Find Nearby Plumbers In Belleville, Illinois

This contractor's reviews are overwhelmingly negative across every scored dimension, with virtually no positive feedback present in any of the 17 reviews analyzed. Professionalism is the most consistently cited failure: the owner is described as rude, yelling at customers, hanging up on them, and behaving with hostility in nearly every review that mentions interpersonal interaction. Project completion is catastrophically poor — technicians failed to show up, abandoned jobs mid-service, left units non-functional, and in multiple cases the work performed made the situation worse rather than better. Experience and workmanship are also severely criticized, with multiple reviewers noting that a different contractor quickly resolved issues that A&A either misdiagnosed or failed to fix entirely. Pricing concerns include demands for payment before work was shown, charges for service calls where no work was performed, and upselling of unnecessary repairs.

• All 17 reviews are 1-star ratings — this is statistically unusual and may reflect a genuine pattern of consistently poor service rather than fake reviews, given the high specificity and variety of complaints.
• Reviews span from 2012 to 2018, meaning the majority of reviews are older than 6 years from the current date. The most recent review is from April 2018. Recency weighting is limited; current performance cannot be reliably inferred.
• No positive reviews were present in the dataset. The absence of any counterbalancing positive feedback means this score reflects an entirely one-sided sample. It is possible positive reviews exist elsewhere but were not provided for analysis.
• One review (2017-10-09) contains no substantive content about the contractor's work and only directs readers to other reviews — this review was excluded from usable data scoring.
• Multiple reviews reference the same behavioral pattern (owner yelling, no-shows, warranty company disputes), which could suggest coordinated review activity, but the high level of specific detail across independent accounts makes genuine shared experience the more likely explanation.
• Several reviews reference home warranty companies (HMS, AHS, HSA, National Home Warranty) as the referral source, suggesting this contractor may rely heavily on warranty dispatch rather than direct customer acquisition, which may limit organic accountability.

This WW Score of 12.4 carries HIGH confidence given the volume of mentions across all four dimensions and the consistent, specific, and independently corroborated nature of the negative feedback — however, the score should be interpreted with the caveat that all reviews are at least 6 years old and no recent performance data is available.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 4 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. While all four reviews are positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience favorably, the sample size is too small to produce a statistically meaningful WW Score. Additionally, three of the four reviews are older than 12 months (2017, 2021), limiting recency validity.

• CRITICAL: Only 4 total reviews — sample size too small for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY CONCERN: 75% of reviews are older than 12 months (3 of 4 from 2017-2021); only 1 review from 2023
• PATTERN ALERT: All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language and no critical feedback or specifics about challenges; this pattern warrants caution
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 2 reviews mention pricing; insufficient to establish pricing confidence
• GENERIC PRAISE: Reviews lack specific details about work scope, timelines, or measurable outcomes beyond general satisfaction statements

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (4 reviews minimum threshold is 3, but confidence requires 5+ mentions per dimension). The uniformly positive 5-star pattern with minimal specificity and heavy recency skew toward older reviews further reduces confidence in any aggregate score.

Only two reviews are available for Morina Plumbing, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. Both reviews speak positively about professionalism and promptness, and one mentions fair pricing. However, no reviews address project completion, follow-through, or technical workmanship in any meaningful detail. The scores assigned are conservative due to the very low mention counts and lack of specificity.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• One review is dated 2020 (over 4 years old) and carries reduced weight under recency rules.
• Both reviews are generic in nature with limited specific detail, which reduces confidence in all dimension scores.
• Project completion dimension has zero mentions — no data available to assess this critical dimension.
• Small sample size makes it impossible to detect or rule out fake review patterns with any confidence.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews were available, both lack specific detail, and one is significantly outdated.

Both reviews are strongly negative and paint a deeply concerning picture of this contractor. Professionalism scored near zero due to an extremely inappropriate and predatory comment made to a customer in Review 1, and unprofessional, resentful behavior reported in Review 2. Project completion is also near zero — in both cases the work was left incomplete or done poorly, with one reviewer noting the old water heater tank was never removed. Experience scores very low as well, with faucet and drain issues left unresolved in Review 1 and a described 'crappy job' on a water heater installation in Review 2. Pricing received a limited score due to one mention of a vague, higher-than-competitor bid with no specifics provided.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review 1 contains a serious allegation of inappropriate conduct ('take it out in trade'), which is a significant red flag beyond standard service quality concerns.
• Both reviews are from 2018 — all data is over 5 years old and may not reflect current contractor behavior or quality.
• No positive reviews present in the dataset; this may reflect selection bias or a genuinely poor service record — treat with caution either way.
• No fake review patterns detected; both reviews contain specific, credible details consistent with genuine customer experiences.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 5 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable as a general assessment — however, the severity and specificity of the complaints, including an allegation of inappropriate conduct and consistently incomplete work, are serious warning indicators that should not be dismissed.

Only one of the two reviews is relevant to a contractor or plumbing business. That review describes a poor experience where the company failed to follow through on a promised callback, left the customer waiting an entire day without communication, and showed apparent indifference to the customer's time and inconvenience. This directly and negatively impacts both professionalism and project completion scores. No pricing or workmanship details were mentioned in either review, leaving those dimensions entirely unscored. With only one usable review, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• One of the two reviews (the 1-star mango food complaint dated 2016-05-24) appears to be a completely irrelevant review for a food establishment and has no bearing on a contractor or plumbing business — it was excluded from scoring.
• Only 1 usable review remains after filtering, which is far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score.
• Both reviews are from 2015–2016, making them over 8 years old. Recency weighting heavily discounts their reliability as indicators of current performance.
• With only 1 relevant review, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence at best and should not be used to make hiring decisions.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated — only 1 relevant review exists, it is nearly a decade old, and critical dimensions including pricing and experience have no data whatsoever.

Both reviews are from 2006–2007 (17+ years old) and provide only positive feedback with minimal detail. Review 1 mentions prompt response, minimum charges, and earned preferred provider status. Review 2 highlights promptness, efficiency, weekend availability, and problem-solving on older home plumbing. However, the extremely small sample size (n=2), advanced age of reviews, and lack of specificity about actual work quality or challenges prevent reliable scoring. No negative feedback or detailed workmanship descriptions are present.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required).
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from 2006–2007, over 17 years old. No recent data available to assess current performance or standards.
• LIMITED DETAIL: Reviews lack specifics about actual plumbing work, materials, complexity, or outcomes beyond general satisfaction.
• NO NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: Absence of complaints does not constitute evidence of quality per Rule 1. Cannot assume excellence from silence.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum 3 required) and extreme age of all available data (2006–2007). Any score derived would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.