Find Nearby Plumbers In Crystal Lake, Illinois

This contractor presents a deeply polarized review profile: a loyal base of long-term residential customers (particularly around the JackRabbit and Northwest Chicago operations) consistently praise individual technicians like Jim, Scott, Rick, and Tim for professionalism, punctuality, and solid workmanship. However, a substantial and recurring cluster of negative reviews — many from new construction homeowners — describes a pattern of poor office customer service, rude staff, failed warranty follow-through, and shoddy installation work that required repeat visits or third-party correction. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviews citing abandoned jobs, unresolved warranty repairs, incorrect installations (circulation pumps, expansion valves, water meters), and technicians leaving without completing work. Pricing feedback is mixed: some customers praise fair and transparent quotes while others allege overcharging, undisclosed fees, and being billed before work was completed. The overall score of 58.2 reflects a company with genuine technical talent among certain individual plumbers but systemic failures in office management, warranty accountability, and quality control on new construction projects.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 8 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., the Rick water line review posted twice on 2024-08-07, the Rick supply line review posted twice on 2022-10-11, the 'very professional courteous and prompt' Rick review posted twice on 2021-09-09, the hot water heater July 4th review posted twice on 2021-07-23, the 'very friendly service techs' review posted twice on 2021-04-27, the 'showed up when they said' review posted twice on 2021-04-27, the manufactured home water heater review posted twice on 2023-03-22, the 'prace and profecinal' review posted twice on 2022-08-01, and the 'absolutely horrible' review posted twice across 2017-06-11 and 2017-01-04). These duplicates inflate positive and negative counts and reduce score reliability.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 23 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These provide no usable qualitative data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence in bulk may indicate review padding.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are extremely generic ('Great service.', 'They were great', 'Close', 'I love this place!!!') with no specifics, dates, or context. Combined with the volume of blank 5-star reviews, this pattern is consistent with review padding to offset legitimate negative feedback.
• MULTI-ENTITY REVIEW POOL: Reviews appear to span at least two distinct business entities — 'JackRabbit Plumbing' (appears to operate in Colorado/mountain regions and possibly Georgia) and 'Northwest Plumbing' (Chicago area and Southeast new construction markets). Scoring these as a single contractor introduces significant noise, as the quality and customer service standards appear to differ substantially between the two operations.
• SYSTEMIC WARRANTY FAILURE PATTERN: A recurring and credible pattern exists across multiple independent reviewers describing Northwest Plumbing's failure to honor new construction warranties — including rude dismissals, no-shows, repeat failed repairs, and charging for warranty work. This is not isolated and significantly impacts the project completion and professionalism scores.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review pool spans from 2010 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring. The negative warranty-related reviews are heavily concentrated in the 2016–2025 window, suggesting the problem is ongoing and not historical.
• OVERCHARGING ALLEGATION: One detailed 2017 review alleges the company charged for a minimum 3-hour job that was completed in 30 minutes and refused to provide a receipt — a potential fraud indicator that was factored into the pricing score.

This WW Score is based on a large review pool (141 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, giving the score mathematical reliability, but its trustworthiness is meaningfully reduced by confirmed duplicate reviews, a high volume of blank 5-star reviews suggesting padding, and the mixing of two distinct business entities whose performance profiles differ substantially.

ARS Rescue Rooter presents a deeply polarized review profile. A significant portion of positive reviews praise individual technicians as professional, courteous, knowledgeable, and timely, which elevates the professionalism and experience scores above what the negative reviews alone would suggest. However, the volume and severity of negative reviews is substantial: recurring themes include no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, high-pressure sales tactics, price gouging on parts and labor (often 3-10x market rate), misdiagnosis of problems to upsell unnecessary repairs or full system replacements, and near-total failure of customer service escalation. Pricing receives the lowest score due to overwhelming and consistent evidence of extreme markups, bait-and-switch advertising, and refusal to provide itemized invoices. Project completion suffers from numerous accounts of incomplete work, failed inspections, return visits required, and jobs abandoned mid-project. The review set also contains a large number of brewery reviews (ARS Brewing in Philadelphia) and other clearly off-topic reviews that were excluded from scoring.

• MAJOR DATA CONTAMINATION: A significant number of reviews in this dataset are clearly for a different business — ARS Brewing, a craft brewery in Philadelphia, PA. These reviews reference beer, food trucks, taprooms, and brewery atmosphere and have no relevance to HVAC or plumbing services. These were excluded from scoring but inflate the raw review count significantly.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INFLATED POSITIVE REVIEWS: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-06-06 through 2025-06-09 are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., multiple exact duplicates of 'Great service, very professional.', 'All went well; Very professional.', 'The tech arrived early for the appointment. He was courteous & professional and quickly completed the job.', 'Adam check everything, and got a/c back on.', 'Daniel was amazing', 'Not friend, right away started to charge me without inspection of the drain.'). These appear to be the same reviews submitted multiple times across different dates, strongly suggesting review manipulation or a data feed error. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• REVIEW DUPLICATION: Dozens of reviews appear verbatim multiple times across different dates (e.g., the Jeremy R Smith review, the Andy and Alex review, the Service men were efficient review, the Horrible experience review). This suggests either a data pipeline issue or deliberate review stuffing. Duplicate reviews were counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: Across hundreds of unique negative reviews spanning 2011 to 2025, a consistent and severe pattern emerges of ARS failing to honor appointment windows, providing no notification of delays or cancellations, and offering no meaningful recourse through customer service. This is a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different cities and years report being quoted 3x to 10x market rate for parts and labor. Examples include $455/lb for refrigerant (market: $40-80), $650 for a $25 capacitor, $1,100 for a 30-minute warranty repair, and $10,000+ for sewer work completed by competitors for under $2,000. This pattern is too consistent and widespread to be coincidental.
• MISDIAGNOSIS AND UPSELL PATTERN: Numerous reviewers report being told they needed full system replacements or expensive repairs, only to have a second-opinion technician fix the actual problem for a fraction of the cost. In several cases, reviewers allege ARS technicians deliberately disabled or damaged equipment to create a sale opportunity.
• OFF-TOPIC REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Reviews referencing beer, breweries, food trucks, and taproom experiences were identified as belonging to ARS Brewing (Philadelphia) and were excluded from all dimension scoring. These reviews do not reflect the HVAC and plumbing contractor being evaluated.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference ARS locations across many states (TX, FL, NC, SC, VA, IL, OH, TN, GA, etc.), suggesting this is a national franchise. Service quality appears highly variable by location, which limits the reliability of any aggregate score as a predictor for a specific local branch.

This WW Score of 52.1 should be treated with caution: while it is based on a very large number of substantive reviews providing HIGH confidence in the statistical sense, the score is significantly undermined by confirmed review duplication, suspected fake positive reviews, off-topic brewery reviews contaminating the dataset, and extreme geographic variability across a national franchise — consumers should research their specific local ARS branch independently before engaging services.

Dave's business shows a stark and troubling pattern of inconsistency. While positive reviews (5 of 11) praise his punctuality, friendliness, reasonable pricing, and quality work on completed projects, negative reviews (4 of 11) document serious failures in project completion, including abandoned jobs, no-shows, failure to return calls, lack of invoices, and poor workmanship on partial jobs. The most damaging reviews explicitly state incomplete work months after payment and multiple no-shows without communication. Pricing appears fair when work is completed, but project completion reliability is severely compromised by documented instances of non-delivery and abandonment. The contractor's professionalism is mixed—some clients report excellent communication and punctuality, while others report complete unresponsiveness and broken commitments.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2016, 2017) document serious project abandonment, non-completion, and failure to return calls. These are not isolated complaints but a pattern spanning years.
• Two separate 1-star reviews use nearly identical language ('took our money', 'never provided invoices or receipts', 'has not completed any job he started', 'partial jobs done very poorly'), suggesting either the same customer or a genuine pattern of identical failures.
• Oldest reviews (2016-2017) contain the most severe complaints about non-completion and no-shows. More recent reviews (2020-2021) are more positive, suggesting possible business improvement or selection bias.
• One 1-star review from 2018 mentions lack of callback on a simple inquiry, indicating communication issues extend beyond project execution.
• Recency concern: 5 of 11 reviews are older than 3 years; only 3 reviews from past 2 years. Recent reviews are predominantly positive, but sample size is small.

This score should be treated with caution due to a stark divide between positive and negative reviews, with negative reviews documenting serious project abandonment and non-completion issues. The WW Score of 54.8 reflects genuine risk: while recent reviews suggest improvement, the historical pattern of non-delivery and unresponsiveness is severe enough to warrant significant concern. Recommend requesting references and written contracts with clear completion timelines before engaging.

The review set presents a deeply mixed picture of this contractor. Positive reviews praise punctuality, good pricing, and knowledgeable staff, but these are heavily counterbalanced by three detailed negative reviews describing serious failures in workmanship, poor customer service from office staff, abandoned or incomplete jobs, and refusal to honor callbacks. The two most detailed negative reviews — a leaking freestanding tub installation requiring three days of follow-up and a dishwasher install with an exposed wire and unconnected drain — significantly drag down both project completion and experience scores. Professionalism is hurt by the documented hostile attitude from office staff and technicians being distracted on-site. Pricing received a mixed signal, with one reviewer praising it and another alleging overcharging without credit for unused materials.

• Three reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', 'Very good.', 'Went fantastic.') and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no actionable evidence.
• The majority of reviews are significantly outdated — 8 of 10 reviews are from 2018 or earlier, with 6 from 2009 or before. The most recent review is from 2018. This score should not be treated as reflective of current performance.
• Two reviews from the same date (2005-06-14) with identical rating and similar generic phrasing may suggest coordinated or prompted reviews, though they are too old to heavily influence the score.
• The positive reviews tend to be vague or generic, while the negative reviews are highly detailed and specific, which increases the credibility weight of the negative accounts.
• Overall confidence is rated LIMITED due to the small number of reviews, the age of the data, and the presence of non-informative placeholder reviews.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution — it is based on a small, predominantly outdated review set with several non-informative entries, and the most detailed and credible reviews skew negative, suggesting meaningful quality and service issues at the time they were written.

This contractor shows severe deficiencies across all dimensions. While two reviews praise quick response and good workmanship, four reviews document serious problems: extreme overcharging ($895 vs. $293 for same service, $2k quote vs. $100 actual cost), failure to complete work properly (missing water heater venting that caused rust damage), non-responsiveness to callbacks, quote discrepancies between phone and on-site, and unauthorized credit card charges. The owner acknowledged gouging in one case but the pattern persists. Professionalism is undermined by poor communication, unresponsiveness, and aggressive upselling tactics.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2018, 2016, 2013) document systematic overcharging and quote manipulation—this suggests a business practice pattern, not isolated incidents
• Unauthorized credit card charge documented in 2018 review—potential fraud indicator
• Severe quality control issue: water heater venting not installed, causing damage 1.5 years later with no callback response
• Disconnect between phone quotes and on-site pricing appears in multiple reviews—suggests intentional bait-and-switch
• Two positive reviews (2023, 2018) lack specificity and detail compared to negative reviews which are highly detailed and specific—possible review imbalance but not conclusive fake review pattern
• Review dates span 2013–2023; most negative reviews are older (2013–2018) but 2018 review documents ongoing problems, suggesting long-standing issues

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. The negative reviews are detailed, specific, and document concrete financial and service failures across multiple years, while positive reviews lack detail. The pattern of overcharging, quote manipulation, and non-responsiveness appears systemic rather than anecdotal.

PK Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its 5 reviews. The two positive reviews from 2015 and one from 2018 praise Paul's communication, professionalism, and workmanship, while two reviews from 2017 describe serious failures including taking money without completing work, ignoring client calls and texts, and repeatedly breaking commitments. Professionalism is the most heavily impacted dimension, as three of five reviews explicitly describe unprofessional or dishonest behavior — including one reviewer alleging Paul opened a second company under a different name to evade accountability. Project completion is similarly damaged, with credible accounts of abandoned work and ghosted clients. Pricing and experience scores are based on limited positive mentions only and should be treated with caution given the broader pattern of complaints.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly alleges Paul Wise opened a second company called 'WISE PLUMBING' after allegedly defrauding customers — this is a significant red flag and warrants independent verification before hiring.
• PATTERN OF GHOSTING: Multiple negative reviews independently describe the same behavior — Paul agreeing to work, then becoming unreachable across multiple phone numbers — suggesting a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are from 2015–2018, meaning no data exists from the past several years. Business conduct and quality may have changed significantly in either direction.
• SCORE SUPPRESSION APPLIED: Professionalism score was heavily penalized due to the weight and specificity of the negative reviews, which include detailed, credible accounts of dishonest behavior rather than vague complaints.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews total. The WW Score is calculated but should be treated as low-reliability due to small sample size and the age of all available data.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability — it is based on only 5 reviews, all more than 6 years old, with a stark split between detailed positive and detailed negative accounts, including a serious fraud allegation that could not be verified from review data alone.