Find Nearby Plumbers In Woonsocket, Rhode Island

Pete's Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. A cluster of older reviews (2012–2018) from a plumber named Paul Kelton describe highly skilled, thorough, and honest workmanship, which elevates the experience score somewhat. However, the more recent and numerous reviews (2018–2024) paint a troubling pattern of pricing opacity, inflated quotes, refusal to provide itemized breakdowns, and in several cases outright misdiagnosis of problems that other plumbers resolved cheaply and quickly. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by repeated failures to show up on time, poor communication from the office, and in one case a manager threatening to abandon a job mid-installation unless paid in full. The pricing dimension is the weakest area, with multiple reviewers independently documenting quotes two to four times higher than competitors, undisclosed add-on charges, and at least two credible allegations of fabricated repair needs.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviewers across different years describe being quoted prices significantly above market rate, with add-on charges for items already present or not needed (e.g., relief valves already installed, vents already up to code, non-existent 'squirrel cage motor'). This is a consistent and specific pattern, not isolated complaints.
• REFUSAL TO ITEMIZE: Two reviewers explicitly state that Pete's Plumbing refused to provide an itemized breakdown of charges, which is a significant transparency red flag.
• POSSIBLE DUAL-ENTITY ISSUE: Several highly positive reviews (2012–2014) reference a specific plumber named 'Paul Kelton' operating out of New Jersey (Metuchen to Leonia), which is geographically inconsistent with the majority of reviews referencing a New Orleans-area operation. These may represent a different business or individual operating under the same name, and their scores may not reflect the same company.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2022–2024) are uniformly 1-star. All 5-star reviews are from 2019 or earlier, with the most detailed positive reviews from 2012–2016. The trend is strongly negative over time.
• ONE REVIEW FLAGGED AS NO DATA: The review dated 2015-08-27 contains only the word 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable information.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: The 5-star reviews from 2016–2019 are somewhat generic in praise ('timely, courteous and professional') without strong specifics, though not identical in phrasing. No strong fake review pattern detected, but the contrast with detailed negative reviews warrants mild caution.
• ACCOUNTABILITY FAILURE: One reviewer reports the owner blamed the customer for the company losing their inspector's report and failing to follow up for three weeks, indicating a pattern of deflecting responsibility.

This WW Score is based on 21 usable reviews spanning 12 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but consumers should weight the more recent 2019–2024 reviews most heavily, as they consistently describe pricing misconduct and poor follow-through that the older positive reviews do not offset.

Peterson Oil's review record is heavily dragged down by serious, detailed negative experiences involving bad oil delivery causing boiler damage, repeated failures to deliver prepaid oil, rude management, and refusal to rectify customer harm. The single detailed positive review from 2014 describes a professional, prompt, and fairly priced service visit, and a handful of long-term customers note consistent delivery and responsiveness — but these positives are outweighed by the severity and specificity of the negative accounts. Project completion scores particularly low due to documented failures to fulfill prepaid delivery contracts and an abandoned customer mid-dispute. The professionalism dimension is mixed: one reviewer praises politeness and promptness while multiple others describe rude managers and broken promises. Overall, the score reflects a company with serious reliability and accountability concerns.

• Three reviews contain no usable text ('unknown' or a single period with a 5-star rating) — these appear to be placeholder or fake reviews and were excluded from scoring.
• The two 'unknown' reviews and the blank '.' review all carry 5-star ratings with zero detail, which is a pattern consistent with inflated or fake positive reviews.
• Most substantive positive reviews are from 2010–2014, making them 10+ years old and of very limited relevance to current service quality.
• The most recent detailed review (2021) describes a serious product quality failure, regulatory fines ($450,000 state fine mentioned), and deceptive business practices — this is a significant red flag.
• Only 1 review falls within the past 12 months relative to a typical analysis window; the review corpus is largely outdated and should be treated with caution.
• The negative reviews are highly specific and detailed (boiler damage, bad oil composition, billing disputes, attorney general complaints), lending them strong credibility compared to the vague positive reviews.

This WW Score has LOW overall reliability due to a small review set, multiple suspected fake or placeholder reviews, a corpus dominated by reviews older than 5 years, and a stark credibility imbalance between detailed negative accounts and vague positive ones — prospective customers should seek more current and verified reviews before making a decision.

CJ Nemes Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative feedback in recent reviews, with three separate 1–2 star reviews from 2023 describing the contractor hanging up on customers, failing to show up on scheduled days without notice, and refusing to follow through on ordered parts. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and scores extremely low, driven by multiple accounts of rude communication, no-shows, and dismissive behavior. Project completion also scores poorly, as multiple jobs were left incomplete or abandoned mid-process. The two positive reviews — both from 2019–2020 — describe satisfactory work and timely responses, which slightly elevate the experience score, but these are significantly outweighed by the more recent negative pattern. The single pricing mention is a negative one, with a customer explicitly stating the job was 'totally underbid,' suggesting possible issues with quote accuracy or scope management.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two positive reviews are from 2019 and 2020 — more than 3 years before the negative reviews. The three most recent reviews (2023) are all 1–2 stars with serious complaints. The contractor's performance appears to have significantly declined over time.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Multiple reviews describe jobs that were started or scheduled but never completed, with no follow-up communication from the contractor.
• PATTERN OF HOSTILE COMMUNICATION: Three independent reviewers describe the contractor or staff hanging up on them or responding with hostility when contacted, suggesting a systemic customer service problem.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW RISK: The 5-star review from 2020 (Paula-Marie Hogge) uses generic praise language ('so satisfied,' 'worked hard,' 'would definitely recommend') with no specific details. This review warrants mild skepticism but is not conclusively fake.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total. Scores should be interpreted with caution due to limited data volume.

This WW Score has LIMITED overall reliability due to the small sample size of 5 reviews; however, the consistent and specific nature of the three recent negative reviews provides meaningful signal, and the score should be treated as a credible warning indicator rather than a definitive rating.

CJ Nemes receives overwhelmingly negative feedback across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is critically poor, with multiple reviewers citing no-shows without notice, failure to communicate, rude behavior, and dismissive attitudes toward long-standing customers. Project completion is the most damning dimension: reviewers consistently describe abandoned jobs, unresolved problems, and being forced to hire other plumbers to finish or fix the work. Pricing concerns are also significant, with one reviewer paying $250 for an unfixed problem and another paying $400 only to have the same issue recur two weeks later, followed by a disputed $6,000 upsell that a second opinion deemed unnecessary. On the experience dimension, specific technical failures are cited — including improperly pitched pipes, a missing Hartford Loop that caused a system crack, and a misdiagnosis of a collapsed pipe that turned out to be a simple clog — all pointing to serious workmanship deficiencies.

• One review is rated 5 stars but contains entirely negative content describing misdiagnosis and an unnecessary $6,000 upsell — this rating appears to be a data entry error or platform anomaly and was treated as a negative review for scoring purposes.
• Review dates span from 2014 to 2023, indicating a long and consistent pattern of poor performance rather than isolated incidents.
• The most recent review (September 2023) confirms that the same issues — no-shows, lack of communication, and disregard for customers — persist nearly a decade after the earliest complaints.
• No positive reviews were present in the dataset. While this could reflect selection bias in the reviews provided, the consistency and specificity of complaints across multiple years reduces the likelihood that these are outliers.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific details, dates, dollar amounts, and named individuals, lending credibility to the complaints.

This WW Score is based on 5 reviews spanning nearly 10 years, all negative and highly specific, giving the score moderate-to-high reliability as a warning signal, though a larger review sample would be needed to assign a fully confident numerical score.

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. The positive review from 2019 describes a knowledgeable technician (Jeff Cook) who gave honest advice, avoided unnecessary upsells, installed a filtration system successfully, and was pleasant to work with — all strong signals. However, the 2024 review describes a serious responsiveness failure: a customer with no water during an emergency received zero callback over 5 days, ultimately resolving the issue with a competitor. This recent negative experience significantly drags down professionalism and project completion scores and is weighted more heavily due to its recency.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The positive review is from December 2019, over 4 years before the negative review. Business performance may have changed significantly.
• The 2024 negative review describes a complete failure to respond to an emergency call over 5 days — a critical professionalism and reliability concern.
• It is unknown whether the business is still actively operating, as noted by the reviewer themselves.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews spanning 5 years and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current business quality — seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions fair pricing, job completion quality, and years of experience, but provides no substantive information on professionalism dimensions such as punctuality, communication, or responsiveness. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is generic and lacks specific details about the work performed
• No information on professionalism (punctuality, communication, attitude)
• Review date is from January 2023 — over 1 year old; recency is a concern

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.