Find Nearby Plumbers In Coal City, Illinois

This contractor demonstrates strong technical skill and workmanship (88/100), with multiple reviews praising quality and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a serious scheduling failure and rude behavior toward a customer's spouse, resulting in a 68/100 score. Project completion shows mixed results: same-day emergency service is excellent, but scheduling reliability is poor. Pricing appears fair based on limited evidence (one positive transaction). The WW Score of 78.2 reflects solid technical capability offset by concerning interpersonal and reliability issues that directly impact customer trust.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are from 2011–2013 (10+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess current performance or whether issues have been addressed.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Review dated 2012-03-08 contains only a period (.) with a 5-star rating. This is a red flag for placeholder or spam review.
• CRITICAL PROFESSIONALISM ISSUE: One detailed negative review (2-star, 2013) describes scheduling confusion, failure to show on correct day, and rude behavior to customer's wife. This is a serious incident that directly contradicts the positive reviews and suggests inconsistent service quality.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total, with 1 unusable. Confidence in overall score is limited by low review volume.

This score should be treated with caution due to very old review dates (10+ years), a small sample size, one suspicious placeholder review, and a significant negative incident that contradicts positive reviews, making it unclear whether current performance matches historical data.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across projects and time periods. Professionalism scores well (78.5) with many reviews praising punctuality, communication, and attitude, particularly from 2022-2023 work under 'Carlos.' However, project completion is notably weak (68.0) with multiple documented failures: incomplete callbacks, unfinished work, plumbing defects causing 2-year leaks, and broken promises. Pricing is fair (76.0) but marred by overcharging incidents and lack of transparency. Experience is solid (81.0) when work is completed, but execution inconsistency undermines confidence. The business appears to have changed ownership/names multiple times (Les Glover era, Chris era, Carlos era, THI), which correlates with quality fluctuations.

• CRITICAL: Multiple business name changes detected (Les Glover → Chris → Carlos → THI #815-333-7183) suggesting ownership transitions or potential shell company tactics. Most recent 2024 review explicitly states 'new guy that took over an old company name from 2017.'
• SEVERE PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Two 1-star reviews document catastrophic failures—2-year plumbing leaks from improper caulking/gluing (2023) and complete non-responsiveness to repair requests. Another review documents promised valve repair never completed with no callback.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 8 reviews with only 'unknown' or single-character text ('.' or blank) all rated 5.0 stars from 2014-2016 period. These provide zero substantive data and appear artificially inflated.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed positive reviews are from 2022-2023 (Carlos era). Older reviews (2011-2017) show mixed quality with multiple scheduling and follow-up failures. Recent 2024 review is severely negative.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: At least 3 separate reviews document failure to return calls or honor promised callbacks for repairs, indicating systemic responsiveness problem.
• OVERPRICING INCIDENTS: One detailed 2014 review documents $1889 quote for shutters/labor when market rate was $200 installation + <$700 parts. Another 2011 review shows $720 estimate vs. $200 less from competitors.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 72.8 appears moderate, the underlying data reveals a highly volatile contractor with serious structural problems: multiple business identity changes, documented catastrophic failures in core plumbing work, systematic callback failures, and suspicious fake reviews inflating historical ratings. The recent 2024 one-star review and documented 2-year leak failure suggest current quality is poor. Positive reviews cluster in 2022-2023 under 'Carlos' but this may represent a temporary improvement or different crew. Recommend requesting recent references and written guarantees before engaging.

Rockland Plumbing's reviews paint an overwhelmingly negative picture across nearly every dimension. The most damaging pattern is chronic no-shows and appointment cancellations — at least 10 separate reviewers describe being stood up, sometimes multiple times, after taking time off work. Project completion is catastrophically poor, with multiple reviewers reporting jobs left unfinished, sewer lines rodded incorrectly causing repeat backups, pipes damaged and abandoned, and weeks or months of unanswered follow-up calls. Professionalism scores are dragged down by consistent reports of no-call no-shows, unresponsive phone lines, deceptive behavior (one technician allegedly lied to the warranty company about findings), and at least one report of rude and racially offensive conduct. The few positive reviews — praising specific technicians like Joe, Jake, and Ralph — are genuine bright spots but are vastly outnumbered by negative experiences, and some of those same named technicians appear in negative reviews as well. Pricing received a low score due to one reviewer alleging ripoff behavior and another reporting a $7,000 job that failed within months with no warranty follow-through.

• STRONG NEGATIVE PATTERN: At least 10 of 23 reviews explicitly describe missed appointments or no-shows, often multiple times per customer. This is a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — POSITIVE REVIEWS: The 5-star reviews are sparse in detail compared to the highly specific negative reviews. However, several positive reviews do name specific technicians and describe specific work, so full fake review flagging is not warranted. Confidence in positive signals is reduced.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews fall between 2017 and 2023. The most recent reviews (2023) include both a positive and multiple negative experiences, suggesting no clear improvement trend over time.
• DECEPTIVE CONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (Feb 2020) alleges the technician lied to the home warranty company (AHS) about findings to avoid completing work. If accurate, this represents serious ethical misconduct.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers report property damage including broken cast iron pipes, sewage backups caused by improper rodding, and a flooded basement attributed to incomplete or negligent work.
• CALLBACK AND COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Across at least 12 reviews, customers report being unable to reach the company for days or weeks after service, including one reviewer who called daily for 3 weeks with no response.
• WARRANTY COMPANY DEPENDENCY: The majority of customers came through home warranty companies (AHS, Service Line Warranty). This context may affect service prioritization, but does not excuse the documented failures.
• RACIAL CONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (June 2020) alleges a technician made racist remarks and questioned their home ownership. This is a serious flag for conduct and professionalism.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on 23 reviews with strong data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence — the score reliably reflects a contractor with severe, systemic issues in reliability, communication, and workmanship that have persisted across multiple years.