Find Nearby Plumbers In Bloomington, Illinois

Lane Company demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by unresponsiveness, dishonesty, and failure to return calls—with one customer reporting a complete scam involving cashed deposits and no service delivery. Project completion is severely impaired, with multiple instances of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and unresolved issues spanning months. Pricing concerns are substantial, with customers reporting charges double market rates and overpriced quotes. The single positive review (4.0 stars from 2014) praising efficiency and knowledge is heavily outweighed by four 1-star reviews documenting fraud, incompetence, and poor follow-through. The company's bankruptcy filing and pattern of non-delivery suggest systemic operational failure.

• CRITICAL: Potential fraud detected—Review 1 (2020) explicitly describes cashed downpayment with no service delivery, owner bankruptcy, and refusal to return calls. This is a scam pattern.
• CRITICAL: Severe unresponsiveness—Multiple reviews cite weeks of unanswered calls and poor callback follow-through.
• Pattern of incomplete work—Review 3 documents unresolved squealing noise issue across multiple service visits with no resolution and disputed billing.
• Pricing concerns—Reviews 4 and 5 report overpriced repairs (double market rate) and aggressive upselling of expensive geothermal systems.
• Quality control failure—Review 5 describes tech arriving 3 hours late, van breakdown with oil leak on customer property, and billing for failed repairs.
• Recency note: Most reviews are 5-10 years old (2010-2015), with one recent 2020 fraud report. Company may no longer be operational given bankruptcy filing mentioned in 2020 review.

This score is highly reliable despite moderate sample size because the pattern of failure is consistent and severe across all dimensions, with explicit documentation of fraud, non-delivery, and systemic operational breakdown. The single positive review does not offset the overwhelming evidence of misconduct and incompetence.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, all of which are 5-star ratings with minimal specificity. All three reviews explicitly praise professionalism (quick response, friendly demeanor, communication), and two mention successful project completion and technical capability. However, no review addresses pricing or value for money. The extremely limited sample size, absence of any critical feedback, and lack of pricing data prevent reliable scoring.

• Only 3 total reviews — sample size too small for reliable WW Score calculation
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or balanced feedback — suggests potential selection bias or incomplete review dataset
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• Two reviews are older than 2 years (2021, 2022) — only one review from 2024 provides recent data
• Reviews lack specific project details and cost information that would strengthen confidence in scoring

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=3), absence of pricing data, and lack of critical or balanced feedback. At minimum 5-8 reviews with diverse perspectives are needed to calculate a reliable score.

With only two reviews, the data is sharply polarized and insufficient for reliable scoring. The positive review highlights exceptional after-hours responsiveness, kindness, and professionalism from Rodney Miles and his son, including an unsolicited act of helpfulness. However, the negative review is severe — alleging illegal plumbing hookups, immediate failure of the work, and months of being ghosted when the customer sought resolution. The project completion and experience scores are heavily dragged down by the negative review's claims of illegal work and complete abandonment of the customer. No pricing information was mentioned in either review.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The negative review alleges illegal plumbing installation, which is a serious legal and safety concern that warrants significant weight beyond a typical low-quality complaint.
• The negative review describes the contractor ghosting the customer for months after failed work — a direct and explicit project completion failure.
• The two reviews are diametrically opposed (5-star vs 1-star), making any averaged score potentially misleading without more data.
• No pricing data was mentioned in any review — the pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews exist, they are in direct conflict, and one contains a serious allegation of illegal work and customer abandonment that cannot be verified or offset with so little data.

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The negative review describes a complete no-show with zero communication or follow-up, which is a serious failure in both professionalism and project completion. The positive review, dated 2013, describes a punctual, polite, and technically skilled visit that saved the customer significant money by avoiding unnecessary excavation. These two reviews paint a contradictory picture and span several years, so no reliable trend can be established.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews total. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The positive review is from 2013 — over 10 years old — and should be given significantly reduced weight. The negative review is from 2019, making it the more recent and arguably more relevant data point.
• CONTRADICTORY SIGNALS: The two reviews are in direct conflict across professionalism and project completion dimensions, making it impossible to establish a reliable pattern.
• NO-SHOW EVENT: The 1-star review explicitly describes a missed appointment with no communication or apology, which is a critical failure indicator for both professionalism and project completion.

This score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — with only 2 reviews spanning over a decade, there is far too little data to draw any meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current performance.

With only two reviews spanning nearly seven years, data is extremely thin and no reliable WW Score can be produced. Professionalism is mixed: one reviewer praises responsiveness and trustworthiness while the other flags late arrival times, unexpected billing for quote visits, and invoice quality issues. Pricing is a clear concern, with one reviewer explicitly calling the service 'very expensive' and noting a surprise $90 charge for a quote visit, though the other reviewer says prices 'can't be beat.' Project completion appears adequate across both reviews, with jobs described as finished and the contractor returning promptly for follow-up issues. Experience and workmanship receive modest positive signals — 'quality job' and 'decent job' — but neither review provides strong technical detail to support a high confidence score.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The positive review (5-star, 2023) and the critical review (3-star, 2016) are approximately 7 years apart — recency weighting strongly favors the 2023 review, but a single recent review is insufficient to establish a trend.
• The 2016 review raises a transparency concern: charging $90 for an unannounced quote visit without prior disclosure is a potential hidden-fee flag.
• The 2016 review notes the contractor may treat residential work as a side business, suggesting possible reliability or scheduling concerns for residential customers.
• Insufficient review volume to detect fake review patterns, but neither review shows signs of fabrication — both contain specific, credible details.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews with a 7-year gap between them and should be considered highly unreliable — seek significantly more review data before making a hiring decision.

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.