Find Nearby Plumbers In Bloomington, Illinois

This contractor shows strong technical skill and workmanship (82.5), with multiple reviews praising quality and problem-solving ability. Project completion is solid (80.0), with evidence of follow-through on jobs. However, professionalism is significantly dragged down by one detailed 1-star review documenting unprofessional behavior (arguing with apprentice in customer's home, ignoring customer instructions, using used parts, misrepresenting facts to inspector). Pricing shows mixed signals: praised as 'reasonably priced' and 'doesn't gouge' in positive reviews, but one customer was charged $1,000 with non-itemized hours and disputed the fairness. The stark contrast between glowing older reviews (2016, 2019, 2021) and the damaging 2020 review suggests either a significant service decline or a serious isolated incident.

• CRITICAL: One detailed 1-star review (2020-02-21) contains serious allegations including ignoring customer instructions, using used parts, apprentice incompetence, unprofessional conduct in home, misrepresentation to plumbing inspector, and non-responsive to refund request. These are specific, detailed claims with corroborating context—not generic complaints.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 5+ years old (2016, 2019). The most recent detailed review (2020) is highly negative. This suggests potential service quality degradation over time.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING NARRATIVE: Positive reviews call pricing 'reasonable' and 'fair,' but the 2020 review documents $1,000 charge with no itemization and disputes over fairness. This inconsistency warrants caution.
• APPRENTICE COMPETENCY: The 2020 review raises concerns about apprentice training and oversight, describing an apprentice who doesn't know basic tools/parts and spent excessive time on simple tasks.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total limits confidence. The negative review carries disproportionate weight due to its specificity and detail, but broader patterns cannot be established with certainty.

This score should be treated with caution. While the contractor demonstrates genuine technical skill, the detailed 1-star review documenting professionalism failures, potential dishonesty with inspectors, and customer service issues significantly undermines confidence. The age of positive reviews (5+ years) versus the recency of serious complaints suggests this score may not reflect current service quality. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish whether the 2020 incident was isolated or indicative of a pattern.

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.

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.

Hill and Hill shows significant inconsistency in service delivery. While one long-term customer (20 years) praises responsiveness, courtesy, and fair pricing, two recent reviews document serious failures: a missed appointment with poor communication and an incomplete warranty service with an unrefunded fee. Project completion is the primary concern, with two explicit instances of incomplete work or no-shows. Professionalism scores are dragged down by communication failures and lack of follow-through. The single positive review cannot offset the severity of the documented failures in the two negative reviews.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The positive review is from February 2021 (3+ years old), while the two negative reviews are from September-October 2020 (also older). All reviews predate the past 12 months, limiting ability to assess current service quality.
• CRITICAL PATTERN: Two of three reviews document failure to complete work or show up. This is a serious red flag for reliability.
• INCOMPLETE SERVICE: One review explicitly states service was not completed despite payment collected, with refund refused. This is a major trust issue.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Score reliability is inherently limited with such a small sample.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and age of all reviews (3+ years old). However, the pattern of incomplete work and communication failures in 2 of 3 reviews suggests genuine service quality concerns that warrant investigation before engaging this contractor.

The review set is extremely small and heavily skewed by age — two of the three reviews are from 2013 and 2014, making them over a decade old and of very limited relevance to current performance. The most recent review (October 2023) is a 1-star complaint describing a complete failure to return calls regarding a warranty or service issue with a system they installed, which is a serious red flag for both professionalism and project completion follow-through. The older positive reviews do speak to competitive pricing, responsive service, and solid installation quality, but these cannot reliably offset a documented recent failure. The professionalism score is pulled down significantly by the 2023 non-responsiveness complaint, and project completion is penalized for the unresolved callback issue.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.
• Two of three reviews are from 2013 and 2014 — over 10 years old. These reviews carry minimal weight for assessing current contractor performance.
• The only recent review (2023) is a 1-star complaint citing complete non-responsiveness to voicemails about a system they installed. This is a significant and unresolved service failure.
• The gap between the glowing older reviews and the recent negative review may indicate a decline in service quality or business operations over time.
• Insufficient review volume to detect fake review patterns, but the two older 5-star reviews are somewhat generic in praise and lack granular detail.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning a 10-year period, with the sole recent data point being a serious complaint — the score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality.