Find Nearby Plumbers In Belleville, Illinois

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The most recent review (2024) describes a serious failure: a paid sewer inspection that missed a cracked and partially missing pipe, resulting in over $10,000 in damages and no response from the company when contacted — a significant red flag across professionalism, project completion, and experience. The older review (2013) is strongly positive, praising fast service, low cost, and a same-day fix, but it is over 11 years old and carries minimal weight under recency rules. The contrast between these two reviews is stark, and the more recent negative review is given greater weight per recency guidelines.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules (fewer than 3 reviews).
• The positive review is from 2013 — over 11 years old — and should be treated with very low recency weight.
• The 2024 review describes a potentially serious liability issue: a paid professional inspection that failed to identify a cracked and missing sewer pipe, leading to major out-of-pocket costs for the customer.
• The 2024 reviewer reports being unable to reach the company after multiple attempts — a direct professionalism and accountability concern.
• With only one positive and one negative review, no reliable pattern can be established. Scores are conservative and low-confidence.

This score is not reliable — only 2 reviews were available, they span 11 years, and they directly contradict each other; no meaningful conclusions should be drawn from this data.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed. While both reviews acknowledge strong responsiveness and same-day service completion, they present a stark contradiction on pricing fairness. Review 1 (2023) rates service positively at $200 total with a cash discount offered. Review 2 (2019) explicitly warns consumers about premium emergency rates ($120 show-up fee) and markups on parts (pump charged at $120 vs. $40 retail). The pricing dimension shows the most critical concern, with the second review describing feeling overcharged as 'getting hosed.' Professionalism and project completion scores are supported, but the sample size is too small for reliable scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews provided. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review 2 is from November 2019 (4+ years old). Only Review 1 is recent (April 2023). Older data may not reflect current pricing or service practices.
• PRICING CONTRADICTION: Review 1 (5-star) describes fair pricing with cash discount option. Review 2 (2-star) explicitly warns about inflated parts pricing and premium emergency rates. This suggests either significant service variation or pricing changes over time.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: The two reviews tell opposite stories about value. Without more data, it is impossible to determine which experience is typical.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and conflicting accounts of pricing practices separated by 4 years. Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for meaningful scoring. The reviews present sharply contradictory experiences: one positive 5-star review from 2019 praising same-day service and repair quality, and one highly negative 1-star review from 2018 describing unprofessional behavior, aggressive communication, and questionable diagnostic practices by a specific technician. The extreme polarity and small sample size prevent confident assessment of overall contractor performance.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• EXTREME POLARITY: Reviews are contradictory (5-star vs 1-star) with no middle-ground reviews, suggesting either highly variable service quality or potential data quality issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are older than 5 years (2018-2019). No recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• SINGLE TECHNICIAN ISSUE: Negative review focuses heavily on one technician ('Zane') rather than systemic company issues. Cannot determine if this represents company-wide practice or isolated incident.
• UNVERIFIED CLAIMS: Negative review contains serious allegations (aggressive behavior, refusal to provide transparent pricing) but lacks corroboration from other reviews.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews). Do not rely on any scoring from this analysis. Collect additional recent reviews before making contractor selection decisions.

Both available reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of serious failures across multiple dimensions. The contractor allegedly took a deposit and did not complete the job, and failed to return calls — indicating severe breakdowns in both project completion and professionalism. One reviewer explicitly describes the contractor as canceling three times and characterizes the behavior as unprofessional. No reviewer mentioned workmanship quality or technical skill, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored. With only two reviews, all scores carry very low confidence and should be interpreted with extreme caution.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold rules.
• Both reviews are 1-star and describe abandonment of work and failure to communicate — a serious pattern of misconduct.
• One review references taking a $65 deposit without completing the job, which may indicate fraudulent or predatory business behavior.
• Reviews span 2017 to 2020 — all data is older than 3 years with no recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• No positive reviews present — inability to balance scoring may skew results, but scores reflect the only available evidence.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both highly negative and dated more than 3 years ago, making it insufficient for a reliable WW Score — treat all dimension scores as directional indicators only and not as definitive assessments.

Both reviews are exceptionally positive and mention all four dimensions explicitly. Review 1 (2015) highlights careful problem-solving, multiple completed tasks, cleanliness, cost consciousness, and customer care. Review 2 (2011) emphasizes consistent quality over two years, professional demeanor (booties, politeness), technician knowledge, no repeat callbacks, and extra services provided. However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is critically insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. Both reviews are older than 12 months, with the most recent from 2015 (9+ years old), limiting relevance to current service quality.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review is from March 2015 (9+ years old). Second review is from October 2011 (13+ years old). No recent data available to assess current service standards.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Both reviews use suspiciously similar structure (5-star ratings, extensive praise with specific details, no complaints, generic recommendation language). However, with only 2 reviews, this pattern is not conclusive enough to definitively flag as fake.
• SAMPLE SIZE TOO SMALL: Cannot reliably assess contractor performance with only 2 data points.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and critically outdated data (most recent review from 2015). Any scoring would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews describe severe failures across all dimensions. Review 1 alleges theft of equipment, overcharging, and complete non-responsiveness. Review 2 documents catastrophic workmanship (gouged floors, stain damage, sticky poly), non-completion of acceptable work, refusal to address complaints, and hostile communication. The contractor allegedly avoided contact and refused refunds. However, with only 2 reviews total, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated. These reviews are extremely negative but insufficient in volume to establish a statistically meaningful score.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Review 1 alleges theft and systematic overcharging of multiple customers; Review 2 alleges deliberate damage and fraud
• PATTERN OF SEVERE MISCONDUCT: Both reviews describe non-responsiveness, hostile communication, and refusal to remedy problems
• LEGAL CONCERNS: Review 1 mentions intent to report to police for consumer fraud; Review 2 describes failed occupancy inspection and financial damages
• REPUTATIONAL RED FLAGS: Owner (Randy Hurt) allegedly used profanity and told customer to 'sue me' when confronted
• NO POSITIVE REVIEWS: 100% of available reviews are 1-star with detailed allegations of harm

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required). However, the two reviews present extremely serious and detailed allegations of theft, fraud, defective workmanship, and hostile behavior that warrant immediate caution and independent verification before engaging this contractor.