Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 61701, Bloomington, Illinois

D&R Plumbing receives strong praise for responsiveness, availability, and personal kindness — Richard is frequently cited as going above and beyond, including free phone consultations and late-night emergency calls. However, the company carries a significant and recurring pattern of pricing complaints spanning from 2015 through 2024, with multiple reviewers alleging charges far above quoted estimates, cash-only pressure tactics, and what several describe as exploitation of customers in emergency situations. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed quickly and well, but there are credible accounts of no-call/no-shows, warranty disputes, and at least one case where work allegedly was not performed as charged. The professionalism score is dragged down by multiple reviews citing rude behavior, condescension, and deceptive communication, even as the majority of reviewers describe Richard as friendly and helpful.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: At least 8 separate reviews across 2015–2024 allege overcharging, hidden fees, or prices far exceeding initial quotes. This is a consistent, multi-year pattern and not isolated incidents.
• CASH-ONLY PRESSURE TACTIC: Two independent reviewers (2019, 2017) allege being pressured to pay cash only, with one reviewer noting the receipt showed credit cards were accepted — suggesting deliberate deception.
• ELDERLY EXPLOITATION ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2021) alleges a senior citizen was charged $1,885 for approximately 2 hours of work, describing it as 'elderly abuse' and 'robbery.' The owner reportedly negotiated down only after being confronted.
• WORK NOT PERFORMED AS CHARGED: One detailed 2024 review alleges D&R charged for replacing a pipe to the house connection but a subsequent plumber found the original pipe was not replaced — a serious allegation of fraud.
• NO-CALL/NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least two reviews cite missed or significantly late appointments with no proactive communication from the company.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 15+ reviews share the same date of 2024-06-09 with no specific timestamps, which is unusual and may indicate batch-imported or solicited reviews. These reviews are generally positive but many lack specific detail. Confidence in the positive review cluster is reduced.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2015 to 2024, indicating pricing and conduct issues are not historical anomalies but an ongoing concern. The most recent 1-star review is from July 2024.
• OWNER RESPONSE BEHAVIOR: At least one reviewer references the owner responding to negative reviews in an unprofessional or condescending manner, which is itself a professionalism concern.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (68 reviews) spanning 2015–2025 and carries HIGH overall confidence in its dimensions, but prospective customers should weigh the pricing score heavily — the repeated, detailed, and multi-year allegations of overcharging and deceptive billing practices represent a material risk that the aggregate score alone does not fully convey.

Mike Williams Plumbing, Heating & Air presents a deeply split profile. Recent reviews from 2024–2025 are predominantly positive, praising named technicians such as Ryan, Bruce, Cole, Josiah, and Jake for professionalism, knowledge, punctuality, and clear communication. However, a substantial body of older reviews (2015–2023) documents a consistent and serious pattern of predatory pricing, hidden fees, undisclosed service contracts, misdiagnosis, and failure to complete work correctly — with many customers reporting quotes 2–5x higher than competitors. Pricing is the most severely penalized dimension, with dozens of explicit complaints about extreme markups, a $99 dispatch fee not disclosed upfront, and aggressive upselling of monthly subscription plans that were difficult to cancel. Project completion is also significantly impacted by multiple accounts of unresolved repairs, return visits for the same issues, and at least one case of property damage left unaddressed. The experience dimension is mixed: recent technicians receive strong praise for skill, while older reviews describe misdiagnosis and incompetent assessments. The overall WW Score of 52.1 reflects a company with capable individual technicians but a historically problematic business model that has generated serious and credible consumer harm.

• PRICING CONCERN: Dozens of reviews across multiple years describe quotes 2–10x higher than competitors for identical work. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• HIDDEN FEES: Multiple reviewers explicitly state they were not informed of the $99 dispatch/show-up fee before the technician arrived. This is a recurring and documented complaint.
• PREDATORY SUBSCRIPTION PRACTICES: Numerous reviewers report being enrolled in monthly service contracts without clear consent, difficulty canceling, and continued charges after cancellation — including after selling their home.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Several reviews describe technicians recommending unnecessary replacements (water heaters, furnaces, full AC units) that were later fixed cheaply by other companies, suggesting possible deliberate upselling rather than honest assessment.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least one review documents five return visits for a newly installed system with unresolved issues. Another describes a furnace left improperly assembled. A third describes a dishwasher installed with one screw instead of two, causing ongoing failure.
• ALLEGED THEFT: One detailed review (2019) alleges approximately $20,000 in jewelry was stolen by employees during a service visit, with the company described as unresponsive and hostile when contacted.
• RECENCY BIAS WARNING: The majority of positive reviews are from 2024–2025 and are heavily concentrated in a short window. The majority of negative reviews span 2015–2023. This temporal split may indicate a genuine improvement in service quality, or it may reflect a change in review solicitation practices. Scores should be interpreted with this in mind.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW SOLICITATION: The high volume of recent 5-star reviews with minimal text (many are blank or contain only one sentence) alongside a company letter asking customers why they did not give a 5-star experience suggests active review solicitation, which may inflate recent positive scores.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, though they are counted in total reviews analyzed.
• ONE REVIEW (2019) alleges a rude and mocking technician who treated the customer dismissively — this is an outlier against the generally positive professionalism scores but is noted as a data point.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but consumers should treat the score as a composite of two distinct eras: a historically problematic business with serious pricing and ethics complaints (2015–2023) and a more recently improved service experience (2024–2025) — the true current quality likely falls somewhere between these two periods, and caution around pricing transparency and service contracts remains strongly warranted.

Tiger Plumbing, Heating, A/C, and Electrical Services receives a below-average WW Score of 42.3, driven primarily by severe pricing concerns and mixed project completion outcomes. While technicians frequently demonstrate professional demeanor and technical competence, the company is overwhelmingly criticized for extreme price gouging, with hundreds of reviews documenting quotes 3-10x higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion is inconsistent, with numerous reports of incomplete work, follow-up failures, and quality issues requiring third-party remediation. Professionalism scores are dragged down by aggressive sales tactics, pressure to purchase unnecessary services, and poor communication regarding scheduling and follow-ups.

• SEVERE PRICING ABUSE: 156 mentions of overpricing detected. Systematic pattern of inflated estimates (e.g., $9,000-$12,000 quotes reduced to $300-$750 by competitors). Multiple reviews document quotes 10x market rate.
• PREDATORY SALES PRACTICES: High-pressure upselling, scare tactics about safety/code violations, targeting elderly/vulnerable customers, and aggressive financing offers (9.99% APR) documented across 80+ reviews.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: 98 mentions reveal incomplete work, abandoned jobs, technicians not returning, broken promises, and customers forced to hire other companies to finish or fix Tiger's work.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE SCAM: Multiple reviews (15+) report $99 'diagnostic/fuel surcharge' fees charged without clear consent, with threats of liens on homes if not paid.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Documented cases of incorrect diagnoses, missed problems, broken equipment left in customer homes, damage to property (holes in ceilings/walls), and poor cleanup.
• MEMBERSHIP/CONTRACT TRAP: 20+ reviews report difficulty canceling monthly service plans ($19-$35/month), continued billing after cancellation requests, and 30-day cancellation delays.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: 40+ reviews cite missed appointments, no-shows, technicians arriving hours late, failure to call ahead, and unresponsiveness to callbacks.
• BBB RATING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews reference company's poor BBB rating (C-/2-star), 14+ complaints in 12 months, and allegations of paying customers to remove negative reviews.
• FINANCIAL COERCION: Documented cases of requiring payment before work begins, refusing refunds for incomplete/incorrect work, and aggressive collection tactics.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 120 reviews (24% of dataset) from June 2025 and May 2025 show suspicious clustering with identical phrasing ('very professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'friendly'), generic praise lacking specifics, and all 5-star ratings with minimal detail. This suggests coordinated positive review campaign to offset legitimate negative feedback.
• GENDER DISCRIMINATION: Multiple reviews allege sexist behavior, targeting women for upselling, and disrespectful treatment based on gender.
• UNLICENSED WORK: Reviews document apprentices working without proper supervision (illegal in Illinois), expired licenses, and misrepresentation of technician qualifications.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 98-187 mentions each). The score is supported by consistent, detailed, and corroborated evidence across 500 reviews spanning 2012-2025. The company exhibits a systematic pattern of overpricing, incomplete work, and aggressive sales tactics that far outweighs instances of competent service. The detected fake review campaign (24% of recent reviews) further undermines trust in positive testimonials and suggests the company is aware of its poor reputation. This score should be considered a strong warning against using this contractor.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. Both reviews are highly positive and mention punctuality, reliability, and service quality, but the sample size is too small to produce a statistically meaningful composite score. Pricing information is completely absent from both reviews.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably
• One review is from 2018 (6+ years old); only one review from the past 12 months
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• Both reviews are 5-star with generic positive language; limited specificity on actual work details

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 2 were provided. Do not rely on any composite score at this time.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions pricing positively (reasonable prices, honesty) and responsiveness to emergencies, but does not provide sufficient detail or volume to calculate a reliable WW Score. No explicit mentions of professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, attitude) or technical experience/workmanship quality.

• Only 1 review available — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 rules
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old) — recency is a concern
• Review lacks specific detail about work quality, timeline, or professionalism behaviors

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only a single review from 2019; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to proceed.