Find Nearby Plumbers In Aurora, Illinois

D&S Plumbing shows highly polarized performance across reviews spanning 2011–2022. Positive reviews (2022, 2018, 2016) praise same-day service, honest pricing, and quality workmanship. However, two severe 1-star reviews from 2011–2012 document serious failures: abandoned work with deposit forfeiture, incomplete jobs 4+ days overdue, safety hazards (plugged extension cord near water), and poor problem-solving. The 2011 review explicitly references an F rating with the Better Business Bureau. The stark contrast between recent praise and older critical failures suggests either significant business changes or inconsistent service quality. Given the severity of documented project abandonment and safety issues, conservative scoring is warranted despite positive recent feedback.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews (2011, 2012) document serious project abandonment, deposit forfeiture, and safety hazards. One review explicitly references F rating with Better Business Bureau.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent positive reviews are from 2022, 2018, and 2016, while most severe complaints are from 2011–2012. Unclear if business has genuinely reformed or if negative reviews are simply older.
• SAFETY ISSUE FLAGGED: 2011 review documents plugged extension cord left on basement floor near water—serious electrical hazard.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: 2011 review documents 4+ day delay on 1-day job, incomplete work, and refusal to finish until police intervention.
• POLARIZATION: Reviews show extreme bimodal distribution (5-star vs 1-star) with no middle ground, suggesting either transformative business change or selective review patterns.

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews are positive, documented project abandonment, safety violations, and BBB complaints from 2011–2012 create significant historical risk. The small sample size (5 reviews) and extreme polarization limit confidence. Prospective customers should independently verify current BBB status and request references from recent projects before engaging.

This contractor shows highly polarized performance with extreme variance between reviews. Two early reviews (2018–2019) praise professionalism, fair pricing, and responsiveness, while two detailed 2017 reviews document serious issues: scope creep, unexpected costs ($2,937 vs. estimated ~$1,100–$1,200), installation of wrong materials (chrome instead of brushed nickel hardware), and incomplete work requiring customer follow-up. The negative reviews provide extensive specifics about billing practices, communication failures, and technical decisions that were not pre-disclosed. Professionalism scores are dragged down by the documented lack of transparency and the pattern of discovering new work mid-project. Pricing confidence is low due to the stark contradiction between fair-pricing praise and the cost overrun complaints.

• EXTREME POLARIZATION: Two 5-star reviews vs. two 1-star reviews with no middle ground. This suggests either significant service inconsistency or potential selection bias in review sources.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are from 2018–2019 (5–6 years old); negative reviews are from 2017 (7 years old). All reviews predate the past 12 months, limiting ability to assess current performance.
• SCOPE CREEP & TRANSPARENCY: The detailed 2017 reviews document a pattern of undisclosed work requirements, material substitutions (chrome vs. brushed nickel), and billing from shop location rather than job site—none mentioned upfront.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Customer had to source and install shower hardware, toilet, and correct tub hardware themselves after contractor departure.
• BILLING PRACTICES: Travel time charged from shop location; labor billed for idle crew members; final bill ($2,937) nearly 3x initial estimate ($1,100–$1,200).

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme review polarization, age of all reviews (5–7 years), and lack of recent data. The detailed negative reviews provide credible specifics about operational issues, but the absence of recent reviews makes it impossible to determine if practices have changed. Recommend requesting recent references and obtaining detailed written scope-of-work agreements before engaging.

Moe's Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its reviews. Positive reviewers praise responsiveness, politeness, professional crews, and quality workmanship, while multiple negative reviewers describe serious failures in communication, billing practices, punctuality, and follow-through. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by repeated complaints about missed appointments, workers arriving unannounced, shouting at customers, and a 9-month delay in correcting mistakes. Project completion scores are similarly hurt by a 5-week delay on a simple job and a 9-month correction period, offsetting the positive accounts of prompt and complete work. Pricing received mixed signals — some reviewers found it affordable and fair, while one reviewer was unhappy with a $508 charge for a simple job that dragged on. The majority of reviews are from 2014–2022, with only one review from the past 12 months (2024), limiting the ability to assess current performance.

• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only 1 of 10 reviews is from the past year (2024). Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2016-04-13) contains only the word 'unknown' and provides no usable data. It was excluded from scoring.
• Billing misconduct flagged: Two separate reviewers independently describe receiving bills years after service, with one reviewer alleging an unannounced after-hours visit with threatening demands for payment and subsequent collections action. This is a serious ethical and professionalism concern.
• No fake review patterns detected; positive and negative reviews contain specific details and varied language, suggesting authentic submissions.
• Score confidence is tempered by the wide spread of review dates (2014–2024) and the small total sample size of 10 reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small but detail-rich review set spanning a decade, with serious negative incidents that meaningfully offset positive feedback and only one recent review available to reflect current business practices.

This contractor exhibits severe inconsistency across reviews, with a stark divide between positive and negative experiences. Professionalism is heavily compromised by documented unresponsiveness, cancellations, and blocking customers after disputes. Pricing is a major red flag, with multiple reviews citing charges double or triple competitor rates, lack of transparency, and delayed invoicing. Project completion shows critical failures including abandoned work and incomplete jobs requiring legal action. Technical skill appears solid in simpler plumbing tasks, but execution and follow-through are unreliable. The 2021–2023 positive reviews contrast sharply with 2022–2024 negative reviews, suggesting either deteriorating service quality or a pattern of problematic business practices.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2022–2024) document blocking customers after disputes and refusing detailed invoices—suggests potential pattern of conflict avoidance and lack of accountability.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY FAILURE: At least 3 reviews explicitly state lack of detailed quotes, delayed invoicing, and flat-rate billing that customers found unreasonable. One customer reports $350/hour labor rate for basic work.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: 2023 review documents 6-week abandonment of excavation/garage floor project with multiple excuses and zero follow-up—customer required legal action to recover deposit.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2022–2024 (recent); positive reviews cluster in 2021 and early 2023. This suggests service quality may have deteriorated or negative patterns have intensified.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Multiple reviews cite delayed quotes (1 week), cancelled appointments (back-to-back cancellations), and eventual complete non-communication.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW RISK: The 2021 reviews (Dec 29 and Dec 31) use unusually enthusiastic language ('Incredible', 'HUGE amount of pride', 'without hesitation') with minimal specifics, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews. However, insufficient evidence to definitively flag as fake.
• RESOURCE INADEQUACY: Multiple reviews note contractor lacked equipment, tools, and prepared crew—suggesting operational unpreparedness for larger projects.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 8 reviews with usable data, the extreme polarization (five 5-star vs. three 1-star ratings) and documented pattern of customer disputes, blocking, and legal action suggest this contractor poses significant risk. The recent negative trajectory and multiple corroborating complaints about pricing and responsiveness are more reliable than older positive reviews. Potential customers should request detailed written quotes, verify references from recent projects, and establish clear communication protocols before engagement.

Bradbury Plumbing and Heating presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: several reviews praise specific technicians (Greg, Alyssa, Nick, Jeff, Sean) for courteous and responsive behavior, while multiple negative reviews cite poor communication, unreturned calls, scheduling failures, and an annoyed customer service representative. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out charges they considered excessive or unjustified — including $800 for a 90-minute water heater install, $425 for a $20–40 capacitor, and $3,000+ for a well pump replacement that turned out to be unnecessary. Project completion is similarly split: positive reviews describe same-day service, follow-through, and callbacks honored, while negative reviews describe jobs left incomplete for days, a misdiagnosed problem, and an AC unit damaged during a heating job. Experience scores moderately, with several reviewers praising technical skill and problem-solving, but offset by at least one instance of apparent misdiagnosis and a complaint about damaging a separate system. The overall score reflects a contractor with capable field technicians but serious and recurring concerns around pricing transparency and customer service consistency.

• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2019–2021, while the most recent reviews (2022–2024) are predominantly negative (1–2 stars). This suggests a possible decline in service quality or pricing practices over time. Recent reviews should be weighted more heavily.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly flagged pricing as excessive or deceptive. This is a consistent pattern, not an isolated complaint.
• MISDIAGNOSIS FLAG: One reviewer (2023) states they were charged $240 to diagnose a problem that did not exist and did not need a $3,000+ pump replacement. This is a serious workmanship and ethics concern.
• DAMAGE COMPLAINT: One reviewer (2024) claims the company damaged their AC unit while performing heating work, which raises a significant competency and liability concern.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail, specificity, and rating. No suspicious uniformity or repetitive phrasing was identified. Reviews appear genuine.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews spanning 2017–2024 with usable data across all four dimensions; confidence is MODERATE overall due to the small sample size, but the consistent negative pricing pattern and the sharp decline in review sentiment after 2021 meaningfully reduce trust in this contractor's current service standards.

The reviews paint a predominantly negative picture of Annie's Handyman Service across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple accounts of a handyman yelling at a customer, a worker bullying a woman into signing a contract, the owner hanging up on complainants, and repeated dismissiveness toward customer concerns — only two reviews describe genuinely positive interactions. Project completion is the weakest area, with multiple reviews describing unfinished work, missed appointments, no-shows, and a roof repair that still leaked after multiple visits. Pricing received mixed signals — one reviewer praised reasonable prices and another found pricing fair at estimate, but the roof repair review noted costs were not adjusted even when the customer supplied materials, and one customer ultimately paid for incomplete work. Experience scores slightly higher due to one detailed positive review of a sump pump installation and one glowing multi-project review, but these are outweighed by accounts of poor workmanship and unresolved damage.

• Most reviews are from 2015–2018; the most recent review is from July 2018, meaning all reviews are over 5 years old. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred.
• The single 5-star review from 2013 is highly generic in praise ('impeccable,' 'reasonable prices,' 'hire them immediately') with no specific worker names or job details, which raises a mild concern about authenticity. Confidence on that review is reduced.
• A pattern of owner (John) dismissing, talking over, or hanging up on female complainants is noted across multiple independent reviews — this is a recurring behavioral flag, not an isolated incident.
• One reviewer explicitly notes they saw bad reviews before hiring, suggesting a known reputation issue predating their experience.
• The damage incident (tool dropped on stove, owner saying 'I don't know what to do') suggests a lack of accountability protocols for on-site damage.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a meaningful number of detailed, specific reviews across multiple dimensions, but is limited by the age of all reviews (none within the past 5+ years) and the absence of any recent data to confirm whether service quality has improved or declined.