Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 62521, Decatur, Illinois

Gates Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous demeanor across multiple reviews. Pricing is noted as fair and transparent, with customers appreciating the advance quote process. Project completion shows solid execution with installations completed as promised, though one negative review from 2015 suggests potential service follow-up issues. Technical skill and workmanship quality are evident in completed installations, though the evidence base is moderate. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects reliable, professional service with some concerns about post-installation support.

• Three reviews contain minimal or no substantive content (ratings of 5.0 with only '.' or 'ourt' as text), reducing data quality and raising minor concerns about review authenticity
• One negative review (2015) explicitly criticizes lack of service follow-up after installation, which contradicts the otherwise positive pattern
• Most reviews are older than 5 years (2009-2014), with only one review from 2016; recency of data is limited
• Small sample size of usable reviews (5 out of 8) limits confidence in overall assessment

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to the small number of substantive reviews, significant age of most data, and one explicit negative experience regarding post-installation service that was not addressed in subsequent reviews.

Bolt Plumbing has a strong track record of technical skill and problem-solving, particularly with older homes and water heater issues, which is consistently praised across multiple reviews. Professionalism scores are generally high, with customers noting promptness, clear communication, and attentiveness — however, one credible 1-star review from 2019 describes a complete failure to follow through after a scheduled callback, which meaningfully drags down both professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews, suggesting fair and transparent rates, but the limited data prevents a high-confidence score there. The single negative review is specific, detailed, and plausible, and cannot be dismissed — it describes a no-show scenario that is a serious professionalism and reliability concern. Overall, the contractor appears skilled and reliable for most customers, but the follow-through failure documented in the negative review introduces a meaningful caveat.

• One detailed 1-star review (2019) describes a complete no-show after a confirmed appointment — this is a significant reliability flag and has been weighted accordingly in professionalism and project completion scores.
• Three of the six positive reviews are older than 2 years (2020, 2021, 2022, 2023), and only one review is from the past 12 months (November 2024). Recency of positive feedback is moderate.
• Several positive reviews use somewhat generic praise ('always knows what to do,' 'highly recommend'), though most include specific job details (water heater, shower faucet, leaky main), reducing fake review concern. No strong fake review pattern detected.
• Total review count is low (7 reviews). Scores should be interpreted with caution given the small sample size.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability — the technical experience and project completion dimensions are supported by multiple specific reviews, but the low total review count and one credible no-show complaint introduce meaningful uncertainty, particularly around professionalism and follow-through.

Kerby Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2016–2022. Professionalism is severely compromised by poor communication, scheduling delays, and failure to properly diagnose problems before declining work. Project completion is mixed: some jobs are completed quickly and well, while others required multiple visits and partial solutions. Pricing feedback is limited but suggests occasional overcharging relative to actual work performed. Technical skill appears solid when work is undertaken, but inconsistent follow-through and diagnostic rigor undermine overall reliability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 2–6 years old (2016–2018); only one review from 2022. Recent performance is unclear.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between 5-star and 1–2-star reviews suggests highly variable service quality or inconsistent technician performance.
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURE: Review from 2018 indicates failure to check propane tank before replacing parts—suggests inadequate troubleshooting protocol.
• COMMUNICATION ISSUES: 2022 review explicitly cites poor communication and scheduling run-around, followed by job abandonment.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 1 review in past 2 years), small sample size (4 reviews), and high variability in outcomes. The company shows capability but demonstrates concerning gaps in communication, diagnostics, and consistency.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by reports of threatening behavior on social media, high-pressure same-day sales tactics, missed appointments without notice, entering a client's home with muddy shoes, and voiding a warranty in retaliation for a customer following up on legitimate repair requests. Project completion is consistently poor, with multiple reviews describing unfinished or defective work, ignored complaint letters, unanswered calls, and recurring failures after attempted repairs. Workmanship quality is low, evidenced by repeated installation failures including improper caulking, rusting hardware, uneven surfaces, and a shower head left blocked with debris after installation. Pricing received only one mention but was flagged for manipulative tactics — demanding a 50% deposit on the day of the estimate with no time allowed for the customer to consider.

• SERIOUS CONDUCT WARNING: One reviewer explicitly describes the owner making public threats of harm toward individuals including women and children on social media forums. This is a significant safety and character concern beyond typical contractor complaints.
• PREDATORY SALES TACTICS: One reviewer describes being pressured to hand over 50% payment on the day of the estimate with no time to deliberate, and no confirmed start date provided in return.
• VULNERABLE CUSTOMER EXPLOITATION: One reviewer states the contractor was aware she was under extreme stress due to her husband's stroke and proceeded to deliver substandard work while ignoring subsequent complaints.
• RECURRING INSTALLATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe the same pattern — defective work, attempted repairs by replacement staff, further failures, and eventual abandonment of the customer.
• RETALIATION AGAINST CUSTOMERS: One reviewer reports the owner left an angry voicemail voiding their warranty after the customer called multiple times to follow up on an outstanding repair — a retaliatory and unprofessional response.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews are from 2010–2020. The most recent review is from July 2020, which is over 4 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current business practices.
• RATING ANOMALY: One review is rated 5 stars but contains entirely negative content describing poor workmanship and ignored complaints. This rating is inconsistent with the review text and was scored based on content, not the star rating.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews are available. While the WW Score has been calculated, findings should be interpreted cautiously given the small sample size.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 2010–2020, all of which are negative in content; while the score directionally reflects serious and consistent concerns, the small and entirely dated sample limits statistical reliability, and no recent data exists to confirm whether these issues persist today.

This single review is written by a third party on behalf of their parents, which introduces an indirect layer of observation and limits scoring precision. Professionalism is supported by mentions of flexibility, friendliness, punctual work habits, and clear communication — all positive but drawn from one secondhand account. Project completion is implied through two completed bathroom plumbing jobs with the customer reportedly pleased, though no specific detail about timelines or follow-through is provided. Experience receives a conservative score as the reviewer notes the worker is skilled and knowledgeable enough to explain the work clearly, but no technical specifics are given. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is secondhand (written by a child on behalf of parents) — direct customer experience cannot be fully verified.
• No pricing or value information mentioned in any review — that dimension is unscored.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review data set — treat all dimension scores with caution.

This score report is based on a single secondhand review and should be considered highly preliminary — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn until substantially more direct customer reviews are analyzed.

Only a single review is available, dated August 2011, making this analysis extremely limited in reliability. The reviewer noted the contractor arrived late, which negatively impacts the professionalism score, though same-day emergency service was appreciated. Pricing was described as reasonable, supporting a modest but not strong price-friendly score. Project completion received a moderate score based on the job being delivered same-day despite the lateness. No information was provided about workmanship quality or technical skill, so the experience dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from August 2011 — over 13 years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• Insufficient data to detect fake review patterns, but single-review profiles warrant inherent caution.

This score is based on a single review from 2011 and carries extremely low reliability — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality should be drawn from this data.