Find Nearby Plumbers In Buffalo Grove, Illinois

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by poor scheduling communication, failure to honor appointments, and dismissive behavior toward customers and licensing inquiries. Project completion is the most damaging area, with multiple instances of incomplete work, abandoned callbacks, and refusals to reschedule with qualified personnel. While one review mentions fair pricing, this is vastly outweighed by four reviews documenting incomplete repairs, unqualified technicians, and lack of follow-through. The single positive review from 2017 is contradicted by four negative reviews spanning 2016–2017, suggesting systemic operational problems.

• CRITICAL: Four of five reviews are 1-star ratings with specific complaints about incomplete work, scheduling failures, and unprofessional conduct. This is not a pattern of isolated incidents.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One review explicitly documents an apprentice with an expired license (2015) being sent to perform work, with the owner refusing to address the issue and instead offering a refund rather than proper remediation.
• PATTERN OF AVOIDANCE: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to reschedule, refusing to communicate with customers, and dismissing legitimate concerns rather than resolving them.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Two reviews explicitly state that work was not completed (2 of 3 leaks unfixed; lines not properly connected initially). One review documents a complete no-show after scheduling confirmation.
• The single 5-star review (2017) is substantially undermined by the four 1-star reviews from the same period, suggesting either inconsistent service quality or potential selection bias in positive review.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong indicator of serious service deficiencies. The score is based on consistent patterns across multiple independent reviews documenting incomplete work, unprofessional conduct, scheduling failures, and licensing violations. This contractor presents significant risk.

Every single review across this dataset is a 1-star complaint, painting a consistently negative picture of this contractor. Professionalism is severely undermined by repeated failures to return calls, unprofessional conduct, and dishonest communication about charges. Project completion is critically poor — one reviewer had to hire a second plumber to fix damage caused by this contractor, another reported ruined tile work, and a third described work that failed after completion with no follow-through on callbacks. The one pricing mention is explicitly negative, citing hidden travel charges and a lack of upfront honesty. Workmanship quality is directly called into question across three reviews, including an 8-hour job that left plumbing in worse condition than before.

• All 4 reviews are 1-star ratings — this is a uniformly negative dataset with no positive outliers.
• Three of the four reviews are dated 2016–2017, making them 7–9 years old. Only one review (2020) falls within a more recent window. Recency is low across the board and the score may not reflect current performance.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific, varied details (tile work, plumbing failure, unreturned calls, hidden charges) consistent with genuine negative experiences.
• The contractor appears to operate under the name '5R Home Services' or '5R Home Repair' — both names appear across reviews, which may indicate rebranding.

This score is based on a small sample of 4 reviews, all of which are negative and mostly dated 2016–2020, so while the directional signal is strongly unfavorable, the score should be treated with moderate caution due to limited volume and low recency.

Only one review contained usable data, making any scoring highly tentative. That single review describes a severely failed wall-hung toilet installation where the contractor misrepresented his experience, failed to resolve a recurring leak across multiple callbacks, and ultimately had to be replaced by another plumber who corrected the job in one hour. Professionalism scores low because the contractor falsely claimed competence on the phone and failed to diagnose the root cause across multiple visits. Project completion scores near the floor because the job was never successfully finished by this contractor. Experience scores near the floor because the reviewer explicitly concluded the contractor had no knowledge of wall-hung toilet installation and used incorrect components. Pricing could not be assessed as no review mentioned cost.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score.
• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2014-12-18) contains only the text 'unknown' and provides zero usable information. It was excluded from all dimension scoring.
• The sole usable review is from 2015, making it approximately 9–10 years old. It should be treated as significantly outdated and not representative of current performance.
• With only one usable review, all dimension scores carry extremely low evidentiary weight and should not be used to make hiring decisions.

This score report is not reliable — only one usable review exists, it is nearly a decade old, and the second review contains no meaningful content; no hiring decision should be based on this data alone.

Both reviews are positive and suggest a contractor who responds quickly, completes work in a timely manner, and offers competitive pricing. Review 1 highlights a successful hot water heater replacement through a home warranty service, praising the timeliness and quality of work. Review 2 specifically calls out same-day availability, fast response, and best pricing for a gas leak repair. However, with only 2 reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, and all dimension scores carry very low confidence due to the minimal sample size.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are dated between 2021 and 2022, meaning all data is over 2 years old. Recent performance cannot be assessed.
• Reviews are generally positive but lack granular detail in most dimensions, limiting scoring precision.
• No negative feedback present, but this is likely due to the extremely small sample size rather than an indicator of consistent excellence.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews were available, all data is over 2 years old, and every dimension score carries LIMITED confidence at best.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review explicitly mentions professionalism (punctuality, friendliness, efficiency), project completion (job finished), and experience (quick, efficient work). Pricing is not addressed in this review. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for reliable scoring
• Review is from January 2021 — over 3 years old and outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• No pricing information provided in the single review
• Cannot assess overall contractor performance with confidence based on a single data point

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment of the contractor's overall performance; at least 3 recent reviews are required to calculate a valid WW Score.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. That said, the review is specific and detailed, mentioning repeat visits (4 times), responsiveness, reasonable pricing compared to a competitor, trustworthiness, and quality of work. Professionalism is supported by references to answering calls promptly and caring about the customer. Pricing is explicitly praised with a concrete comparison to a competitor charging 5x more. Project completion is implied through repeated successful engagements but not described in granular detail. Experience is noted through references to being knowledgeable and doing great work, though no technical specifics are provided.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Single review cannot be cross-validated for authenticity, though the review contains specific details (4 visits, competitor price comparison) that reduce fake review suspicion.
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis — treat all scores as directional indicators only, not reliable benchmarks.

This score is based on a single review and should be considered highly preliminary — additional reviews are required before any meaningful confidence can be placed in these dimension scores or an overall WW Score.