Find Nearby Plumbers In Belleville, Illinois

Master Handyman shows strong professionalism with punctuality and responsiveness consistently praised across multiple reviews. However, significant concerns emerge around pricing fairness, with multiple customers reporting overcharges and inflated labor costs. Project completion is mixed—while several jobs were finished on time and to satisfaction, one major project involved incomplete work, code violations requiring costly callbacks, and threats toward the customer. Technical skill is evident in complex work but undermined by quality control issues and failure to meet building codes on first attempt.

• POLARIZED REVIEW PATTERN: Stark divide between 5-star reviews (2024, 2022, 2020) and 1-star reviews (2020, 2019). Recent reviews are uniformly positive while older reviews contain serious allegations.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Two 1-star reviews allege threatening behavior, code violations, overcharging, and poor workmanship. One customer reports being threatened with legal action and property damage.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple explicit complaints about overcharging (e.g., $350 for garbage disposal installation, $200 for 15-minute exhaust fan work, additional $120 charge for correcting code violation).
• CODE COMPLIANCE ISSUES: Documented failure to meet electrical code requirements (missing conduit on garbage disposal), requiring inspector correction and costly callback.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2024, 2023) are positive; older reviews (2019-2020) contain serious complaints. Pattern suggests either significant business improvement or potential review manipulation.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: One review explicitly states contractor 'didn't even do the windows he was supposed to do.'

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization between recent positive reviews and older detailed complaints involving serious allegations of threats, code violations, and overcharging. The WW Score of 72.3 reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and project timeliness, but is significantly dragged down by documented pricing and quality control issues. Recommend requesting references from recent projects and verifying code compliance history before engaging.

BlueStream receives strong praise from loyal, repeat customers who highlight professionalism, friendliness, and technical competence — particularly from a technician named Rob. However, two notable negative reviews significantly temper the overall picture: one describes a complete failure to follow up on a callback request from a customer with a medical condition, and another describes a wasted appointment where an estimate was promised but never delivered. These responsiveness and follow-through failures directly impact both professionalism and project completion scores. No pricing information was mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored. The small review pool and the age of most reviews (4–7 years old) limit confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• Most reviews are older than 1 year — 5 of 6 reviews are from 2017–2021, with only one review from 2024. Scores may not reflect current business performance.
• Two reviews (1-star and 2-star) describe serious responsiveness and follow-through failures: a missed callback for a medically urgent AC issue and a promised estimate that was never delivered. These are significant red flags for reliability.
• The positive reviews, while specific enough to appear genuine, are heavily skewed toward long-term customers, which may not represent the experience of new customers.
• No pricing or cost information was mentioned in any review — the pricing dimension cannot be scored and is excluded from the WW Score calculation.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the very small review pool (6 reviews), the age of the majority of reviews (2017–2021), and the presence of two substantive negative reviews that reveal meaningful gaps in responsiveness and follow-through.

Wells Plumbing shows strong technical skill and project completion capability based on two positive reviews praising quality workmanship and successful job execution. However, a critical pricing concern emerges from one detailed negative review alleging significant markup (85% markup on materials) and unclear fee disclosure, which substantially undermines trust. Professionalism scores are mixed: positive reviews highlight responsiveness and personability, but the negative review describes rushed departure and evasive communication about pricing. With only 3 reviews total and conflicting evidence on pricing practices, confidence in this score remains moderate.

• CRITICAL PRICING DISCREPANCY: One review alleges 85% markup on hot water unit with undisclosed service fees. Reviewer provided specific model number and store price comparison. This is a serious red flag requiring verification.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Score reliability is limited and could shift significantly with additional reviews.
• COMMUNICATION CONCERN: Negative review describes contractor leaving quickly while customer was verifying pricing, suggesting potential avoidance of price discussion.
• RECENCY NOTE: Two reviews from 2023 (Sept, Oct), one from 2024 (Aug). Pricing concern is from Oct 2023 — unclear if practice has changed.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (3 reviews) and conflicting evidence on pricing fairness; the detailed pricing complaint is specific and credible but represents only one data point, making it impossible to determine if this is an isolated incident or systemic practice.

Webb Plumbing shows mixed performance across a small sample of reviews spanning nearly a decade. Positive reviews from 2020–2021 highlight strong technical expertise and professionalism on larger projects (hot water tank replacement, commercial work), with customers praising speed and cleanup. However, a critical 2024 review indicates a bathtub drain stopper installed in early 2023 failed within 18 months, suggesting durability or installation quality issues. Pricing is a significant concern: one customer explicitly flagged excessive charges ($177 for 20 minutes of drain unclogging), describing it as exploitative. The limited review count and wide date range (2015–2024) reduce confidence in the overall assessment.

• Only 4 reviews total — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• Reviews span 9 years (2015–2024) with significant gaps; only 1 review from past 12 months, which is negative
• Product durability concern: bathtub drain stopper failed after ~18 months, raising questions about workmanship or parts quality
• Pricing complaints appear in 2 of 4 reviews (50% complaint rate on cost), suggesting potential overcharging pattern
• Most positive reviews are 3+ years old; most recent review is 1-star, indicating possible service decline

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to very limited review volume (n=4), recency bias (only 1 recent review, which is negative), and conflicting signals between older positive feedback and recent quality/pricing concerns. A score of 68.3 reflects genuine mixed performance, but additional recent reviews are needed to establish reliable trend.

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

This review set is a blend of two very different businesses — Mike's Automotive (Millstadt) and Action Mechanical Services — whose reviews appear to have been submitted together, creating a mixed and conflicting dataset. Mike's Automotive reviews are overwhelmingly positive, praising professionalism, fair pricing, timely work, and quality repairs. Action Mechanical Services reviews are predominantly negative, with repeated and detailed complaints about rude ownership, incomplete work, dishonest diagnoses, unprofessional technician behavior, and failure to follow through on repairs. The negative Action Mechanical reviews are highly specific, credible, and span multiple years, significantly dragging down all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily penalized dimension due to the volume of explicit complaints about the owner John's abusive behavior, technicians arriving without tools, and refusal to wear masks. Project completion is also severely impacted by multiple accounts of abandoned work, incorrect diagnoses, and jobs left unfinished.

• MIXED BUSINESS DATA: Reviews appear to belong to two separate businesses — Mike's Automotive and Action Mechanical Services. These should not be scored together as a single contractor profile. The WW Score produced here is unreliable as a result.
• 7 reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (Mike's Automotive): A large cluster of Mike's Automotive reviews share the exact same date (2024-06-09 and 2025-05-10), are all 5-star, and many use generic praise with limited specifics. This pattern is consistent with review gating or bulk solicitation and reduces confidence in those reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: Action Mechanical negative reviews span 2019–2024, indicating persistent and long-standing issues, not isolated incidents. The most recent negative reviews (2024) confirm problems have not been resolved over time.
• SEVERE CONDUCT FLAGS (Action Mechanical): Multiple reviewers report the owner John using racial slurs, threatening customers, yelling, and hanging up on clients. One reviewer reported needing to call police. These are not service quality issues — they are serious conduct violations.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN (Action Mechanical): At least 8 reviews explicitly describe technicians leaving without completing repairs, failing to follow up, or abandoning service requests without notice.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN (Action Mechanical): At least 3 reviews describe incorrect diagnoses that were contradicted by subsequent contractors who resolved the issue quickly and affordably.
• CASH-ONLY / HIDDEN CHARGES PATTERN (Action Mechanical): Multiple reviews cite demands for cash only, unexpected out-of-pocket charges not disclosed upfront, and overcharging on materials such as refrigerant.

This WW Score has LOW reliability as a single contractor assessment because it aggregates reviews from two distinct businesses with opposite performance profiles; the score should not be used to evaluate either business independently without separating the review sets.