Find Nearby Plumbers In Aurora, Illinois

Tritan Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven by severe and consistent failures across all dimensions. The company exhibits pervasive professionalism issues including chronic no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, and rude staff behavior documented in 48 reviews. Pricing practices are deeply problematic, with 32 reviews detailing excessive overcharges, hidden fees, bait-and-switch tactics, and refusal to provide itemized invoices. Project completion is severely compromised, with 52 reviews reporting abandoned work, failure to honor callbacks, non-delivery of services despite deposits, and incomplete repairs. While technical experience shows moderate capability (58/100 across 28 mentions), this is overshadowed by systemic operational failures. The company's pattern of taking deposits and then becoming unresponsive is particularly damaging.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 15+) describe identical patterns of taking 50% deposits and then becoming unresponsive or failing to complete work. This suggests systemic fraud or severe operational collapse.
• CRITICAL: At least 8 reviews explicitly mention the company taking deposits and refusing refunds despite cancellations or non-performance, with some customers pursuing legal action.
• CRITICAL: Suspicious clustering of 5-star reviews (approximately 20 reviews) with generic praise and minimal specifics, many with blank or minimal text, contrasts sharply with detailed negative reviews. This pattern suggests potential fake reviews or review manipulation.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 6) document the company charging customers' credit cards multiple times without authorization, with customers disputing charges and involving lawyers.
• CRITICAL: At least 4 reviews describe deliberate misdiagnosis or dishonest sales tactics (e.g., claiming hoses cannot be replaced separately when they can, quoting $25,000 for non-existent problems).
• CRITICAL: Company appears to have included illegal contract language threatening to sue customers for negative reviews, violating the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), as documented in at least one detailed review.
• CRITICAL: Recency concern: Most negative reviews cluster in 2020-2025 (past 5 years), with particularly severe complaints in 2024-2025, suggesting ongoing or worsening problems rather than historical issues.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews describe staff rudeness, including hanging up on customers, speaking condescendingly, and refusing service to certain areas despite prior service history.
• CRITICAL: At least 3 reviews mention technicians arriving late, smelling of alcohol, or appearing unprofessional in appearance/demeanor.
• CRITICAL: Pattern of promised discounts or inconvenience fees that are never applied, documented in at least 4 reviews.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 80 detailed reviews with extensive corroborating evidence across all dimensions. The consistency of negative patterns (deposit theft, no-shows, overcharging, unresponsiveness) across dozens of independent reviews, combined with documented legal disputes and credit card fraud allegations, creates a clear and damning picture. The suspicious clustering of generic 5-star reviews does not materially change the overall assessment given the overwhelming volume and specificity of negative evidence. This company presents severe and documented risks to consumers.

Foster Reliable Plumbing & Heating shows severe deficiencies in professionalism and project completion. Three of four reviews explicitly cite failure to show up, no-call/no-show behavior, unresponsiveness to phone calls, and lack of follow-through on commitments. One positive 2022 review noted timely arrival and friendly service, but this is heavily outweighed by three damaging reviews spanning 2017–2024 documenting chronic unreliability. No pricing information was mentioned in any review. The single mention of effective workmanship cannot offset the pattern of broken commitments and poor communication.

• CRITICAL: Three of four reviews (75%) report no-show, failure to arrive, or complete non-responsiveness. This is a pattern of severe operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review (2024-10-20) repeats the same no-show/no-communication pattern as reviews from 2021 and 2017, suggesting systemic, unresolved issues.
• BUSINESS PRACTICE RED FLAG: One review (2017) alleges non-payment of bills owed, suggesting potential financial or ethical issues beyond service quality.
• CONFIDENCE LIMITATION: Only 4 reviews total; score reliability is constrained by small sample size despite consistency of negative pattern.

This WW Score should be treated as a strong warning signal rather than a precise measurement. The consistency of no-show and communication failures across multiple years and reviewers indicates a genuine operational problem, but the small sample size (4 reviews) limits statistical confidence. The 2022 positive review suggests the company is capable of good work when it shows up, but chronic unreliability makes it unsuitable for customers who depend on scheduled service.

Prestige Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four dimensions, with the most damaging pattern being chronic no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to return calls — behaviors cited in well over half of all reviews. Pricing is a severe and consistent complaint, with multiple reviewers describing charges they characterize as exploitative, particularly during emergency situations, and several instances of estimates changing without explanation at time of payment. Project completion is deeply problematic: incomplete repairs, return visits required to fix botched work, and outright abandoned jobs are documented across numerous reviews spanning multiple years. The handful of positive reviews (roughly 4–5 out of 35) do praise specific technicians like TJ and Tim for professionalism and quality work, but these are far outweighed by the volume and specificity of negative experiences. The company's pattern of unresponsiveness after complaints — refusing callbacks to dissatisfied customers — further compounds every other dimension's score.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2013–2019. Only one review is from 2022 and one from 2021. Current performance may differ but cannot be confirmed from this dataset.
• PRICING EXPLOITATION PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe being charged during emergency or high-pressure situations at rates significantly above market, suggesting a systemic pricing practice rather than isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / CALLBACK REFUSAL PATTERN: At least 6 reviews describe work that was not completed correctly on the first visit, followed by the company refusing to return calls or honor follow-up service — a serious project completion red flag.
• NO-SHOW / APPOINTMENT ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 10 reviews describe the company failing to appear for scheduled appointments without notice, across multiple years, suggesting a structural operational failure.
• UPSELLING CONCERN: Multiple reviewers independently allege technicians pushed unnecessary replacements rather than repairs, and one reviewer alleges a technician left mid-job with a removed part and never returned — potential fraud indicator.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK: No strong fake review patterns detected. The positive reviews are few, contain specific names and details, and are separated by years. The negative reviews are highly varied in language, detail, and scenario, lending them credibility.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: Documented incidents include a water softener installed backwards, a thermostat wired to run AC 24/7 unregulated, a sump pump installed without a new switch, and a drain installed unevenly with glue/grease left on surfaces — indicating inconsistent technical quality.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews spanning approximately 12 years and carries HIGH confidence due to the large volume of mentions across all dimensions; the score of 28.1 should be treated as a reliable indicator of serious, systemic service deficiencies, though prospective customers should note that the most recent reviews are from 2021–2022 and the company's current operational status cannot be confirmed from this data alone.

Phil Walz Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative feedback across nearly all dimensions, with pricing being the single most damaging area. Multiple reviewers independently documented being charged for time not worked, inflated parts costs, and rates far above market — including several who used security cameras or timestamps to prove overbilling. Professionalism is severely undermined by recurring complaints about rude office staff, technicians who denied mistakes, and plumbers who required customer assistance to complete jobs. Project completion is inconsistent: several jobs were left unfinished or required the customer to complete the work themselves, and at least one callback resulted in denial of responsibility for damage caused. Experience scores marginally higher due to a handful of positive reviews praising specific technicians, but is offset by documented cases of technicians watching online videos mid-job, failing to locate gas leaks, and reversing hot/cold piping.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with the most recent being from July 2022. Only 3 reviews are from 2021 or later. Current service quality may differ but cannot be confirmed from this dataset.
• OVERBILLING PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviewers explicitly documented being charged for time not worked, including multiple who used security cameras or timestamped footage to verify. This is a consistent and serious pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE REVIEWS: The 5-star reviews are notably sparse in operational detail compared to the volume of negative reviews. Two 5-star reviews mention 'Kim' and 'Debbie' by name with warm but generic praise, which may reflect personal relationships rather than objective service quality. These reviews are treated with reduced weight.
• PARTS MARKUP CONCERN: One reviewer documented a plumber substituting a customer-supplied part with an identical item from his truck at a significant markup, suggesting a deliberate upselling practice.
• DENIAL OF RESPONSIBILITY: At least two reviews describe technicians or the company denying responsibility for damage or errors they caused, indicating a systemic accountability problem.
• LOW POSITIVE REVIEW RATE: Of 22 reviews, only 5 are rated 4 stars or above (approximately 23%), which is well below acceptable thresholds for a service contractor.

This WW Score is based on 22 reviews spanning 2011–2022 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable in direction, though the age of most reviews means current performance cannot be fully confirmed.

This contractor/warranty company receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four dimensions, with only a small handful of positive reviews (approximately 7 out of 75) providing any favorable signal. Professionalism is severely damaged by pervasive reports of no-shows, extreme hold times, rude representatives, supervisors refusing to take calls, and agents hanging up on customers. Project completion is catastrophically low, with dozens of reviews describing abandoned repairs, denied claims, missed appointments, wrong parts, and complete failure to follow through on promised callbacks or reimbursements. Pricing and value are rated very poorly due to widespread reports of unauthorized billing, hidden fees, claims denied after years of payments, and customers receiving little to no service in return for monthly fees. The few positive reviews praising individual technicians or timely service are vastly outnumbered and do not meaningfully offset the systemic failures documented across the review set.

• OVERWHELMING NEGATIVE PATTERN: Approximately 90%+ of reviews are 1-star, spanning multiple years (2018–2024), indicating systemic and persistent service failures rather than isolated incidents.
• SUSPECTED UNAUTHORIZED BILLING FRAUD: Multiple reviewers explicitly state they never signed up for services yet were billed through utility bills (Nicor, Nipsco, Centerpoint). This is a significant legal and ethical red flag.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE REVIEWS: The small number of 5-star reviews (approximately 7) are notably brief, generic, and lack the specificity seen in negative reviews. Several use suspiciously enthusiastic language with no verifiable detail, suggesting possible planted or incentivized reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are consistent and continuous from 2018 through October 2024, indicating no improvement over time. The most recent reviews (2024) are as negative as older ones.
• PATTERN OF CLAIM DENIAL: Multiple reviewers across different years describe a consistent pattern of claims being denied after long delays, paperwork runarounds, and unreachable claims departments — suggesting a systemic policy rather than individual errors.
• MULTIPLE NAME CHANGES NOTED: Reviewers reference the company operating under Nicor Home Solutions, Pivotal Home Solutions, Oncourse Home Solutions, and American Home Solutions — a pattern flagged by multiple customers as an attempt to obscure a poor reputation.
• BBB COMPLAINTS REFERENCED: At least one reviewer references over 200 BBB complaints and class-action lawsuit settlements in Indiana and Ohio, corroborating the review pattern.
• SAFETY CONCERNS RAISED: At least two reviews describe situations where the company's failure to respond created dangerous conditions (no heat in winter, gas leaks, flooding), elevating the severity of the service failures beyond mere inconvenience.

This WW Score of 18.7 is based on a large volume of reviews (75) with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, and should be considered a highly reliable and damning assessment of this company's performance — the score accurately reflects a pattern of systemic failure in professionalism, claim fulfillment, pricing transparency, and technical execution.

All three reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of serious problems across every dimension. Professionalism is rated near zero due to explicit reports of rudeness, aggression, cursing, hanging up on customers, and general hostility across all three reviews. Pricing concerns are significant, with one reviewer alleging a fraudulent $1,000 repair recommendation and another reporting payment for a repair that never resolved the issue. Project completion is critically low, as at least one job was left unresolved after payment and callbacks were met with hostility rather than follow-through. Experience is severely undermined by one reviewer's claim that Allen Grooms is not a licensed plumber, falsely represents himself as one, and refuses to pull required permits — corroborated by another reviewer who noted they were asked by the contractor to assist with basic valve work.

• SERIOUS LEGAL FLAG: One reviewer states Allen Grooms is not a licensed plumber and falsely identifies himself as one. A small claims court judgment was reportedly won against him in Will County in March 2011.
• PERMIT VIOLATION ALLEGED: Reviewer explicitly states the contractor refuses to pull permits with the city for his work, which may constitute a legal violation.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION: One reviewer alleges they were falsely told they needed $1,000 in repairs that were not necessary.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: At least one reviewer reports paying for a repair that did not work and receiving no resolution when following up.
• RECENCY WARNING: Two of the three reviews are from 2020 and one is from 2011. The 2011 review is over a decade old and should be weighted less heavily, though the pattern of behavior it describes is consistent with the more recent reviews.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 3 reviews are available. While the WW Score has been calculated, it should be treated with caution due to the small sample size. The consistent severity across all reviews does increase reliability of the negative signal.

Despite the small review count, the WW Score carries moderate reliability because all three reviews are independently detailed, describe specific incidents, name the contractor directly, and align consistently in their negative assessments across multiple dimensions — including a verifiable legal claim.