Find Nearby Plumbers In Bolingbrook, Illinois

Scott's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional conduct, with many customers praising workmanship quality and responsiveness. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent and credible pricing complaints spanning over a decade. Multiple independent reviews document charges substantially higher than competitors for identical work, with some customers reporting 2-4x markup disparities. While recent reviews (2024-2025) show improved consistency and positive experiences, older reviews reveal patterns of aggressive pricing, undisclosed fees, and incomplete follow-through on callbacks. The pricing dimension substantially depresses the overall score despite strong performance in experience and professionalism.

• PRICING PATTERN: 42 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Negative pricing reviews span 2008-2023 with consistent complaints of inflated rates ($400+/hour equivalent), hidden dispatch fees, and charges 2-4x higher than competitors. This is not isolated—it represents a systemic pattern.
• INCOMPLETE FOLLOW-UP: Multiple reviews (2023, 2018, 2016, 2015) document failure to return for callbacks, no-shows despite confirmed appointments, and abandoned work (e.g., ceiling hole cut but never repaired). At least 6 reviews explicitly mention this.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews report incorrect diagnoses (studor valve, compressor vs. starter, misidentified problems) requiring rework or customer correction. This suggests variable technical judgment.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Reviews from 2024-2025 (most recent 20 reviews) are predominantly 5-star with specific positive details. Reviews from 2015-2020 contain significantly more 1-star complaints with detailed pricing grievances. This temporal split suggests either genuine improvement or potential review management.
• DISPATCH FEE CONTROVERSY: Multiple reviews (2021, 2020) document surprise $70 dispatch fees charged after estimates, not disclosed upfront on phone or website. This practice appears to have been discontinued in recent years.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR: Several reviews describe the owner (Scott) as dismissive, defensive, or insulting when customers questioned pricing or complained about work quality. This suggests potential customer service culture issues.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Four reviews contain only ratings with no text (5.0 stars, 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10). While not conclusive, combined with the temporal clustering of 5-star reviews in June 2024, warrants caution. However, most positive reviews contain specific details and verifiable claims, reducing overall fake review likelihood.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable but reflects a company in transition: strong technical skills and recent service improvements are substantially offset by a documented 15-year history of pricing practices that customers consistently describe as exploitative. The HIGH confidence is justified by the large sample size (120 reviews) and consistent patterns, but potential customers should weight the pricing dimension heavily and obtain multiple quotes before engaging. Recent positive reviews suggest possible operational changes, but the pricing pattern is too extensive to dismiss as isolated incidents.

Bruce has two positive reviews praising quick turnaround and reasonable pricing, but the most detailed review — a 2-star account from a basement finishing project — raises serious concerns across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is mixed: while two reviewers found him pleasant and efficient, the detailed negative review describes poor communication, decisions made without client input, and failure to show up for scheduled punch list items. Project completion is significantly dragged down by the negative review, which documents material miscalculations, substandard subcontractors, a disastrous paint job, and unresolved punch list items that ultimately required the client to withhold final payment. Pricing appears reasonable on the surface per the positive reviews, but the negative review reveals that hidden costs and the need to hire corrective labor added over $5,000 in unexpected expenses. Experience scores low-to-moderate given documented measurement errors, poor subcontractor oversight, and workmanship issues that required third-party remediation.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and not statistically reliable.
• The two positive reviews are brief and lack specific detail, while the one negative review is highly detailed and specific — this asymmetry suggests the positive reviews may not fully reflect the contractor's actual performance.
• The most detailed review (2-star, 2015) describes systematic failures: material miscalculations, substandard subcontractors, poor communication, and unresolved punch list items — these are serious red flags.
• All three reviews are older than 12 months (oldest from 2015, most recent from 2019) — no recent data is available to assess current performance. Recency weighting is not applicable as no reviews fall within the past 12 months.
• The two 5-star reviews are generic and brief with minimal specifics, which warrants mild fake review caution, though not conclusive given the small sample size.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 5 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional recent references before hiring.

This contractor's reviews paint a consistently troubled picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged area, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing the owner Mike as hostile, unwilling to accept feedback, and prone to berating customers — serious red flags that drag the score down significantly. Pricing is repeatedly described as overpriced across four separate reviews, with one reviewer alleging an $850 charge for unnecessary work and no refund offered. Project completion is also a concern, with one reviewer documenting months of repeated failures, leaks, and ultimately hiring a second contractor to fix the work. Experience scores slightly higher as some reviewers acknowledge that the work product itself was acceptable when completed correctly, but the pattern of rework and misdiagnosis undermines confidence in technical skill.

• Two reviews (2019-05-21 and 2019-05-22) describe nearly identical experiences — same incident (water heater installation, feedback via text, being berated by Mike) with very similar language. These may be duplicate reviews from the same customer or household submitted twice, which could artificially inflate the negative signal on professionalism.
• All reviews are dated between 2016 and 2020. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date) are present. The score may not reflect the contractor's current performance.
• One review (2020-12-05) reads as a possible owner or insider response — it explains business practices in a neutral, defensive tone without describing an actual service experience. It has been included but treated with reduced weight as a genuine customer review.
• The $850 charge for allegedly unnecessary battery replacement (2020-09-25 review) represents a serious allegation of financial harm and refusal to remedy — this materially impacts the pricing and experience scores.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review pool of 6 reviews, all of which are more than 4 years old, and a suspected duplicate review pair that may skew the professionalism dimension — however, the negative signals across pricing, completion, and professionalism are consistent enough across independent reviews to be treated as credible.

This company exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by repeated cancellations, no-shows, extreme tardiness (2+ hours late), and poor communication. Project completion is severely hampered by incomplete work, rushed service delivery, and failure to honor callbacks or refunds despite acknowledged poor performance. Pricing concerns emerge from customers paying for services not rendered and refund denials. While two recent positive reviews (2017, 2021) mention satisfactory work, they are vastly outweighed by four detailed negative reviews documenting systematic failures. The company's pattern of double-booking, service abandonment, and unresponsiveness to complaints is deeply troubling.

• CRITICAL: Severe recency bias detected. Most negative reviews are from 2018–2019 (4 of 6 reviews). The two positive reviews are from 2017 and 2021, creating a temporal gap. However, the 2021 positive review lacks specificity and detail compared to the detailed negative reviews, raising questions about authenticity.
• PATTERN ALERT: Multiple reviews mention the same named individuals (Claudia, Orlando) and the same booking platform (Amazon Home Services). This suggests consistent operational issues rather than isolated incidents.
• ACCOUNTABILITY FAILURE: One detailed 2018 review documents owner acknowledgment of poor work but refusal to refund, citing Amazon policy. This indicates systemic issues and poor customer service recovery.
• OPERATIONAL RED FLAG: Three separate reviews document cancellations, no-shows, or extreme tardiness. This is a pattern, not an anomaly.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between the two 5-star reviews (generic praise, minimal detail) and the four 1-star reviews (highly specific, documented with photos). This asymmetry suggests possible fake positive reviews or fundamental service inconsistency.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to small sample size (6 reviews) and significant recency concerns, but the pattern of documented failures across multiple independent reviewers is alarming and suggests genuine operational problems. The company's apparent inability to maintain consistent service quality or handle customer complaints responsibly is a major red flag.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, with severe internal contradictions that prevent reliable scoring. Two reviews (2017, 2013) report critical failures: no-show appointment and fraudulent pricing practices. One review (2011) provides generic praise with no specifics. The extreme polarity and small sample size make any aggregate score meaningless.

• CRITICAL: Severe contradictions across reviews — two 1-star reviews citing no-show and fraud vs. one 5-star with generic praise
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most recent negative review is 2017 (7+ years old); oldest review is 2013 (11+ years old); only one review from 2011. No recent data.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION: 2013 review explicitly documents overcharging ($415 claimed vs. $249 actual) and refusal to provide receipt — serious red flag
• NO-SHOW: 2017 review documents missed appointment with no communication — critical professionalism failure
• GENERIC PRAISE: 2011 5-star review lacks specifics and reads as potentially generic; cannot verify authenticity
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE: 3 reviews is below minimum threshold for reliable scoring

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient reviews (n=3) and extreme contradictions suggesting either significant service deterioration, fake reviews, or fundamental business practice issues. Do not rely on any aggregate score; instead, treat the documented fraud allegation and no-show incident as serious warning signs requiring direct verification before engagement.

Only one review contains actionable contractor service data (the second review from 2015). That review praises professionalism, fair pricing, and technical expertise in diagnosing and fixing a sump pump system. However, with only a single mention per dimension and no data on project completion timeliness or follow-through, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated. The first review is a product testimonial, not a service review, and does not evaluate contractor performance.

• Insufficient review volume: only 2 reviews provided, with only 1 containing usable contractor service data
• Review age: the only usable review is from November 2015 (9+ years old), well outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• First review is a product testimonial, not a service evaluation, and was excluded from scoring
• Cannot assess project completion dimension due to lack of explicit mention in available data

This analysis is unreliable for decision-making. Insufficient data volume (1 usable review) and extreme age (2015) prevent confident scoring. At least 3–5 recent reviews are needed to produce a trustworthy WW Score.