcharge, prior visit also questioned).
• BUSINESS PRACTICE CONCERN: 2019 review shows owner refusing work from entire category of customers (subcontractors) due to past payment issues with unrelated parties—suggests potential systemic business relationship problems.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of most reviews and small sample size, but the severity and specificity of documented professionalism failures (owner conduct during emergency, equipment failures, pricing disputes) suggest genuine operational and customer service issues that warrant serious consideration before engaging this contractor.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While professionalism scores reasonably well (68) based on responsiveness and communication in several reviews, critical failures in project completion (42) and experience (48) severely undermine overall trustworthiness. Multiple reviews document incomplete repairs, incorrect installations, damaged property, and poor workmanship that required professional remediation. Pricing concerns (45) include substantial overcharges and lack of transparency. The contractor demonstrates capability in emergency response but fails consistently in technical execution and follow-through.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2022-12-24) appear on same date with nearly identical praise for Christmas Eve emergency service—potential coordinated or fake reviews. Both use enthusiastic language ('bang up job', 'best!!') with minimal technical detail.
• SEVERE QUALITY VARIANCE: Stark contradiction between glowing 5-star reviews and damning 1-star reviews describing catastrophic failures (central air replacement, furnace damage, incorrect wiring). This suggests either inconsistent work quality or potential fake positive reviews.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: Multiple reviews document damage (hardwood floors, mud tracking, property destruction during installation) with inadequate remediation.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Central air system required full replacement; split unit has manufacturing defect; toe kick heaters non-functional; furnace repairs failed and caused additional damage.
• PRICING OPACITY: Quote-to-final price increases ($1500→$1700), no itemized invoices, overcharging relative to market rates ($200 vs $65 for similar service).
• WARRANTY/DOCUMENTATION: Review explicitly states 'no warrantee or basic invoice' provided.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2022-2023; only one recent positive review from 2022-03-30 lacks specificity about actual work performed.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 7 reviews, the presence of suspected coordinated fake reviews, extreme quality variance, and documented catastrophic failures suggest the positive reviews may not be representative. The WW Score of 54.8 reflects serious concerns about technical competence and project completion, but the overall_confidence is limited by data quality issues. Consumers should seek independent verification and multiple quotes before engaging this contractor.

TE Spall & Son exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile with stark contrasts between older positive reviews (2012-2017) and recent negative experiences (2018-2024). While some technicians (Dan, Aaron, Dylan) demonstrate genuine professionalism and competence, the company is heavily criticized for predatory pricing practices, diagnostic fees without clear value, and failure to resolve issues on first visit. Recent reviews reveal systematic overcharging (quotes 5-7X competitor prices), aggressive upselling of service contracts, and poor responsiveness to emergency calls. Project completion suffers from repeated callbacks, incorrect parts ordering, and incomplete repairs. The company's pricing strategy appears deliberately exploitative, particularly toward elderly and vulnerable customers.

• CRITICAL: Strong evidence of predatory pricing practices. February 2024 review documents $1,418 quote vs. $201.75 actual repair cost (7X markup). Another 2024 review shows $1,300 repair that failed, requiring second company to fix at $380.
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2018, 2024) describe high service fees ($85-$170) and diagnostic charges ($160-$194) that yield no actionable information or solutions.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING: Service contracts described as 'Optional' but pressure applied; 120-month financing plans ($35,400 total) pushed on elderly customer in distress.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between positive reviews from 2012-2017 (praising specific technicians like Dan, Aaron) and negative reviews from 2018-2024 (systemic failures, incompetence, poor office staff demeanor).
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Emergency service requests denied or delayed excessively (3 weeks for winter furnace outage; 5 days for active leak; 'after hours' refusal at 2 PM).
• INCOMPLETE REPAIRS: 2014 review documents 6-month cycle of repeated failures, wrong parts ordered twice, warranty labor disputes.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2024, 2023) are significantly more negative than older reviews (2012-2017), suggesting company performance has deteriorated or business practices have become more exploitative.
• OFFICE STAFF CONDUCT: Described as 'unfriendly,' dismissive, and prioritizing sales over customer service needs.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 15 reviews with adequate mention counts, the extreme polarization between older positive reviews and recent negative reviews, combined with documented evidence of systematic overcharging and predatory practices, suggests the company's current operations differ significantly from its historical reputation. Recent reviews (2023-2024) are more reliable indicators of current service quality than older reviews. The WW Score of 52.8 reflects serious and recurring problems that outweigh isolated positive experiences.