Find Nearby Plumbers In Decatur, Illinois

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.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a statistically meaningful WW Score. Both reviews are from 2012 (over 12 years old) and contain generic praise with limited specific detail. While both mention professionalism, pricing, completion, and workmanship positively, the sample size is too small and the recency is too distant to produce a reliable composite score.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from 2012 (12+ years old) — no recent customer feedback available
• LIMITED SPECIFICITY: Review 1 contains awkward phrasing ('supervised by in a good') suggesting possible transcription error or non-native English; minimal detail provided
• GENERIC PRAISE: Both reviews are 5-star with limited concrete examples; Review 2 provides more detail but still lacks specificity on problem-solving or technical challenges

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and severe recency issues (all reviews from 2012). Any score calculated would be statistically meaningless. Current data is insufficient to assess contractor quality.

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.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review provides strong evidence of professionalism (politeness, friendliness, responsiveness, willingness to go above and beyond), solid project completion (work buttoned up, follow-through on sump pump setup), and technical experience (correct operation of equipment, problem-solving). However, pricing is not mentioned at all, and a single data point cannot support reliable scoring across dimensions.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• REVIEW AGE: Review is from April 2022 (over 2 years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• NO PRICING DATA: Price friendliness dimension cannot be evaluated from available reviews.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

This single review is severely negative across nearly every dimension. The reviewer explicitly states the contractor lied about replacing the sump pump — billing for work that was never performed — which is a critical failure of both professionalism and project completion. A partial credit of $90 was issued after a complaint, which marginally acknowledges the pricing dimension but does not redeem the deceptive billing practice. No technical skill or workmanship was demonstrated, so experience cannot be scored. With only one review available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Reviewer explicitly alleges fraudulent billing: contractor claimed to have replaced a sump pump and installed a backflow valve but performed neither task.
• Deceptive billing is a serious integrity flag and should be weighted heavily in any trust assessment.
• Review is from October 2019 — over 1 year old — and may not reflect current business practices, but the severity of the allegation warrants retention as a warning.
• No other reviews provided to corroborate or contradict this account — treat all dimension scores with extreme caution.

This score report is based on a single review from 2019 and cannot be considered reliable — the WW Score threshold has not been met, and all dimension scores reflect only one highly negative data point.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided, and it does not contain specific evidence about any of the four scoring dimensions. The review is a generic business description with a recommendation but lacks concrete details about punctuality, pricing, project completion, or workmanship quality.

• Review appears to be a business profile description rather than a customer experience review
• No specific customer feedback or project details provided
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old) — outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• Insufficient review volume (n=1) to establish reliable scoring

This score cannot be calculated or trusted due to insufficient review data and lack of specific customer experience information.