Find Nearby Plumbers In Champaign, Illinois

D&S Sewer Service earns strong praise across most dimensions, with multiple reviewers highlighting prompt response times, fair pricing, and effective problem-solving — including a detailed account of correctly diagnosing a complex drainage issue. However, two negative reviews introduce meaningful drag on the scores: one describes a worker being dismissive of a neighbor's concern about water shutoff notification, and another details a serious professionalism and project completion failure involving unauthorized excavation, a broken pipe, an inflated bill, and a week-long delay before returning to finish the job. These negative reviews are older (2011 and 2022) but are specific and credible, and cannot be dismissed. The majority of reviews are positive and span multiple years, but the presence of concrete, detailed complaints prevents high scores across all dimensions.

• Two negative reviews (2011 and 2022) contain specific, credible complaints about professionalism, communication failures, unauthorized work, and project abandonment — these significantly temper otherwise positive signals.
• Several positive reviews are older than 3 years (2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2020), and only 3 reviews are from the past 24 months. Recency of data is limited; recent performance may differ from historical patterns.
• The 2015 review is unusually long and contains tangential personal narrative, though it does include specific and verifiable claims about pricing and job quality. No fake review pattern detected overall, but generic short reviews (e.g., 2021, 2019) offer limited scoring signal.
• The 1-star 2011 review describes the business as operating out of a private residence with no office or shop — this may indicate a very small operation with limited accountability infrastructure, which is a contextual risk factor.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews spanning over a decade, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderated by the age of most reviews and the presence of two detailed negative accounts that reveal real gaps in professionalism and project follow-through.

Lanz demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for courtesy, knowledge, and responsiveness. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—multiple reviews cite excessive charges, unclear fee structures, and what customers perceive as predatory pricing practices. Project completion shows mixed results, with several reports of incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, failed diagnostics, and unresolved warranty issues. While recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive, older reviews reveal systemic problems with accountability, follow-through, and customer communication that suggest ongoing operational challenges.

• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: 35 of 60 reviews (58%) are from June 2025 alone, with 43 reviews (72%) from April-June 2025. This clustering suggests potential review campaign or seasonal surge. Older reviews (2011-2018) show significantly more critical feedback.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple empty reviews with 5-star ratings (at least 10 instances) lack any text content. Combined with the recent surge of detailed 5-star reviews, this raises questions about review authenticity.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CONSISTENT AND DETAILED: Unlike generic praise, pricing criticisms are specific, citing exact dollar amounts ($358 recurring charge, $400/hour rates, $1000+ for simple repairs). This consistency across multiple independent reviewers suggests legitimate systemic issue.
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe incomplete initial repairs requiring callbacks (blocked drain fixed 3 times, toilet leak after 1 year, AC refrigerant leak missed). One reviewer explicitly states 'on multiple occasions Lanz came to fix a problem, failed to fix it properly, and then had to come back.'
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: Several reviews describe company denial of responsibility for damage caused by their work (water damage from faulty faucet installation, sewer backup after recent repair). One customer reports manager attempted to charge extra to redo faulty work.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between recent glowing reviews and historical complaints suggests either genuine improvement or review manipulation. The sudden shift from 1-2 star complaints (2011-2018) to nearly all 5-star (2025) is atypical.
• SALES PRESSURE DOCUMENTED: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending unnecessary replacements (furnace replacement when only thermostat needed, full system replacement when repair sufficient). One customer notes 'techs playing salespeople.'

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the calculated score of 72.8 reflects the data provided, the extreme recency clustering (72% of reviews from April-June 2025), presence of empty 5-star reviews, and stark historical pattern of quality/accountability issues versus recent uniformly positive reviews suggest potential review manipulation or campaign activity. The consistent, detailed pricing complaints across multiple years and independent reviewers carry more weight than recent generic praise. Customers should heavily weight the older, more critical reviews and verify current pricing practices independently before engaging Lanz.

Edwards Heating and Cooling shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by serious incidents including unauthorized vehicle movement, property damage, and poor complaint handling, though many reviews praise punctuality and courtesy. Pricing concerns emerge from aggressive upselling tactics and recommendations for unnecessary replacements, though some customers felt value justified higher costs. Project completion is hampered by significant delays in parts ordering and scheduling during critical weather conditions, though routine maintenance and installations are generally timely. Technical experience is consistently praised with knowledgeable staff and quality workmanship noted across multiple reviews. The company's overall score is dragged down by two severely negative experiences involving unprofessional conduct and unresolved damage claims.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews from 2014-2017 show suspiciously generic praise with minimal detail ('Great job...thank you', '.', 'unknown', 'They do an excellence job!'). These appear to be placeholder or artificially inflated reviews and reduce confidence in the overall positive sentiment.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed reviews are from 2012-2015 (5+ years old). Only 2 substantive reviews from 2019 and 2022. Recent data is limited and skewed toward negative experiences.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT ISSUES: Two 1-star reviews document unprofessional behavior including unauthorized vehicle movement, property damage, and failure to take responsibility or follow up on complaints. One review explicitly states the company blocked the customer on Facebook after negative feedback was posted.
• UPSELLING CONCERNS: 2014 review documents aggressive recommendation for $20,000 geo-thermal system when actual problem was a $203 part and clogged pilot light. Customer's independent expert confirmed unnecessary replacement was recommended.
• PARTS ORDERING DELAYS: Multiple reviews document extended delays in parts procurement (2+ weeks) and poor communication about timelines, particularly problematic during emergency heating situations in winter.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data, apparent fake reviews in the 2014-2017 period, and two severe negative experiences that significantly impact professionalism ratings. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence: strong technical skills and positive routine service experiences are substantially undermined by documented unprofessional conduct, property damage, and poor complaint resolution. Scores above 75 would be unreliable given these serious behavioral issues.

Urbana Plumbing & Heating demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with multiple reviews praising responsiveness, knowledge, and thorough workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with three detailed complaints about excessive charges (faucet/wax seal at $1,149, garbage disposal markup, and refusal to honor guarantees on customer-supplied parts). Professionalism is mixed: many reviews highlight courtesy and communication, but two recent reviews (2022) document poor customer service interactions and condescending behavior. The company's long-standing reputation (30+ years) is undermined by recent pricing and attitude concerns that suggest potential deterioration in service standards.

• PRICING CONCERN: Three separate reviews (2022, 2021, 2017 context) explicitly detail aggressive pricing practices, including $1,149 for simple faucet/wax seal replacement, markup on garbage disposal, and refusal to guarantee work on customer-supplied parts. This pattern suggests systematic overcharging rather than isolated incidents.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: Two 1-star reviews from September 2022 document unprofessional behavior (condescending tone, laughing at shocked customer) that directly contradicts positive reviews. This suggests recent deterioration or inconsistent service quality depending on which technician responds.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2013-2021 (older than 1 year). The two most recent detailed reviews (Sept 2022) are both 1-star with serious complaints about pricing and attitude. This temporal pattern suggests declining service quality.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('very knowledgeable,' 'reasonable price,' 'wore a mask,' 'cleaned up') across different reviewers and years, which may indicate fabricated or template-based reviews. However, the detailed negative reviews appear authentic and specific.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING NARRATIVE: Positive reviews mention 'reasonable prices' while negative reviews document extreme overcharges for identical services (faucet installation). This suggests either selective pricing based on customer perception or dishonest quoting practices.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to conflicting evidence: while technical competence and responsiveness are well-documented across multiple reviews, recent complaints about pricing practices and unprofessional behavior (both from 2022) suggest the company may not be as trustworthy as its historical reputation indicates. The score reflects a company in transition with serious pricing and attitude concerns that outweigh its technical strengths.

Classic Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication, punctuality, and courteous technicians consistently praised across multiple reviews. However, pricing practices significantly undermine overall trustworthiness, with multiple detailed complaints documenting material markups of 235–260% above retail cost, lack of upfront estimates, and aggressive collection tactics. Project completion is generally solid when work is performed, but two cancellations without notice damaged reliability. Technical skill appears competent, though one failed repair required customer callback. The stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (mostly 2017–2023) and detailed 1–2 star complaints (2019–2020) about pricing suggests inconsistent service standards or potential changes in business practices over time.

• PRICING PATTERN ALERT: Three separate reviews (2019–2020) document nearly identical complaints about excessive material markups (235–260% above retail), suggesting systemic pricing practices rather than isolated incidents. These are detailed, specific, and credible complaints with documented cost breakdowns.
• CANCELLATION ISSUE: One review reports two cancellations, with the second occurring 15 minutes before scheduled appointment time after customer took morning off work, indicating poor scheduling or prioritization.
• FAILED REPAIR & POOR FOLLOW-UP: One review documents a failed shutoff valve repair that required callback and owner intervention; customer was not credited for failed work and was pressured into expensive additional work.
• COLLECTION THREAT: One review reports business threatened collections action over disputed material charges, which escalated customer dissatisfaction.
• TEMPORAL PATTERN: Most positive reviews are from 2017 and 2023; negative reviews cluster in 2019–2020. This may indicate business practice changes or inconsistent service quality.
• ONE UNVERIFIABLE REVIEW: Review dated 2017-01-04 contains only 'unknown' as text and cannot be analyzed; excluded from scoring.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by multiple mentions, the pricing dimension reveals a serious credibility gap: detailed, specific complaints about material markups and aggressive billing practices directly contradict the positive 5-star ratings. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects this tension, but customers should prioritize obtaining detailed written estimates before engaging Classic Plumbing, particularly regarding material costs.

Edelman Electric shows strong professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, courtesy, and communication across multiple reviews. However, project completion is significantly hampered by two severe 1-star reviews detailing incomplete work, poor follow-up, and unresolved issues spanning weeks. Pricing data is limited to two mentions with mixed signals. Experience scores well based on technical knowledge demonstrated in positive reviews, but the 2016 review raises serious concerns about quality control and management oversight. The stark contrast between 5-star and 1-star reviews suggests inconsistent service delivery.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews (2016 and 2022) describe severe project completion failures including incomplete furnace repairs, lack of urgency during winter emergencies, and extended delays. These are detailed, specific complaints with no apparent fake review indicators.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent negative review is from January 2022 (heater issues, lack of urgency). Oldest severe complaint is from 2016. Unclear if systemic issues have been resolved.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Three 5-star reviews (2020-2023) praise the company highly, while two 1-star reviews (2016, 2022) describe management failures and poor service. This suggests either significant service variability or potential management/training issues that may persist.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Only 2 mentions of pricing-related issues. One review mentions a $900 bill for incomplete work; another complains about after-hours fees and lack of same-day service. Insufficient data to assess pricing fairness comprehensively.

This score should be treated with caution due to high volatility in reviews and limited sample size (5 total). The presence of two detailed, credible 1-star reviews describing serious project completion failures significantly undermines confidence in overall reliability, despite positive recent reviews. Recommend requesting references and clarifying service guarantees before engaging.