Find Nearby Plumbers In Buffalo Grove, Illinois

Cody Co demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, communication, and attention to detail across multiple projects. Pricing is generally fair and transparent based on customer feedback. However, project completion shows significant concern: while most reviews praise timely delivery and follow-through, one detailed 2022 review documents serious quality defects (crooked tiles, improper welding, water damage) and the contractor's refusal to take responsibility, suggesting potential systemic issues with workmanship quality control. Experience scores reflect skilled work in most cases, but the documented structural damage from improper installation raises questions about technical execution consistency.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2022-08-30) documents severe quality failures including improper copper pipe welding causing water damage and structural beam damage, with contractor refusing responsibility. This contradicts the overwhelmingly positive narrative in other reviews and suggests either inconsistent quality or potential issues with accountability.
• PATTERN CONCERN: Six of seven reviews are 5-star ratings with very similar positive language and structure (praising Gary/team, punctuality, cleanliness, attention to detail). The single negative review is substantially older (2022) than the cluster of positive reviews (2023). This temporal clustering warrants caution.
• RECENCY BIAS: Five of six positive reviews are from 2023 (within past 12 months), while the critical negative review is from August 2022. Recent reviews may not reflect the quality issues documented in the older complaint.
• SPECIFICITY IMBALANCE: Positive reviews use similar praise language but lack specific technical details. The negative review provides extensive specific documentation of failures (crooked tiles, sealant issues, welding defect, beam damage, $2k repair cost). This asymmetry suggests the negative review may carry more evidentiary weight despite being outnumbered.

This score should be treated with caution. While the numerical WW Score of 82.1 reflects mostly positive feedback, the documented structural damage and contractor non-accountability in the 2022 review represents a material risk factor that contradicts the recent positive trend. The score reflects recent performance but does not adequately weight the severity of the documented failure. Recommend requesting references from projects completed after August 2022 and verifying warranty/liability practices before engaging.

Booth Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions from a small but detailed review set. Professionalism is well-supported, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting reliability, honesty, pleasant communication, and timely responsiveness. Project completion is similarly affirmed, with reviewers describing a wide variety of jobs handled successfully over many years, including same-day and next-day service requests. Experience is strongly implied through references to 50+ years in business and successful handling of diverse plumbing tasks including pipe re-routing, fixture installation, and drain clearing. Pricing receives limited but positive mention, with one reviewer describing an estimate as acceptable and the job as relatively inexpensive, though no detailed pricing data is available. The overall picture is positive, but the very small review count and age of most reviews significantly limit confidence in these scores.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score reliability is significantly reduced at this sample size.
• 3 of 4 reviews are older than 12 months; 2 reviews are more than 5 years old (2019, 2014), and 1 is from 2022. Only 1 review (2024) falls within the past 12 months. Scores are weighted toward recent data but the recency base is very thin.
• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings. While the review content is detailed and specific enough to reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformity of ratings warrants mild caution.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present in any review — this may reflect genuine satisfaction but could also reflect a non-representative sample.

This WW Score should be treated as a preliminary positive signal only — with just 4 reviews spanning a decade, and only 1 from the past 12 months, the score cannot be considered statistically reliable and should be supplemented with additional recent reviews before making a high-confidence hiring decision.

All Family Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, a substantial number of older reviews (pre-2022) describe courteous, knowledgeable technicians, fair pricing, and jobs completed thoroughly — including emergency responses and complex sewer/pipe work. However, more recent reviews (2022–2025) reveal a troubling pattern of no-shows, repeated cancellations without notice, hidden charges added after job completion, and at least one instance of an estimate fee collected with no follow-through. Professionalism is further undermined by multiple independent reports of aggressive and dangerous driving behavior by company vehicle operators, which, while not directly plumbing-related, reflects on the company's culture and employee conduct. Project completion scores are dragged down significantly by credible accounts of jobs not finished, repeat service calls for the same unresolved issues, and a failure to honor callbacks. Pricing scores are mixed — several reviewers praised fair and transparent pricing, while others explicitly described bait-and-switch tactics and undisclosed charges added post-completion.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2022–2025) skew heavily negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Older positive reviews (2010–2018) should be weighted less heavily.
• DRIVING/CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: At least 4 reviews (2023–2024) describe dangerous or aggressive driving by company vehicle operators, including road rage incidents and threats. While not plumbing-related, this reflects on company culture and employee vetting.
• HIDDEN CHARGES FLAG: At least 2 credible reviews explicitly describe pricing bait-and-switch — quoted one price, charged significantly more after job completion with fabricated add-ons. This is a serious consumer protection concern.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe repeated appointment cancellations, no-shows without notice, and failure to return calls — a consistent operational failure pattern in recent years.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review 'Can't recommend them highly enough. Installed a tankless water heater...' appears verbatim twice under different dates (2020 and 2021). This may indicate a fake or duplicated review submission.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 4 reviews contain no text content (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• ESTIMATE FEE COMPLAINT: One reviewer reports paying an $80 estimate fee with no estimate ever delivered, suggesting possible deceptive business practices.
• WORK QUALITY CONCERN: One review describes a plumber recommending a $1,100 water heater replacement for a problem that was ultimately solved with a $12 dip tube — raising questions about upselling or diagnostic competence.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews from the 2013–2015 era are extremely brief and generic ('It is a small business owner that is well worth definitely using', 'unknown') with no specifics. These were scored conservatively.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (57 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it statistical breadth, but the strong negative trend in recent reviews (2022–2025) and the presence of duplicate, blank, and suspiciously generic reviews reduce confidence in the score as a reflection of current service quality — prospective customers should weight recent negative reviews heavily.

Booth Plumbing receives genuinely positive marks for technical skill and workmanship, with multiple reviewers praising Chuck's ability to diagnose problems others missed and complete jobs efficiently. However, professionalism is significantly dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern of non-responsiveness: at least four separate reviewers explicitly complained that Chuck failed to return calls, ignored requests for itemized receipts, or went silent after collecting payment. Pricing is the most contested dimension, with three detailed negative reviews alleging substantial overcharging on labor and parts — including one reviewer who obtained three independent contractor confirmations of being overbilled by $800–$1,000 — partially offset by several reviewers calling prices fair or reasonable. Project completion scores moderately, as most jobs were ultimately finished, but two reviewers reported work left incomplete or a part never returned to install, which is a meaningful concern.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 1 year. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2022–2024). Most substantive reviews — including all negative ones — date from 2008–2014, meaning the current state of the business is difficult to assess with confidence.
• PRICING CONCERN: Three independent, detailed reviews (2013–2014) allege significant overcharging on labor rates and parts markups. One reviewer documented a $800–$1,000 overbilling confirmed by three competing contractors. This is a serious pattern, not an isolated complaint.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: At least four reviews explicitly cite Chuck failing to return calls, ignoring requests for receipts or billing breakdowns, or going silent after payment. This is a consistent and credible pattern across multiple unrelated reviewers.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: One reviewer (2014) reported paying $180 for work that left the item unusable, with Chuck promising to return with a part and then never following through despite multiple calls.
• ONE REVIEW MARKED 'unknown' WITH NO TEXT: The 2015 review contains no usable content and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK: No strong fake review patterns detected. Positive reviews vary in detail and phrasing. Negative reviews are highly specific with dollar amounts, dates, and named third parties — lending them credibility.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the dimension scores are each based on multiple mentions giving statistical confidence, but the heavy skew toward older reviews (most from 2008–2014) means this score reflects a historical picture of Booth Plumbing rather than its current performance, and the serious pricing and responsiveness complaints from that era should be weighed carefully by any prospective customer.

Giertsen Co. demonstrates significant inconsistency in service quality. While many reviews praise responsiveness, professionalism, and technical expertise—particularly for emergency restoration work—a substantial cluster of detailed negative reviews document serious failures in mold remediation, project completion, and accountability. The company excels in initial emergency response and communication but struggles with complex technical execution, follow-through on promised repairs, and honest acknowledgment of errors. Recent reviews (2024) show continued problems with missed appointments, incomplete work, and poor workmanship, suggesting systemic issues persist.

• FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER DETECTED: Reviews from 2001-2002 (5 reviews) are suspiciously generic with minimal detail ('FABULOUS JOB', 'unknown', vague praise). These appear artificially inflated and should be heavily discounted.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2017-2022. Recent 2024 reviews are predominantly negative (1-star ratings with detailed complaints), indicating potential service deterioration.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW: The HOA water damage complaint appears twice (2019 and 2018 dates), suggesting either a duplicate entry or pattern of similar failures.
• SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUES: Multiple reviews document mold remediation failures causing documented health problems (CIRS diagnosis, staff infection, allergic reactions). These are not minor complaints but health and safety failures.
• ACCOUNTABILITY PATTERN: Multiple reviews document the company denying responsibility for damage they caused, offering inadequate settlements, and avoiding owner communication.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Named employees (Kevin, Tony, James, Javier) receive consistent praise, while other projects show poor execution, suggesting quality depends heavily on individual crew assignment rather than company standards.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to conflicting evidence: strong emergency response credentials offset by documented failures in complex technical work, mold remediation, and project completion. The recent 2024 negative reviews and fake review cluster from 2001-2002 reduce overall reliability. Use this score cautiously and prioritize recent detailed reviews over historical praise.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with strong technical capability demonstrated in complex sewer work but serious lapses in professionalism, communication, and pricing transparency. Professionalism is dragged down by multiple reports of poor responsiveness, lack of follow-through, and inadequate preparation (missing tools). Pricing is a major concern with complaints of excessive charges, hidden costs, and misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary expenses. Project completion shows mixed results—some jobs finished on time and under budget, but others involved failed diagnostics and abandoned follow-up. Experience scores higher due to recognition of specialized expertise in difficult sewer repairs, though offset by documented cases of incorrect problem assessment.

• RECENCY ISSUE: Most reviews are 4-9 years old (2014-2020). Only 2 reviews from 2022 and 2019 provide recent data. Historical performance may not reflect current operations.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising expertise and 1-star reviews citing incompetence, poor communication, and overcharging. This suggests either highly variable service quality or different service lines (complex sewer work vs. routine repairs).
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2020-09-24, 2018-05-01) document incorrect problem diagnosis leading to customer financial harm and wasted expenses. This is a serious competency red flag.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: 2018-05-01 review documents severe unresponsiveness despite multiple contact attempts, contradicting positive professionalism claims in other reviews.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Consistent complaints about high quotes ($670 for faucet, $15,000+ for sewer work) and charges for incomplete/failed work. No reviews mention transparent upfront pricing.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant service inconsistency, age of most reviews, and documented diagnostic failures that caused customer financial harm. The WW Score reflects a contractor with specialized expertise in complex sewer work but serious deficiencies in communication, pricing fairness, and diagnostic accuracy for routine jobs. Recent performance data is insufficient to confirm whether issues have been addressed.