Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 60608, Burbank, Illinois

A Chicago Handyman / Ally Handyman has a strong overall track record across a large volume of reviews, with the vast majority of customers praising punctuality, communication, and responsiveness. Pricing is consistently described as fair and reasonable, with multiple reviewers noting the contractor honored quoted prices and even saved customers money. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — particularly involving Tim — describes serious workmanship failures including a health-hazard sawdust incident, an improperly installed garbage disposal that required a licensed plumber to fix, and an incomplete job with uneven picture hanging and a broken water filter. One review involving Mark describes a worker who abandoned a job mid-project, refused to read instructions, and was rude to the customer. These incidents meaningfully suppress scores across all dimensions, particularly project completion and experience, preventing a higher overall score despite the predominantly positive review base.

• Multiple reviews with no text content (only a rating of 5.0) were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence — these blank or near-blank reviews ('unknown', '.', empty) may inflate the perceived review count without contributing meaningful data.
• Two separate negative reviews from July 2024 describe Tim leaving a sawdust health hazard in a customer's HVAC system after cutting countertop indoors and refusing to clean up. Tim's response review attempts to dismiss this as an outlier, which is a red flag pattern.
• A 2017 review describes a garbage disposal improperly installed by the handyman, requiring a licensed plumber to fix at additional cost — a clear workmanship failure.
• A 2024 negative review describes Mark abandoning a job, refusing to read product instructions, and being dismissive and rude to a female customer — a significant professionalism failure.
• A 2024 review by Tim (3-star) notes an incomplete light fixture job, uneven picture hanging, and an accidentally broken water filter — suggesting inconsistency in quality.
• A 2019 review notes a failure to return a phone call within 48 hours — a responsiveness failure.
• Reviews span from 2016 to 2025, meaning a significant portion of the review base is more than 3 years old. Recency weighting applied: more recent reviews (2024–2025) were given greater influence, and these include both strong positives and the most serious negative incidents.
• The business appears to operate under multiple names (A Chicago Handyman, Ally Handyman) and involves multiple workers (Mark, Tim, Pete, Tony), making it difficult to assess consistency across the team as a whole.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though the large cluster of undated or same-date 2024-06-09 reviews warrants mild caution — 15+ reviews sharing the exact same date may suggest a batch import or solicited review campaign.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning nearly a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the presence of multiple documented workmanship failures, an abandoned job, and a health-hazard incident means the score should be treated as a realistic average rather than a reliable guarantee of quality — customers should vet which team member is assigned to their job.

A&M Plumbing receives strong praise across many recent reviews for punctuality, communication, and courteous service, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting on-time arrivals, proactive updates, and above-and-beyond behavior. However, professionalism scores are meaningfully dragged down by two older but detailed reviews describing a contractor (Matt) who gave quotes and then completely failed to show up or communicate, as well as one review citing poor communication during a job. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: there are multiple serious, specific complaints about faulty installations — including leaking dishwashers, sinks, and toilets installed incorrectly, a flooded rec room caused by an improperly secured discharge hose, and an alleged attempt to upsell unnecessary repairs — all of which represent significant workmanship failures. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by those who mention it, with several reviewers calling costs fair or reasonable, though one review describes a high-pressure upsell attempt that undermines this. The experience dimension reflects a split picture: many reviewers praise skill and attention to detail, but the documented installation failures indicate inconsistent technical execution across jobs and possibly across different technicians.

• Three reviews dated 2015–2015 contain only the word 'unknown' with no review text and 5-star ratings — these are not usable for scoring and may represent placeholder or fake entries.
• Two reviews dated 2022-09-30 contain only the word 'Excellent' with identical dates and identical text — possible duplicate or fake reviews; excluded from substantive scoring.
• The review set spans from 2008 to 2024, meaning many reviews are significantly older than 12 months. Reviews from 2013–2018 reference different named technicians (Ty, Matt, Alin) suggesting personnel or ownership changes over time, which limits the reliability of older reviews as indicators of current performance.
• The two most damaging no-show reviews (2015 and 2016) reference a 'Matt' who may no longer be associated with the business. However, they cannot be dismissed without confirmation and are included in scoring with appropriate weight reduction due to age.
• The 2020 review describing multiple simultaneous installation failures (dishwasher, sink, toilet) is highly specific and credible, and significantly impacts the project completion score.
• The 2008 review about the flooded rec room is over 15 years old and has been given minimal weight in scoring due to extreme age, but is noted as a documented workmanship failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence in terms of data volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given the wide date range of reviews, evidence of personnel changes over time, and several specific and credible complaints about installation failures that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong pattern of positive recent feedback.