Find Nearby Plumbers In Burlington, Vermont

Bernie's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Positive reviews highlight genuine strengths: same-day responsiveness, honest disclosure of warranty coverage, fair pricing, and competent workmanship on leaks, pipes, and HVAC issues. However, four one-star reviews — spanning 2009 to 2017 — describe serious professionalism failures including rude phone manner, refusal to answer basic questions without payment, an abandoned job with an overcharge, and a non-functional water heater the day after a service call. These negative reviews are specific, detailed, and credible, preventing any dimension from scoring in the high range. The recency split is notable: the two most recent reviews (2023–2024) are strongly positive, while most negative reviews are older (2009–2017), suggesting possible improvement over time but not enough to dismiss the pattern of complaints.

• Four detailed one-star reviews describe rude or dismissive communication, an incomplete job with overcharging, refusal to provide basic phone guidance, and a water heater failing the day after a paid service call — these are serious and credible complaints that significantly weigh down professionalism and project completion scores.
• Recency note: The two most recent reviews (April 2024 and March 2023) are both 5-star and positive. The majority of negative reviews are from 2009–2017, which may indicate improvement in service quality over time, but the older negative reviews are still factored in as they are specific and detailed.
• No suspected fake reviews detected — both positive and negative reviews contain specific details, named individuals, and varied language, suggesting authenticity across the board.
• One review references a prior negative review by 'Michael,' suggesting a pattern of complaints that may have been partially removed or not included in this dataset — this warrants caution.
• The abandoned/incomplete job complaint (2014) and the next-day water heater failure complaint (2016) are particularly serious for a plumbing business and are weighted heavily in the project completion score.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews spanning 15 years with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the significant presence of credible negative reviews and the wide date range reduce confidence in the score as a predictor of current service quality — the most recent data (2023–2024) trends positive, so consumers should weigh recent reviews more heavily when making a decision.

This contractor exhibits severe inconsistency in service delivery. While positive reviews from 2019–2023 praise professionalism, punctuality, communication, and technical skill, recent reviews from 2024 and 2020 document critical failures: no-shows despite scheduled appointments, missed callbacks, incomplete work left unpaid, and poor communication during emergencies. The 2020 review details six separate appointment failures and unfinished work; the 2024 reviews confirm a pattern of no-shows with Ring camera evidence. Pricing appears fair when work is completed, but project completion is undermined by abandoned tasks and lack of follow-through. The stark contrast between older positive reviews and recent negative ones suggests either significant operational decline or inconsistent service quality.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of no-shows documented in multiple recent reviews (2024, 2020) with corroborating evidence (Ring camera, recorded calls, message timestamps)
• CRITICAL: Incomplete project work — 2020 review documents unfinished PVC work and exposed insulation months after payment, with withheld invoice
• CRITICAL: Severe communication breakdown — multiple instances of unanswered calls, delayed responses, and failure to notify customer of cancellations or delays
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2024, 2020) are highly negative; older reviews (2019–2023) are uniformly positive, suggesting possible operational deterioration or staffing changes
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark polarization between 5-star reviews praising 'excellent communication' and 1-star reviews documenting communication failures suggests either service quality varies dramatically by customer or operational issues have worsened over time

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization in review quality and recency. Recent reviews (2024, 2020) document serious failures in professionalism and project completion with specific evidence; however, older reviews (2019–2023) show strong performance. The WW Score reflects this mixed data, but the pattern of recent failures suggests current reliability is significantly lower than the overall score indicates. Customers should prioritize recent reviews when making decisions.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile: a cluster of strongly positive reviews centered on a specific technician named 'Louie' contrasted sharply with multiple detailed 1-star reviews describing price gouging, lack of transparency, poor follow-through on maintenance contracts, and dismissive communication. The negative reviews are highly specific and credible, citing padded labor hours, near-2x part markups, repeated failures to resolve the same issues, and a company president terminating a client relationship rather than addressing complaints. The positive reviews, while detailed in some cases, are significantly older (2011–2020) and may not reflect current company performance. Pricing received the lowest score due to multiple explicit, detailed complaints about inflated estimates and zero-transparency quotes. Project completion also scored poorly given documented failures to honor maintenance contracts and repeated callbacks for unresolved issues.

• Two reviews ('unknown' and 'See above') contain no usable content and were excluded from scoring.
• Significant recency concern: all positive reviews date from 2011–2020, while the most detailed negative reviews are from 2018–2022. The most recent review (2022) is a 1-star complaint, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time.
• The positive reviews disproportionately reference a single individual ('Louie'), suggesting the company's quality may be highly dependent on specific personnel rather than consistent organizational standards.
• One review explicitly mentions being located in New Hampshire despite a California location tag, raising a minor data integrity concern but the review content itself appears genuine and specific.
• No fake review patterns detected in the substantive reviews — both positive and negative reviews contain specific details, named individuals, and unique scenarios that suggest authenticity.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence, but the extreme age gap between positive and negative reviews, combined with the severity and specificity of recent complaints, means prospective customers should weight the 2018–2022 negative reviews heavily when making a hiring decision.

Hartigan demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across professionalism and project completion. Seven reviews explicitly document poor communication, broken promises, dishonesty about appointment times, rude behavior from staff and ownership, and failure to deliver promised refunds. Three reviews cite excessive pricing and overcharging. While three reviews mention technical competence when work was actually completed, this is heavily outweighed by widespread complaints about lying, verbal abuse, management dysfunction, and incomplete service delivery. The company's reputation has deteriorated significantly over time, with the most recent detailed complaint (2020) describing deliberate deception during an emergency.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2010, 2015, 2020) document identical patterns of broken refund promises and dishonesty—this suggests systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are older (2010-2020), but the most recent detailed review (Dec 2020) describes the same core problems (lying about appointment times, poor communication), indicating issues persist.
• MANAGEMENT RED FLAG: Multiple reviews explicitly cite management dysfunction, owner rudeness, dispatcher complaints for verbal abuse filed with Vermont state, and absentee ownership (split between Florida/Vermont).
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ARE VERY OLD: The two positive reviews (2011, 2013, 2015) predate the major complaints and lack specificity; the 2015 positive review contradicts the 2015 negative review about the same company.
• INDUSTRY REPUTATION: One review notes local towns have purchased their own equipment to avoid using Hartigan, suggesting widespread industry awareness of poor service.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on consistent, detailed complaints across multiple years documenting systemic failures in communication, honesty, and follow-through, corroborated by references to state complaints and industry avoidance. The few positive reviews are significantly older and lack the specificity of negative accounts.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent problems across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by no-shows without notice, non-responsiveness to calls and emails, and poor communication—issues cited in 5 reviews. Project completion is undermined by abandoned work, incomplete follow-through on refunds, and damage to customer property. Pricing integrity is severely damaged by overbidding (up to $15K over fair market rates), hidden cost escalations, and alleged theft of customer deposits. While two positive reviews praise his technical work quality and communication, they are heavily outweighed by four detailed negative reviews documenting fraud, financial misconduct, and breach of trust. The most recent review (2023) documents deposit theft and repeated no-shows, indicating ongoing problems.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews allege financial fraud, including theft of deposits ($2,000) and project funds ($15,000), with non-repayment over extended periods (7+ months documented).
• CRITICAL: Severe communication failures documented across multiple reviews—no-shows without notice, non-responsive to phone calls and emails, failure to honor callbacks.
• CRITICAL: Quality control failure—review documents broken hot water tank installation causing water damage and secondary property damage, with contractor initially claiming insurance coverage then becoming unresponsive.
• CRITICAL: Licensing concern—one review explicitly states plumbing license appears to have expired; another review notes removal from HomeAdvisor professional directory.
• CRITICAL: Pricing integrity severely compromised—documented overbidding by $9K-$15K above fair market rates, progressive cost escalations during projects, and bids that are extreme outliers.
• PATTERN: Four 1-star reviews with detailed, specific allegations of fraud and misconduct vs. two 5-star reviews with generic praise. The negative reviews provide extensive documentation (dates, amounts, timelines, secondary damages); positive reviews lack specificity about pricing or completion details.
• RECENCY: Most recent review (Jan 2023) documents ongoing deposit theft and no-shows, indicating problems are current, not historical.
• CREDIBILITY: Negative reviews cite verifiable facts (HomeAdvisor removal, Facebook fundraising pages, specific dollar amounts, documented timeline of non-payment). Positive reviews are older (2019, 2021) and lack comparable detail.

This score should be trusted with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence. The WW Score of 32.8 reflects severe, documented failures in professionalism, pricing integrity, and project completion. While only 6 reviews were analyzed, the negative reviews are detailed, specific, and mutually corroborating across different customers and time periods. The two positive reviews do not contradict the pattern but are insufficient to offset documented fraud allegations and current (2023) misconduct. This contractor presents substantial financial and operational risk.

This contractor's review set is small and heavily negative, with two out of three reviews rating 1 star. Professionalism is severely undermined by a documented no-show with no call, no apology, and no follow-up communication, as well as a failure to respond to multiple calls and texts about a defective repair. Project completion is critically damaged by an unresolved faulty pipe installation that required a competing plumber to fix, and a completely abandoned appointment. The single positive review does highlight responsiveness, competitive pricing, and respectful conduct, which prevents scores from bottoming out entirely, but it cannot offset the weight of two detailed negative experiences. Overall, the pattern across these reviews raises serious concerns about reliability and follow-through.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with significant caution.
• Two of three reviews are 1-star with specific, detailed complaints about no-shows, lack of communication, and defective workmanship — this is a strong negative signal.
• The single 5-star review, while detailed, cannot offset two substantiated negative experiences at this sample size.
• Reviews span 2018–2019 — all reviews are older than 5 years. No recent data is available to assess current performance.
• No reviews from the past 12 months. Contractor's current operational status and quality level are unknown.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all dated 2018–2019, and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek more current references before hiring.