Find Nearby Plumbers In Crystal Lake, Illinois

Jensen's receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven by severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is particularly weak (28/100), with 7 reviews citing non-responsive communication, broken callbacks, no-shows, and poor customer service. Pricing is equally problematic (20/100), with 5 reviews reporting lack of transparency, excessive charges, and refusal to provide quotes. Project completion scores 35/100 across 6 reviews, with complaints of incomplete work, extended timelines, and failure to honor quotes. Only experience shows relative strength (65/100 from 3 mentions), with one detailed positive review praising workmanship and thoroughness. However, this is heavily outweighed by overwhelming negative feedback.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 6 of 9 reviews are older than 3 years (2014–2018). Only 2 recent reviews exist (2023–2024), with one 5-star and one 1-star. This creates high volatility and limits confidence in current performance.
• POLARIZATION PATTERN: Reviews are extremely polarized (7 one-star, 2 five-star). The two positive reviews (2020, 2023) contain specific technical details and praise, while negative reviews are consistent in complaints about communication and pricing. This suggests real operational issues rather than fake reviews.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW RISK (LOW): The 2020 review contains a suspicious phrase ('I don't know who paid these people to write so many bad reviews?'), which could indicate awareness of negative reviews but does not constitute clear evidence of fabrication. The review itself contains specific details (All Seasons comparison, rust spot, furnace testing) that lend credibility.
• BUSINESS PRACTICE CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2014–2024) cite identical issues: lack of quotes, high service charges, poor communication, and no-shows. This consistency across a decade suggests systemic operational problems rather than isolated incidents.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to recency concerns (most reviews are 3+ years old), but the consistency of complaints across a 10-year span and the presence of specific, corroborating details suggest real underlying issues. The two recent reviews show conflicting signals, making current performance assessment uncertain. Recommend requesting recent references before engaging this contractor.

This company demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Three of four reviews are highly negative, citing incomplete repairs (toilet leaking repeatedly), deceptive pricing practices (quoting inflated prices then performing unauthorized work), and poor follow-through on callbacks. The single positive review from 2015 lacks specificity and is heavily outweighed by detailed complaints. Professionalism is undermined by miscommunication, refusal to honor commitments, and management hanging up on customers. Pricing practices appear deliberately misleading, with bait-and-switch tactics and refusal to refund overcharges. Project completion is the most critical failure—work was not done correctly the first time, callbacks were refused without additional payment, and unauthorized modifications were made.

• CRITICAL: Three of four reviews describe the same company operating under multiple aliases (DM Services, Blanton Plumbing) with multiple phone numbers—suggests deliberate obfuscation of business identity
• Pattern of deceptive pricing: initial quotes inflated, then reduced; unauthorized work performed; refusal to refund; bait-and-switch tactics with coupons
• Repeated project failure: toilet repair failed three times; customer had to hire another plumber to fix botched work
• Management conduct: hung up on customer during dispute resolution; refused refund despite acknowledged miscommunication
• The single 5-star review (2015) is generic, lacks specifics, and is contradicted by three detailed negative reviews with specific dates, amounts, and outcomes
• All reviews are from 2015-2016 (8+ years old); no recent data available to assess if practices have changed

This WW Score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. While the sample size is small (4 reviews), the negative reviews are detailed, specific, and consistent in describing systematic failures in pricing transparency, project completion, and customer service. The single positive review lacks credibility given the pattern of complaints. However, the age of reviews (2015-2016) means current practices may differ; recent customer feedback is needed to confirm whether issues persist.

BNK Plumbing's review record is overwhelmingly negative across all four scored dimensions, with the vast majority of reviews describing serious failures in professionalism, pricing, project completion, and technical competence. Professionalism is the most frequently cited concern, with multiple reviewers describing rude staff, hung-up phone calls, canceled appointments, dismissive attitudes, and a technician who snapped at a customer — offset only by a small handful of positive experiences. Pricing drew consistent criticism for inflated quotes, hidden charges, and what multiple reviewers independently described as predatory or scam-like billing practices, particularly in home warranty contexts. Project completion is severely damaged by repeated accounts of unfinished work, failed callbacks, jobs that failed within days of completion, and technicians who refused to complete work or left customers worse off than before. Experience scores marginally higher due to a few genuinely positive reviews praising specific technicians, but is undercut by accounts of incorrect diagnoses, illegal pipe installation, and a water heater installed for a mobile home in a freestanding residence.

• Several 5-star reviews are vague, lack specific detail, or use generic praise (e.g., 'professional, timely, polite, great service as always') with no job specifics — these may be inflated or inauthentic.
• One 5-star review (Aunt Agnes story, 2018) is unusually narrative and anecdotal with no verifiable plumbing work described — treat with skepticism.
• The ratio of 1-star to 5-star reviews is approximately 25:7, indicating a strongly negative customer experience pattern that is not consistent with the few glowing reviews.
• Multiple independent reviewers describe nearly identical patterns of behavior: refusing to complete work, citing code violations as pretexts, inflating quotes, and poor communication — suggesting systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.
• Several reviews reference the company being assigned via American Home Shield (AHS), which may create a selection bias toward dissatisfied customers; however, the volume and specificity of complaints across non-AHS reviews as well suggests broader issues.
• Review dates span 2014–2024, indicating a persistent pattern of negative behavior over a decade with no clear improvement trend. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to describe serious failures including illegal pipe installation and worsening leaks.
• One review (2017-05-02) describes a technician being physically unable to perform the job — raising questions about contractor vetting and job assignment practices.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews spanning a decade with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making it statistically reliable; the score of 24.1 should be treated as a strong signal of poor contractor performance and is not materially distorted by the small number of positive reviews.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. While both reviews are recent (May–July 2024) and highly positive, praising Josh's work quality, professionalism, fair pricing, and project completion, the sample size is too small to establish reliable patterns or confidence in the overall assessment.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — minimum 3 required for WW Score calculation
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with enthusiastic language and exclamation marks; no negative feedback or specifics about challenges
• Suspiciously generic praise pattern: both reviews use similar positive framing without detailed technical specifics
• No independent verification possible with such limited data
• Cannot assess consistency or identify outliers with only 2 data points

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews vs. 3 minimum required); any score derived would be statistically meaningless and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews speak positively about Dave's responsiveness, professionalism, and ability to locate and resolve plumbing issues the same day, which supports moderate scores across all dimensions. Pricing is explicitly called out as fair and reasonable in both reviews, lending some credibility to the pricing dimension despite the small sample. Project completion is supported by both reviewers confirming the job was finished promptly and completely. However, with only 2 reviews total, all scores are treated conservatively and carry LIMITED confidence — no reliable WW Score can be produced at this time.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language; while they do include some specific details (same-day completion, leak location), the small sample size makes it impossible to distinguish a consistent pattern from isolated positive experiences.
• Both reviews follow a similar structure: problem described, Dave came out quickly, job completed same day, praise for professionalism and price. This could reflect genuine consistent service, but with only 2 data points it warrants caution.
• Review dates are from July 2023 and December 2023 — both are over 12 months old at time of analysis; no recent reviews available to confirm current service quality.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should not be considered a reliable indicator of overall contractor quality — significantly more reviews are needed before the WW Score can be calculated and trusted.

Both reviews describe a completed basement finishing project and speak positively about communication, updates, and customer satisfaction, supporting moderate professionalism and project completion scores. One review explicitly mentions reasonable pricing and superior craftsmanship, providing limited but positive signals for those dimensions. However, with only 2 reviews total, no dimension reaches even a MODERATE confidence level, and no WW Score can be reliably calculated. All reviews are from 2020, meaning they are over 4 years old and may not reflect current performance. The positive tone is noted but cannot be weighted heavily given the extremely small sample size.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are from 2020 (4+ years old) and do not reflect recent performance. Recency weighting is a concern.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language. While not conclusively fake, the small sample and uniformly glowing tone warrant caution.
• Review 1 lacks specific detail beyond general praise, which limits its evidentiary value per scoring rules.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews were available, all are over 4 years old, and every dimension is rated at LIMITED confidence; significantly more recent reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.