Find Nearby Plumbers In Calumet City, Illinois

Both reviews are severely negative with ratings of 1.0 stars. The first review alleges deceptive pricing practices and misdiagnosis of an AC unit problem. The second review, from an experienced contractor, documents multiple failures: dishonest pricing (initial quote of $100 undercut by $290 later quote), poor workmanship (faucet installation botched by a first-day technician), and lack of follow-through on promised work. While responsiveness was noted as positive in one review, it is overwhelmed by documented failures across pricing transparency, technical competence, and project quality. With only 2 reviews and both extremely negative, confidence in any dimension is limited.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per STEP 4 rules
• Both reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints (not generic praise or fake review patterns)
• Second review is from 2022 (nearly 2 years old) — recency is limited
• First review is recent (June 2024) and alleges misdiagnosis and deceptive fee structure
• Pattern of alleged dishonesty across both reviews: bait-and-quote tactics, hidden fees, misrepresentation of work needed
• Second review explicitly states technician was on first day — raises questions about quality control and training
• No positive reviews present to balance assessment

This assessment cannot be considered reliable due to insufficient review volume (n=2). While both reviews are detailed and credible, a WW Score cannot be calculated responsibly with fewer than 3 reviews. The consistent pattern of pricing deception and poor workmanship across both reviews is concerning, but broader validation with additional recent reviews is essential before making a hiring decision.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across all four dimensions. The contractor completed the originally requested pipe repair but caused additional damage in the process — a broken pipe left leaking in the basement — demonstrating poor workmanship and situational awareness. Project completion is scored very low because the job was effectively left in a worse state than before, with the company repeatedly avoiding follow-up callbacks. Professionalism suffers due to the contractor's failure to acknowledge the damage caused and the company's pattern of putting the customer off rather than resolving the issue. The customer paid $1,350 and was left with an unresolved plumbing problem they did not have prior to the visit, making the price-to-value ratio extremely poor.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• This review is dated 2020-05-02, which is more than 4 years old. It may not reflect the contractor's current performance.
• No positive reviews are present to provide balance; all scoring is based solely on this single negative account.
• The review describes a potential liability issue: a technician allegedly caused additional property damage (broken pipe/basement leak) and the company failed to respond to follow-up calls — this is a significant red flag for prospective customers.

This score is based on a single review from over four years ago and should be treated with very low confidence — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's typical performance can be drawn from this data alone.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any reliable scoring impossible. That one review is strongly negative, citing deceptive low estimates followed by significantly higher final charges — a clear pricing transparency failure. The reviewer also reported multiple leaks following a new plumbing system installation, indicating serious workmanship and quality-of-work concerns. Project completion is scored very low as the installed work resulted in defects requiring further attention. No data exists on professionalism, punctuality, communication, or attitude, so that dimension cannot be scored at all.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2020-07-13, which is more than 4 years old. Current contractor performance may differ significantly.
• Pricing deception flagged: reviewer explicitly states a low estimate was given but final cost was substantially higher — possible bait-and-switch pricing practice.
• Workmanship defect flagged: reviewer reports numerous leaks after new plumbing installation, suggesting poor technical execution.
• With only one review, all dimension scores carry extremely low confidence and should not be used as a reliable indicator of contractor quality.

This score report is based on a single review from over four years ago and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or practices can be drawn from this data alone.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review provided; minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. The single review documents severe failures across professionalism (belligerent attitude, dishonesty, refusal to address damage), project completion (incomplete work, abandoned job site, refusal to remedy), and experience (incorrect plumbing installation, lack of supervision). No pricing information was mentioned.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2017 (7+ years old) — does not reflect current business practices or recent performance.
• Serious allegations: unlicensed apprentice, defective workmanship, property damage, owner dishonesty, and abandonment of job site.
• Owner allegedly denied knowledge of employee and refused accountability for damages.

This assessment is unreliable for decision-making purposes due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and extreme age of the single review (2017). At minimum, 3 recent reviews are required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Only a single review is available, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer describes the contractor as polite (professionalism), reasonably priced (pricing), and timely and sufficient (project completion), but provides no specific detail or context for any of these claims. No mention of workmanship quality, technical skill, or problem-solving was made, leaving the Experience dimension entirely unscored. Scores have been kept conservative across all dimensions due to the vague, generic nature of the single review and the extremely small sample size.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review language is generic and lacks specific detail (e.g., no description of the job type, scope, or outcome), which reduces confidence in all dimension scores.
• Cannot rule out that this is a low-effort or potentially incentivized review given its brevity and non-specific praise.
• Experience dimension has NO DATA — no mention of skill, workmanship, or technical ability in any review.

This score report is based on a single vague review and should not be trusted as a meaningful indicator of contractor quality — significantly more reviews with specific detail are required before any reliable assessment can be made.

This single review from November 2019 provides positive mentions across all four dimensions: Chuck is praised for quick response and professionalism, fair pricing, fixing issues correctly on the first attempt (project completion), and demonstrated versatility across multiple trades (experience). However, with only one review and no recent data (nearly 5 years old), confidence in any aggregate score is severely limited. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review.

• Only 1 review available — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is from November 2019 — over 4 years old, outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• Review is generically positive with no specific project details, dates, or measurable outcomes
• No negative or critical feedback present to validate balance

This analysis is unreliable for decision-making. A minimum of 3 recent reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.