Find Nearby Plumbers In Darien, Illinois

All Suburban Emergency Plumbing has a long track record of responsive, professional service backed by many loyal repeat customers spanning 10–20+ years. The majority of detailed reviews praise promptness, courteous technicians, and solid workmanship on sump pumps, sewer rodding, and water heater installations. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — particularly from 2016–2023 — consistently cite a rude and confrontational phone receptionist (identified as the owner's wife), which significantly drags down the professionalism score. Additional concerns include one incident of a technician leaving a job incomplete and demanding a service fee, a complaint about substandard repair quality and uncleaned worksite, and a recurring pattern of drain rodding failing within days requiring callbacks. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to competitive, though one reviewer felt overcharged for builder-grade equipment and another was surprised by the cost relative to the simplicity of the repair.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2009–2017. Reviews from 2024 and 2023 are very few (2 reviews), making it difficult to assess current service quality with confidence.
• LOW-CONTENT REVIEWS: Approximately 12 reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', or single generic sentences (e.g., 'Good work performance', 'The project went well', 'Very well'). These provide no usable dimension data and were excluded from scoring.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN: At least 3 independent reviews (2016–2017) specifically and consistently describe the same phone receptionist as rude, belligerent, and unprofessional. This is a credible, corroborated pattern — not an isolated incident.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: Two separate reviewers (Oct 2017) reported drain rodding failed within one week and required a return visit, suggesting possible quality control issues on sewer rodding jobs.
• INCOMPLETE JOB INCIDENT: One reviewer (2023, 1-star) describes a technician who arrived without the required part, partially disassembled the water heater, left with the customer's component, and demanded a $90 service fee without completing any work — a serious professionalism and project completion concern.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several older 5-star reviews (2003–2006) are marked 'unknown' with no review text. While not definitively fake, they contribute no usable data and inflate the raw star average. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews among the detailed reviews.
• SCORE IMPACT NOTE: The professionalism score was conservatively reduced due to the weight of multiple corroborated negative experiences with phone staff and one serious on-site conduct complaint, even though the majority of field technician interactions were rated positively.

This WW Score is based on 57 reviews spanning over 20 years, with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced by the age of most substantive reviews, a cluster of credible negative professionalism complaints, and approximately 12 reviews that contained no usable content.

This aggregated review set spans multiple companies operating under similar or related names (Action Plumbing, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, and individual plumbers like Jeff Satterthwaite), which significantly complicates scoring and reduces reliability. The majority of reviews are positive and praise professionalism, punctuality, and communication, but a substantial minority of negative reviews describe serious failures including fire damage, abandoned work, misdiagnosis, property damage, dishonest billing practices, and chronic non-responsiveness — particularly in the context of American Home Shield warranty work. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers found costs fair or competitive, while others reported inflated fees, hidden charges, and deceptive billing. Project completion is a notable weakness, with multiple reviews citing incomplete jobs, failed callbacks, and work that required correction by other plumbers. Experience scores are dragged down by documented cases of poor workmanship, incorrect diagnoses, and code violations, despite many reviews praising skilled technicians by name.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span multiple distinct businesses (Action Plumbing in multiple states/cities, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, Jeff Satterthwaite Plumbing, and others). Scores reflect an aggregated pool that may not represent any single contractor accurately. Consumer should verify which specific entity they are evaluating.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: A significant number of reviews contain no text (rating only), particularly clustered around dates like 2024-06-09, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, and 2015. These blank 5-star reviews inflate the average rating and are treated as non-usable data. Additionally, some reviews use nearly identical phrasing across different dates, suggesting possible review padding.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least one review describes Action Plumbing causing a fire that left four families homeless (2024-09-06), with the owner allegedly unresponsive. Another describes a bathtub installation so defective it required full drywall and tile replacement. A third describes a whole-house re-pipe job where lines were not flushed, causing debris damage throughout the home. These are severe outliers that materially affect trustworthiness.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about Jake damaging a home during water heater installation (rating 1.0) appears verbatim on two separate dates (2024-06-09 and 2023-10-10). This duplication was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• AHS WARRANTY PATTERN: A recurring pattern of negative reviews involves American Home Shield (AHS) warranty assignments, where the contractor is accused of misdiagnosis, inflated modification fees, non-responsiveness, and claim denial manipulation. This pattern appears across multiple years and locations, suggesting a systemic issue with warranty work specifically.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2001 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) show a mixed but somewhat improved pattern for Astro Plumbing specifically, while Action Plumbing reviews remain mixed across the full date range.
• GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSION: Reviews reference locations including Las Vegas NV, Cleveland OH, Lawrence KS, Corpus Christi TX, Silsbee TX, Kaysville UT, Rhode Island, Indiana, and others. This strongly suggests these are reviews for multiple unrelated businesses sharing similar names, not a single contractor. The WW Score should be interpreted with extreme caution as a result.

This WW Score has LOW reliability for evaluating any single contractor because the review pool almost certainly aggregates multiple unrelated businesses operating under similar names across different states; consumers should independently verify the specific entity they intend to hire and seek reviews specific to that business's location and ownership before making a hiring decision.

Alexander Plumbing earns strong marks for technical skill and workmanship, with numerous reviewers praising knowledgeable technicians like Paul, Adam, and Patrick who go above and beyond to fully resolve problems and explain their work clearly. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by a recurring pattern of complaints about rude, dismissive, or explosive behavior — primarily attributed to the owner — spanning multiple years and multiple independent reviewers, which cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents. Project completion is similarly mixed: many reviews praise same-day or next-day responsiveness and thorough job completion, but several credible negative reviews describe no-shows, cancelled appointments without notice, and at least one case of abandoned work mid-project. Pricing is the most contested dimension, with a meaningful minority of reviewers describing charges they felt were excessive or inconsistent with quoted amounts, while the majority found pricing fair or reasonable. The overall picture is a company with genuinely skilled technicians and strong operational capability, undermined by inconsistent customer-facing behavior and reliability issues that have persisted across many years.

• ATTITUDE/TEMPERAMENT PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviews across different years (2016, 2017, 2019, 2021) describe the owner or a senior figure as rude, dismissive, explosive, or having a 'bad attitude.' This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe scheduled appointments where the plumber never showed and never called (2015, 2016, 2018, 2021). One review describes work being abandoned mid-project after multiple visits.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Three reviews explicitly describe feeling overcharged — one citing $187.50 for 11 minutes of work, another citing ~$700 for one hour with minimal materials, and another citing $400 as excessive for a simple shower valve. These are specific and credible.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2017-12-16 appear to be near-identical in content (Rheem water heater refusal). These may represent the same reviewer submitting twice or a copied review. One was excluded from scoring to avoid double-counting.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 8 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are from 2013–2021, while the majority of positive reviews are from 2024–2025. This may indicate genuine improvement in service quality over time, or it may reflect a shift in review demographics. Scores were weighted toward more recent reviews but older negatives were not discarded as the patterns they describe (attitude, no-shows) have some corroboration in the 2021 period.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW: Several 2025 reviews share similar phrasing ('prompt, professional, reasonable') but most contain specific names, job details, and narrative context. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, though the uniformly 5-star recent cluster warrants mild caution.
• ONE 1-STAR REVIEW (2021) describes a detailed, specific incident of a flapper chain left with too much slack causing a recurring problem, and an explosive owner response when the customer called back. The level of technical specificity and narrative detail makes this review credible.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over 15 years, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to strong mention counts; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given a documented and recurring pattern of owner temperament issues and no-show incidents that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong technical performance of the field crew.

A&M Plumbing receives strong praise across many recent reviews for punctuality, communication, and courteous service, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting on-time arrivals, proactive updates, and above-and-beyond behavior. However, professionalism scores are meaningfully dragged down by two older but detailed reviews describing a contractor (Matt) who gave quotes and then completely failed to show up or communicate, as well as one review citing poor communication during a job. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: there are multiple serious, specific complaints about faulty installations — including leaking dishwashers, sinks, and toilets installed incorrectly, a flooded rec room caused by an improperly secured discharge hose, and an alleged attempt to upsell unnecessary repairs — all of which represent significant workmanship failures. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by those who mention it, with several reviewers calling costs fair or reasonable, though one review describes a high-pressure upsell attempt that undermines this. The experience dimension reflects a split picture: many reviewers praise skill and attention to detail, but the documented installation failures indicate inconsistent technical execution across jobs and possibly across different technicians.

• Three reviews dated 2015–2015 contain only the word 'unknown' with no review text and 5-star ratings — these are not usable for scoring and may represent placeholder or fake entries.
• Two reviews dated 2022-09-30 contain only the word 'Excellent' with identical dates and identical text — possible duplicate or fake reviews; excluded from substantive scoring.
• The review set spans from 2008 to 2024, meaning many reviews are significantly older than 12 months. Reviews from 2013–2018 reference different named technicians (Ty, Matt, Alin) suggesting personnel or ownership changes over time, which limits the reliability of older reviews as indicators of current performance.
• The two most damaging no-show reviews (2015 and 2016) reference a 'Matt' who may no longer be associated with the business. However, they cannot be dismissed without confirmation and are included in scoring with appropriate weight reduction due to age.
• The 2020 review describing multiple simultaneous installation failures (dishwasher, sink, toilet) is highly specific and credible, and significantly impacts the project completion score.
• The 2008 review about the flooded rec room is over 15 years old and has been given minimal weight in scoring due to extreme age, but is noted as a documented workmanship failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence in terms of data volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given the wide date range of reviews, evidence of personnel changes over time, and several specific and credible complaints about installation failures that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong pattern of positive recent feedback.

Bob consistently receives strong praise across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and explicitly mentioned quality — punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous attitude appear in nearly every review. Pricing is described as reasonable or fair in four reviews, supporting a solid but not exceptional price-friendly score. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished on time, efficiently, and to a high standard, including one longer multi-month project completed with consistent daily effort. Experience and workmanship quality are explicitly praised in several reviews, with specific mentions of carpentry skill, attention to detail, and quality outcomes. The primary caveat is that all reviews are more than 10 years old, which significantly limits the reliability of this score for assessing current performance.

• ALL 9 REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 10 YEARS (range: 2010–2014). This score reflects historical performance only and should not be treated as indicative of current quality or availability.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews contain specific details and varied language that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a decade warrant mild caution.
• One review (2010) explicitly notes the reviewer hired Bob because he was the husband of her best friend, introducing a potential personal bias that may inflate that review's positivity.
• Review volume is low (9 total). Confidence in the WW Score is limited by both the small sample size and the age of all reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to consistent and specific reviewer feedback across dimensions, but should be treated with significant caution given that all reviews are over 10 years old and no recent performance data is available.

The contractor shows genuine strengths in working with older homes and handling specialized plumbing situations, with positive mentions of fair pricing and cleanup. However, the most detailed review raises meaningful concerns about diagnostic sequencing — replacing the most expensive part first rather than performing basic cleaning checks, resulting in unnecessary delays and costs for the customer. The owner did demonstrate responsiveness by assisting via phone on a Saturday night, which partially offsets the technical missteps. Overall, the picture is of a competent but occasionally costly plumber whose workmanship is generally satisfactory but not without procedural lapses. The small review pool and age of most reviews significantly limit confidence in any conclusions drawn.

• Only 6 reviews total, with 2 containing no usable text ('unknown' and '.') — these were excluded from scoring.
• 4 of 6 reviews are older than 5 years; the most recent usable review is from 2021. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, making recency-weighted scoring impossible.
• The detailed 2014 review describes a two-visit scenario where a basic diagnostic step (cleaning/blowing out the line) was skipped in favor of replacing the most expensive component first, suggesting a potential gap in diagnostic thoroughness.
• The second technician left water temperature set to 'max,' indicating a quality-control issue on that visit.
• Sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about consistent performance patterns.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review pool (6 total, only 4 with usable data), the near-complete absence of recent reviews, and the presence of two content-free placeholder reviews that contributed no scorable information.