Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 60510, Batavia, Illinois

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, courtesy, and communication across multiple technicians — particularly Lourele Roberts, Conrad, and Don — driving a strong professionalism score. Project completion scores well, with many reviewers noting jobs were finished quickly and effectively, though two notable negative reviews describe a technician who could not resolve the problem yet still charged for the visit, and a separate contractor who submitted misleading warranty reports to avoid completing work — both of which meaningfully suppress the completion score. Pricing feedback is generally positive, with multiple reviewers calling prices fair or reasonable, though one reviewer noted the price felt steep, keeping the pricing score conservative. Experience scores well overall, with numerous mentions of knowledgeable, skilled, and technically capable technicians, though the one review describing a technician who did not understand the problem and required a hand-drawn diagram prevents a higher score.

• Multiple reviews for Lourele Roberts #2126 share very similar phrasing and structure (e.g., 'professional and courteous,' 'fixed the issue fast and efficiently,' 'highly recommend') across reviews dated 2025-04-10 through 2025-05-26 — possible review solicitation campaign or coached reviews; confidence in those specific reviews is reduced.
• Four reviews contain no text at all (blank body, only a 5-star rating) — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• This appears to be a composite review set covering multiple technicians (Lourele Roberts, Conrad Cheneau, Don, Tony, Lester) and possibly multiple business entities (One Good Plumber and Roto-Rooter) — scores reflect the aggregate and may not represent any single technician or company accurately.
• Two serious negative reviews exist: one describing a technician who failed to diagnose the problem and still charged a visit fee (2025-06-08), and one describing a contractor who submitted false information to a home warranty company to avoid completing work (2023-03-08). These are significant red flags for project completion reliability.
• A large portion of reviews (approximately 60+) are older than 12 months, with many dating back to 2019-2022. Recency weighting applied — more recent reviews (2025) were given greater interpretive weight, but the older reviews still inform the overall pattern.
• Several reviews appear to be near-duplicates (e.g., two nearly identical Conrad reviews dated 2022-04-16 — one with encoding errors suggesting a copy-paste from another platform). These were counted as one unique mention to avoid inflation.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for general professionalism and experience trends, but should be interpreted cautiously given the mixed technician pool, two substantive negative completion incidents, signs of coached or solicited reviews for one technician, and a large volume of reviews predating 12 months.

First Response Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in customer interactions, with most technicians (Eddie, Paul, Will, Aaron, Shah) receiving consistent praise for knowledge, politeness, and efficiency. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing concerns—multiple customers report dramatic overcharges, upselling, and price gouging (e.g., $750 for 1.5 hours of simple PVC work, $435 to snake a toilet, $4,500 estimate later proven unnecessary). Project completion reliability is inconsistent, with numerous reports of missed appointments, no-shows, poor communication, and incomplete follow-through, particularly when dealing with home warranty companies. Recent reviews (2025) show improvement in consistency, but older and mid-range reviews reveal systemic operational failures including ghosting, non-responsive management, and abandoned jobs.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple independent complaints of significant overcharging and price gouging across different time periods (2016-2024). Customers report quotes that are 3-10x higher than competitors for identical work. This pattern is too consistent to ignore and suggests systemic pricing practices rather than isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Substantial number of reviews (15+) document missed appointments, no-shows, poor communication, and incomplete work. Complaints span from 2013-2024, indicating chronic operational issues. Many customers report having to call repeatedly to get technicians to show up or follow through.
• MANAGEMENT/OWNERSHIP ISSUES: Multiple reviews cite unprofessional behavior from owner 'John' or 'Joey,' including poor communication, rudeness to customers (particularly women), threats, and financial disputes. Several reviews describe fraudulent behavior including false claims about work needed and non-refunded deposits.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews from 2025-03-11 through 2025-05-10 show suspicious clustering with nearly identical phrasing patterns ('Eddie/Eddy was amazing/fantastic/professional,' 'explained everything,' 'very friendly'). Multiple reviews mention same technicians (Eddie, Will, Shah) with generic praise and minimal specific details. This concentration of 5-star reviews with repetitive language suggests possible review manipulation or incentivized reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive, contrasting sharply with 2023-2024 reviews which contain serious complaints about fraud, theft, and non-completion. This dramatic shift warrants skepticism about recent review authenticity.
• WARRANTY COMPANY ISSUES: Multiple customers report being assigned First Response through home warranty companies and experiencing poor service, missed appointments, and communication failures. This suggests systemic problems when operating under warranty constraints.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: Significant inconsistency in technician quality and professionalism. Some technicians (Paul, Eddie, Aaron, Will) receive consistent 5-star praise; others are associated with poor workmanship, incomplete jobs, and unprofessional behavior.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution due to suspected review manipulation in the most recent batch (2025), which artificially inflates the overall score. The company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism from select technicians, but is severely compromised by documented pricing practices that appear predatory, chronic project completion failures, and serious management/ownership conduct issues. Historical reviews (2016-2024) are more reliable than recent reviews. Customers should independently verify pricing, request detailed written estimates, and consider the company's poor communication track record before engaging.