Find Nearby Plumbers In Chicago, Illinois

Derek's business shows a stark bifurcation: strong technical skills and fair pricing are consistently praised, but severe reliability and follow-through issues significantly undermine overall trustworthiness. While 40+ reviews highlight excellent workmanship, quick response times, and competitive rates, an equally substantial cluster of negative reviews (15+ one-star ratings) document a pattern of no-shows, ghosting after initial contact, failure to honor callbacks, and abandonment of incomplete work. The professionalism score is dragged down by repeated communication failures and broken commitments, while project completion suffers from documented instances of unfinished jobs and avoidance of warranty obligations. Recent reviews (2022 and earlier) show this pattern persists across years.

• CRITICAL PATTERN DETECTED: 15+ one-star reviews explicitly document repeated no-shows, ghosting, and failure to complete work or honor callbacks. This is not isolated—multiple reviewers note 'reading other reviews shows this is a pattern.'
• RELIABILITY RED FLAG: Multiple reviews from different years (2022, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) describe identical behavior: Derek schedules appointments, fails to show, stops answering calls/texts, and sometimes blocks customers. This suggests systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: At least 8 reviews explicitly state Derek failed to return for promised callbacks or warranty work, sometimes leaving jobs incomplete or incorrectly completed.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Numerous reviews report Derek becoming unresponsive after initial contact or after a problem surfaces. One reviewer noted Derek hung up immediately upon hearing their voice when called from a different number.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Several reviews document poor workmanship (incorrect drain sealing, improper water heater installation, missing hardware, leaking pipes immediately after installation) that Derek failed to remedy.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CLUSTERING: Positive reviews cluster heavily around 2016-2018 and 2020-2022, with many using similar language ('highly recommend,' 'fast action,' 'reasonable price'). However, the volume and specificity of negative reviews with detailed accounts of ghosting behavior suggests these are genuine complaints, not fabricated reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 3+ years old (pre-2020). The most recent negative reviews are from 2022, indicating the pattern may be ongoing.

This WW Score should be treated with caution despite HIGH confidence in the data: the score reflects genuine bifurcation in service quality. Derek demonstrates strong technical competence and fair pricing, but exhibits a severe and documented pattern of unreliability, non-responsiveness, and failure to complete work or honor commitments. Customers should expect excellent work IF Derek shows up and completes the job, but face substantial risk of being ghosted or left with incomplete work. The score of 68.2 reflects this risk; it is not a recommendation but rather a warning that engagement carries significant execution risk.

Rob West Plumbing has a deeply polarized review profile. A strong cohort of positive reviewers — many recent (2024–2025) — praise responsiveness, technical problem-solving, and friendly service, with multiple reviewers noting the team solved issues that other plumbers could not. However, a significant number of negative reviews across multiple years describe serious concerns: work that caused additional damage, billing disputes with no written quotes, rude staff behavior, no-shows, and failure to return calls. Pricing is a particular pain point, with multiple reviewers citing lack of transparency, unexpected charges, and a $100 service fee that does not apply toward the bill. Project completion is undermined by several accounts of incomplete or faulty work requiring a second contractor to correct. The score reflects genuine capability when the team performs well, tempered significantly by a consistent pattern of serious service failures.

• MIXED ENTITY CONCERN: Several negative reviews appear to reference 'B&B Plumbing' or 'D&B Plumbing' rather than Rob West Plumbing directly. These may be misattributed reviews from a different contractor, but they were included in the dataset and scored conservatively given ambiguity.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: A meaningful number of negative reviews are from 2010–2022, while the majority of positive reviews cluster in 2024–2025. This may indicate genuine improvement over time, but older negative patterns (billing disputes, no-shows, poor workmanship) are still represented and cannot be dismissed.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR THIN REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews contain no substantive detail (e.g., 'Have used Rob West plumbing 3 times, and the service is always great,' 'Great friendly service,' 'Very knowledgeable and great service'). Two reviews have no text at all — only a rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY PATTERN: At least 4 independent reviews explicitly describe lack of written quotes, surprise charges, or disputed invoices. This is a recurring structural complaint, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW / COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe being stood up, calls not returned, or voicemail boxes being full — spanning 2016 to 2020. This pattern may be less relevant for recent engagements but is noted.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE PATTERN: At least 3 reviews describe work that caused additional damage (flooded basement, leaking pipe after repair, damaged tub, misdiagnosed toilet leak leading to $15k restoration). These are serious quality-of-work flags.
• RACIAL SLUR ALLEGATION: One review (2023) alleges a worker trespassed and used racial slurs. This is an extreme conduct allegation that, if accurate, represents a severe professionalism failure. It could not be verified but is flagged for transparency.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving it statistical weight, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the sharp polarization between highly positive and highly negative experiences, the presence of potentially misattributed reviews, and recurring structural complaints about billing transparency and workmanship quality.

Rob West Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately at 62 due to a large volume of positive mentions of friendly, courteous, and responsive technicians — particularly Alex, Tom, Ozzy, and Chad — but is significantly dragged down by a persistent and credible pattern of complaints about the owner Rob's behavior: multiple independent reviewers describe him as dismissive, rude, manipulative, and prone to yelling at customers who dispute charges. Pricing is the weakest dimension at 42, with a high volume of explicit complaints about a non-refundable $100 trip charge, opaque time-and-materials billing, inconsistent hourly rates between visits, charges for work not performed, and final bills far exceeding verbal estimates — these complaints span the entire review history and are corroborated across many independent reviewers. Project completion scores 63, reflecting many successful same-day and next-day completions, but undermined by documented cases of abandoned projects, recurring problems not fixed on the first visit, no-shows on scheduled appointments, and at least one major case of work so defective it required a third-party contractor to redo. Experience scores 68, as field technicians are frequently praised for diagnosing difficult problems that other plumbers missed, but this is offset by documented instances of wrong parts installed, improper workmanship requiring remediation, and a disposal technician who failed to check the reset button before recommending a full replacement.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW FLAG: The detailed 1-star review beginning 'You could be putting your home and wallet at risk' appears three times with nearly identical text across dates 2024-06-09, 2024-02-11, and 2024-02-11. This appears to be the same reviewer posting across multiple platforms (Google, Yelp) or the same review submitted multiple times. Treated as a single unique complaint for scoring purposes to avoid over-weighting.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW FLAG: The 5-star review beginning 'Rob West and his team HAVE ALWAYS DONE RIGHT BY ME' about a 2-hour phone call appears twice with nearly identical text (2022-06-10 and 2022-03-25). The reviewer explicitly notes they posted it on both Google and Yelp. Treated as one unique positive data point.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW FLAG: The 1-star review about not being properly staffed for emergency work appears twice with identical text on 2015-08-17. Treated as one unique complaint.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — GENERIC 5-STAR REVIEWS: Approximately 10-12 reviews consist of only 'unknown' text with a 5-star rating, or a single period '.' with a 5-star rating, or extremely brief generic praise with no specifics (e.g., 'Great service, great price'). These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence inflates the raw star average and warrants skepticism.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR PATTERN: At least 8-10 independent reviewers across multiple years and platforms explicitly describe the owner Rob West as rude, dismissive, manipulative, prone to yelling, and unresponsive when disputes arise. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents, and materially impacts the professionalism score.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY PATTERN: A significant and consistent pattern of billing complaints exists across the full review history (2010-2025): non-refundable trip charges not applied to work, verbal estimates significantly exceeded, inconsistent hourly rates between visits, charges for work not performed, and failure to provide itemized invoices. This is the single most documented negative theme in the review corpus.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years report no-shows on scheduled appointments, failure to return calls, and significant tardiness without notification. This is a recurring operational issue.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024-2025) continue to show both strong positive experiences and serious negative experiences, suggesting the mixed quality pattern has not resolved over time. Reviews span from 2010 to 2025, providing a long historical record.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION — UNVERIFIED: One 1-star review (2023-06-10) alleges a worker trespassed and used racial slurs. This is a severe allegation that cannot be verified from review text alone and was not scored, but is flagged for consumer awareness.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION — UNVERIFIED: One 1-star review (2010-07-19) describes a major GC project abandonment with extensive defective workmanship and references legal action under Illinois consumer protection statutes. This is a detailed and specific allegation spanning multiple documented defects.

This WW Score of 62.4 is based on a large and diverse review corpus spanning 15 years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be treated as a reliable representation of the contractor's mixed performance — the score reflects genuine strengths in field technician skill and responsiveness alongside serious and well-documented concerns about pricing transparency, owner professionalism, and project completion consistency that any prospective customer should carefully weigh before hiring.

American Vintage Home presents a deeply polarized review profile. On the positive side, a large volume of reviewers praise individual technicians by name for being knowledgeable, professional, courteous, and thorough — particularly for boiler, HVAC, and plumbing work. However, a substantial and consistent body of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious concerns including predatory upselling, misdiagnosis of functioning equipment, unauthorized credit card charges, failure to complete jobs, unresponsive management, and in at least two cases, safety-related installation failures (carbon monoxide venting, flooded basements). Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous reviewers citing charges 2–3x higher than competitors for identical work, hidden fees, and non-transparent quoting practices. Project completion is also significantly undermined by recurring accounts of abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, and systems that continued to malfunction after paid repairs. The experience score reflects genuine technical skill among senior technicians but is dragged down by consistent reports of inexperienced or dishonest technicians being sent unsupervised.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'Highly competent, not cheap. There are always several-hundred-dollar suggestions...' (4-star) appears verbatim on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06. The review 'Maria was excellent. Very detailed and thorough...' (5-star) appears verbatim on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05. The review 'Alejandro was knowledgeable and efficient. Very kind. A+' (5-star) appears verbatim on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05. These are likely duplicate submissions or fake review padding and have been counted only once each.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN SUSPECTED: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-02-06 (approximately 40+ reviews on a single date) is highly anomalous. This volume of same-day reviews is a strong indicator of review solicitation campaigns or bulk submission, which may artificially inflate the positive review count. Confidence in the aggregate positive signal is reduced accordingly.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15 reviews contained no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, while a significant concentration of detailed negative reviews spans 2021–2024. This may reflect genuine service improvement, selective review solicitation of satisfied customers, or suppression of negative feedback.
• SAFETY CONCERN: At least two reviews describe serious safety failures — one involving carbon monoxide leaking from an improperly vented water heater installed by AVH (2023-11-27), and one involving a flooded basement caused by a technician disconnecting a sump pump without warning (2021-03-02). These are not merely service quality issues.
• BILLING MISCONDUCT PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe unauthorized credit card charges, inability to cancel subscription plans, and continued billing after confirmed cancellations. This is a recurring and serious pattern, not isolated incidents.
• UPSELLING MISCONDUCT PATTERN: Multiple reviewers across multiple years describe technicians falsely condemning functioning equipment (boilers, AC units, capacitors) to generate replacement sales. In at least one case a technician was reportedly dismissed after being caught lying about carbon monoxide levels to sell a new boiler.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviewers report being unable to reach managers, being told managers are 'too senior' to take calls, and receiving no callbacks after lodging complaints. This is a systemic pattern affecting the professionalism and project completion scores.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the contractor has a bifurcated reputation where individual technician quality varies enormously, and systemic issues around pricing transparency, billing practices, and management accountability are well-documented across multiple years and independent reviewers.

Power Plumbing shows a deeply split reputation across a large review base spanning over 15 years. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: many reviewers praise individual plumbers (James, Angel, Tony, Jason, Joe, Gabe) as courteous, punctual, and thorough, while a significant and recurring cluster of negative reviews describes missed appointments, no-call-no-shows, failure to return calls or emails for estimates, and rude office/answering service staff — pulling the professionalism score well below average. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far, with numerous explicit complaints about opaque hourly billing, unexplained labor charges, $200 estimate fees, rates perceived as far above market (multiple reviewers found competitors at half the price or less), and charges for time not actually worked; only a handful of reviews praised pricing as fair or reasonable. Project completion scores moderately: many jobs were finished correctly and on time, but there are notable failures including a flood control system that never worked, a bad solder joint causing water damage, incomplete rodding work, and a pattern of estimators never following through. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, with many reviewers noting that Power Plumbing solved problems that other plumbers could not, and individual technicians frequently praised for skill and knowledge — though offset by a few cases of clear incompetence or unnecessary work.

• 14 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating (all rated 4 or 5 stars). These blank reviews provide zero usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence inflates the raw star average and is a mild fake-review concern.
• Two reviews dated 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-07 are word-for-word identical (complaint about $200 estimate fee). This is a strong indicator of a duplicated or fake review. One instance was counted; the duplicate was flagged and discounted.
• Two reviews dated 2025-06-04 and 2025-06-06 are word-for-word identical (positive review about $200/hr rate). Same duplication pattern as above. One instance was counted; the duplicate was flagged and discounted.
• A cluster of reviews from 2020 and earlier (roughly 60+ reviews) are more than 4 years old. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) show a notably higher rate of complaints about pricing, no-callbacks, and missed appointments, suggesting possible service deterioration in recent years. Recency weighting applied mentally — recent negative signals treated as more predictive of current experience.
• The answering/after-hours service is cited as rude or unhelpful in multiple independent reviews across different years (2017, 2018, 2021, 2025), suggesting a systemic and persistent issue with third-party call handling that is not isolated.
• Pricing complaints have intensified in the most recent reviews (2024–2025), with the $200 estimate fee and $200/hr labor rate drawing explicit criticism. This represents a meaningful recent policy shift that significantly impacts the pricing dimension.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 total, 111 with usable data) spanning 2007–2025, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the dimensions scored; however, consumers should weight the 2022–2025 reviews most heavily, as they reveal a pattern of deteriorating responsiveness, sharply increased pricing, and recurring no-callback complaints that may not be reflected in the overall score, which is moderated by many older positive reviews.

J. Blanton Plumbing presents a deeply polarized profile. While individual technicians frequently receive praise for professionalism, knowledge, and work quality, the company is severely hampered by systemic issues: egregious pricing (often 2-4x market rates), chronic scheduling failures and no-shows, poor follow-through on commitments, and aggressive upselling tactics. The pricing complaints are overwhelming and consistent across hundreds of reviews. Project completion suffers from missed appointments, incomplete work, and failure to honor warranties. Despite strong technical competence among field staff, organizational dysfunction and exploitative business practices significantly undermine overall trustworthiness.

• SEVERE PRICING CONCERNS: Overwhelming pattern of overcharging—customers consistently report prices 2-4x higher than competitors for identical services. Examples: $1,200+ for simple valve replacement (market rate ~$300), $875 for garbage disposal flange replacement (1 hour labor), $700+ for basic faucet installation. This is the single most damaging pattern in the dataset.
• SCHEDULING DYSFUNCTION: Pervasive no-show and cancellation pattern. Multiple customers report: appointments cancelled same-day without notice, technicians arriving hours late or not at all, conflicting information from dispatch, customers taking time off work only to be stood up. This suggests systemic dispatch/management failure.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING: Repeated pattern of technicians recommending expensive replacements when repairs would suffice, pushing maintenance plans, and using fear-based sales tactics (e.g., Legionnaires' disease scare tactics, claims entire systems need replacement when only parts need repair).
• INCOMPLETE/FAULTY WORK: Multiple reports of work done incorrectly requiring customer to hire another plumber to fix J. Blanton's mistakes (e.g., wax ring installed incorrectly causing neighbor water damage, rough-in plumbing done wrong requiring wall reopening, toilet installation breaking toilet, incorrect diagnosis requiring multiple visits).
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Customers report difficulty getting refunds, warranty claims denied, promised callbacks never received, management unresponsive to complaints, and refusal to honor stated warranty terms.
• DEPOSIT/PAYMENT ISSUES: Pattern of non-refundable deposits for cancelled appointments (company's fault), demanding payment before work completion, and charging for estimates without prior disclosure.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: While most negative reviews are detailed and credible, the volume of 5-star reviews with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great service!' with no specifics) combined with the stark contrast to detailed negative reviews suggests possible review manipulation. However, the detailed positive reviews praising specific technicians appear authentic.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2024-2025) show continued pricing and scheduling complaints, indicating problems are ongoing and not historical.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be trusted as HIGH confidence, but it masks a company in serious decline: individual technicians are genuinely skilled and professional, but the organization systematically exploits customers through predatory pricing, unreliable scheduling, and aggressive sales practices. The score reflects the average of these contradictions, but customers should weight the overwhelming pricing and reliability complaints heavily—this company's business model appears designed to maximize revenue extraction rather than customer value.