Find Nearby Plumbers In Champaign, Illinois

217 Heating & Cooling shows a genuinely mixed track record across all dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by serious failures: a sewage backup incident that was mishandled and left unresolved, repeated no-shows and broken appointment promises, and an office representative who gave incorrect code information — all of which offset the genuine warmth and courtesy noted in positive reviews. Project completion is similarly split, with standout examples of going above and beyond (Patrick sourcing parts after hours during a family emergency) undermined by abandoned or never-started jobs, work not completed to code, and a cleaning company that never arrived after a sewage incident. Pricing feedback is limited but leans negative, with one reviewer explicitly calling the billing non-itemized and potentially deceptive, another noting the service charge was steep, and only one reviewer praising the company for steering them toward cheaper options. Experience scores moderately well where technicians are praised for diagnosing problems quickly and correctly, but is tempered by a code violation that required a callback and internal miscommunication between technicians on the same job.

• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2023), limiting recency confidence.
• The 1-star sewage incident review (2023-01-31) describes a serious unresolved health and safety situation including raw sewage overflow, inadequate cleanup, and alleged misrepresentation to the property owner — this is a significant red flag.
• The 1-star review from 2018-08-31 describes a state-mandated water test that was never performed and never communicated about — a potential regulatory compliance concern.
• The 1-star review from 2017-10-24 describes a quote that was never delivered after nearly 3 months of follow-up — a pattern of poor follow-through on non-emergency work.
• The 2-star review from 2016-10-17 explicitly flags non-itemized billing on a time-and-materials job as a potential overcharging red flag — this warrants consumer caution.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary meaningfully in detail, tone, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic authorship across the sample.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the review volume is small (11 reviews), the majority are more than 12 months old, and the dataset contains several high-severity negative incidents that meaningfully offset the positive reviews — consumers should weigh the specific failure cases carefully before engaging this contractor.

Berner Plumbing receives strong praise from repeat customers who highlight Rich's technical knowledge, responsiveness, and thoroughness across a wide range of plumbing jobs including tankless water heater installations and backflow testing. However, the review set is significantly undermined by three negative reviews that raise serious concerns about rudeness and abusive behavior, overcharging, material markup schemes, tardiness, and a failure to file a required Village report after a completed backflow test. The professionalism dimension is the most contested, with glowing praise from loyal customers directly contradicted by accounts of yelling, harassment, and unprofessional conduct. Pricing is similarly split, with one reviewer calling it fair and another explicitly alleging overcharging and material fraud. Project completion scores are dragged down by the unfiled backflow report, which represents a clear failure to deliver on a promised service obligation.

• Three of seven reviews are 1-star and contain specific, detailed negative allegations including verbal abuse, overcharging, material theft/resale, chronic tardiness, and failure to file a required regulatory report — these are serious and credible concerns that significantly affect scoring.
• The positive reviews span 2017–2023 and include specific job details, which increases their credibility. However, the negative reviews (2014–2018) are also specific and independently corroborated across different dimensions, so they cannot be dismissed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review is from July 2023. Three of the four positive reviews are from 2019 or earlier. The negative reviews are all from 2014–2018. It is unclear whether conduct has improved or worsened over time, and the small sample size limits conclusions.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, tone, specificity, and rating, suggesting authentic authorship across the set.
• The 1-star review from 2014-06-02 makes an allegation of material theft (stealing leftover materials and refunding for cash). This is an unverified criminal allegation and should be treated with appropriate caution, though it is noted for transparency.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review volume is low (7 reviews), the time span is wide (2014–2023), and the sharp polarization between loyal repeat customers and strongly negative one-time reviewers creates genuine uncertainty about consistent service quality.

CEC Plumbing receives consistent praise for professionalism, friendliness, and responsiveness across multiple reviews, which drives the higher professionalism score. However, two serious negative reviews — one describing a broken pipe that was never repaired, and another describing a failed snakeout with no warranty honored and a charge to redo the work — significantly drag down the project completion and experience scores. Pricing is mentioned positively in a few reviews but the sample is small. The overall picture is a company with a generally professional demeanor but a documented pattern of serious workmanship failures that cannot be ignored. The wide date range of reviews (2015–2024) limits the reliability of any single trend.

• Two reviews explicitly describe failed or incomplete work with no corrective follow-through: one reports a pipe broken during snaking with zero follow-up, and another reports a snakeout that failed within days with no warranty honored — these are serious project completion failures.
• Several positive reviews are generic in nature (e.g., 'Honest and reliable company!', 'AAA rated!!! Mikes the best!!') with minimal specific detail, which reduces their evidentiary weight.
• Review dates span from 2015 to 2024 — only one review is from the past 12 months (July 2024). The majority of reviews are 3–9 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• The two negative reviews (2017 and 2021) describe recurring issues with drain snaking work specifically, suggesting a possible pattern of underperformance in that service category.
• With only 8 total reviews, the sample size is very small and a single additional negative review could materially change the score.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the small review pool (8 reviews), wide date range, and two substantive negative reviews describing unresolved workmanship failures introduce meaningful uncertainty into the overall assessment.

Tim Morse receives strong praise in two detailed reviews for responsiveness, integrity, and technical knowledge — including a notable instance of not charging for a quick fix and honestly advising against unnecessary work. However, a 2-star review from 2013 explicitly criticizes sloppy workmanship, slow pace, poor design choices, and bad recommendations, which meaningfully drags down scores across all dimensions. The fourth review contains no usable text and was excluded from scoring. The overall picture is mixed: positive recent-ish experiences are offset by at least one substantive negative account, and the total review count is too low to draw confident conclusions.

• Very low review count (4 total, 1 unusable) — scores are based on minimal data and should be treated with caution.
• The 1-star review marked 'unknown' contains no review text and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable evidence.
• Most reviews are older than 5 years (2013–2019); no reviews from the past 12 months are present, so recency weighting is not possible and current service quality is unknown.
• The two positive reviews are detailed and specific, reducing fake review concern for those entries. However, the low total volume means a single negative review carries disproportionate weight.
• The 2013 negative review explicitly mentions 'sloppy,' 'slow,' 'inappropriate design choices,' and 'terrible recommendations' — this is direct evidence of workmanship and project completion issues that cannot be dismissed.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to only 3 usable reviews, all dated between 2013 and 2019, providing insufficient and outdated data to make a confident assessment of current service quality.

Clark Plumbing shows significant inconsistency in service delivery. While technical expertise and workmanship are consistently praised (82/100), the company struggles severely with professionalism and project completion. Multiple reviews document no-shows, failure to return calls, and broken commitments—critical failures in a service business. Pricing concerns emerged in one detailed account of overcharging and inadequate refund follow-through. The company's performance appears to have deteriorated over time, with older reviews (2010, 2017) more positive than recent ones (2018-2021), suggesting operational decline or scaling issues.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of no-shows and non-responsiveness documented in 4 separate reviews (2018, 2018, 2018, 2021), indicating systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2018-2021 period. Oldest positive reviews (2010, 2017) suggest service quality has deteriorated significantly over time.
• BILLING INTEGRITY: One detailed review documents overcharging for drive time and failure to honor promised refund amount ($100-125 promised, only $69 delivered with defensive note).
• MANAGEMENT ISSUE: One review explicitly criticizes owner's work ethic and lack of communication with staff, suggesting leadership/organizational problems.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK RECENT DATA: Most recent positive review is from 2023 (furnace tune-up), but this is a single data point. The 2019-2021 period shows predominantly negative experiences.

This score should be treated with caution due to high volatility in service quality and a clear negative trend in recent years; the company demonstrates strong technical capability but severe operational and communication failures that directly impact customer satisfaction and trust.

Chief Bauer exhibits a deeply polarized customer experience. While some customers praise individual technicians (Scott, Buddy, Doug, Demarco) for professionalism, punctuality, and technical skill, a substantial portion of reviews document aggressive upselling, inflated pricing, and incomplete or faulty work. Pricing concerns dominate negative feedback, with customers reporting parts marked up 1,800%+ and unnecessary equipment sales. Project completion issues include abandoned callbacks, failed repairs requiring second opinions, and installations with significant defects. The company's aggressive sales tactics during service calls and difficulty canceling service agreements further damage trust.

• CRITICAL: Systematic upselling pattern documented across 12+ reviews spanning 2007-2018. Customers consistently report being pressured to purchase unnecessary equipment (furnaces, AC units, UV lights, dehumidifiers) after technicians diagnosed inflated problems.
• PRICING FRAUD INDICATORS: Multiple reviews document extreme price inflation—parts quoted at $372 actually cost $20; ignitor charged at $238 costs $30 retail; furnace quoted at $7,100 needed only $70 unclogging; AC repair quoted at $500+ fixed for $150 elsewhere. Pattern suggests systematic markup strategy.
• QUALITY CONTROL FAILURE: Installation defects documented in multiple reviews—poor ductwork sealing causing air leaks, improper insulation, incorrect thermostat diagnosis, dirty equipment left at job sites, incomplete work requiring callbacks.
• AGGRESSIVE SALES PRACTICES: Multiple complaints about high-pressure sales calls during routine inspections, difficulty canceling service agreements, unwanted robocalls (10+ calls despite two removal requests), and aggressive upselling to elderly/vulnerable customers.
• INCOMPLETE PROJECT DELIVERY: One customer paid $4,000 for furnace/AC replacement in May 2007; furnace never worked, multiple canceled appointments, still non-functional by October 2007. Another customer's ductwork cleaning left return air vent caked in dirt.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE BREAKDOWN: Complaints about unresponsive management, unreturned callbacks (5 attempts to get estimate returned), missed appointments (2-hour window missed, customer's time wasted), and dismissive responses ('we are so busy we have these types of issues').
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Review dated 2018-06-12 appears twice with identical text, suggesting possible review manipulation.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster 2007-2018 (older); more recent reviews (2023) show mixed quality. However, pattern of complaints spans 16 years, indicating systemic rather than isolated issues.

This WW Score of 52.3 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 15+ mentions each) and reflects a company with severe structural problems in pricing transparency, sales ethics, and quality control, despite occasional positive individual technician performance. The score should be trusted as an accurate representation of significant customer risk.