Find Nearby Plumbers In Des Plaines, Illinois

All three reviews are recent (within 12 months) and consistently positive, highlighting strong professionalism with explicit mentions of promptness, politeness, friendliness, and responsiveness across all reviews. Pricing is mentioned favorably in one review as reasonable. Project completion is implied through successful job execution in two reviews. Technical competence is noted in two reviews describing the team as knowledgeable and efficient. However, the small sample size (3 reviews) and limited mention counts for pricing, completion, and experience constrain overall confidence despite the uniformly positive sentiment.

• Sample size is very small (n=3) — scores should be treated as preliminary and updated as more reviews accumulate
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — while not necessarily fake, this uniformity limits ability to assess weaknesses or validate consistency
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention — insufficient for reliable assessment
• No specific details on project timelines, warranty, or follow-up service mentioned

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary due to the small sample size and lack of critical feedback; confidence will increase substantially once 8+ additional reviews are collected.

The reviews consistently highlight strong professionalism, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, courtesy, friendliness, and responsiveness across several years of service. Pricing is frequently described as fair and reasonable, with one reviewer specifically noting the contractor actively tries to minimize customer costs. Project completion signals are positive but less explicitly detailed — most reviewers indicate work was finished as planned and on time, and one reviewer notably states problems were never repeated, suggesting reliable first-time resolution. Experience is supported by references to years in the plumbing business, effective problem-solving in complex situations, and consistently high-quality workmanship. However, all reviews are significantly outdated, with the most recent dating to late 2016 and the majority from 2012–2015, which substantially limits the reliability of this score for assessing current performance.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OUTDATED: The most recent review is from October 2016 — over 8 years ago. No reviews from the past 12 months exist. This score reflects historical performance only and should not be treated as indicative of current service quality.
• ONE UNUSABLE REVIEW: The review with text 'unknown' (2015-02-04) was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable information.
• ONE VAGUE REVIEW: 'It went very well.' (2012-01-27) provides no specific dimension data and was not counted toward any dimension score.
• MULTIPLE CONTRACTORS NAMED: Reviews reference 'Connor/Conner Reeves,' 'Bob,' and 'Mark Reeves' — it is unclear whether these are the same business or different individuals operating under one listing. This inconsistency raises questions about review attribution accuracy.
• POTENTIAL GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews are brief and non-specific (e.g., 'prompt, courteous, and professional, at a fair and reasonable price'). While not conclusively fake, the lack of detail in some reviews reduces evidentiary weight.
• ALL RATINGS ARE 5-STAR: Every review with a rating is 5.0 out of 5.0, which warrants mild caution, though the volume is too small to definitively flag as manipulation.

This WW Score carries LOW-TO-MODERATE reliability due to the complete absence of recent reviews, ambiguity around which contractor(s) are being reviewed, and a small total review count — prospective customers should seek current references before making a hiring decision.

The contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with punctuality and responsiveness highlighted across multiple reviews, including emergency service at 4am. Workmanship quality is noted as outstanding in the reviews that mention it. However, project completion shows significant concern: one review explicitly states incomplete service and abandonment during a gas leak emergency, which directly contradicts the positive completion claims in other reviews. Pricing is mentioned only once as fair, providing limited data. The recency of reviews is problematic—three of four reviews are from 2019–2023, with the most critical negative review from 2020 indicating systemic service issues.

• CRITICAL: One review (2020-07-10) reports incomplete service, failure to follow through on scheduled work, and poor communication during a health/safety emergency (gas leak). This directly contradicts the positive completion narrative in other reviews and suggests inconsistent service quality or potential systemic issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are older than 3 years (2019–2020). Only one review is from 2023. Limited recent data reduces confidence in current service quality.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Scores are based on very limited mention counts (1–3 per dimension), which inherently limits reliability.
• PRICING DATA INSUFFICIENT: Only 1 mention of pricing across all reviews. Score of 75 is based on a single positive comment and should be treated with caution.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), limited recency, and critically, one explicit report of incomplete service and abandonment during an emergency. The presence of a 1-star review reporting failure to complete work and poor communication significantly undermines confidence in the overall score, despite positive ratings in other reviews. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish current service reliability.

This contractor demonstrates strong technical skill and workmanship (88/100), with multiple reviews praising thoroughness and quality execution. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by severe communication and responsiveness failures documented in two reviews—one describing complete non-responsiveness after quoting, another explicitly stating he never returns calls or texts. Pricing appears fair and competitive when work is actually performed (85/100). Project completion scores are dragged down by the documented abandonment of a quoted job, though completed projects show excellent follow-through. The stark contradiction between glowing service reviews and damning communication/responsiveness reviews suggests inconsistent business practices.

• CRITICAL: Severe responsiveness and communication failures documented in 2 of 5 reviews—customer left hanging for a month after quoting, another states he never returns calls/texts. This is a major red flag for reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 9+ years old (2010, 2014, 2015). Only 1 recent review from 2024. Cannot assess current business practices with confidence.
• CONTRADICTORY PATTERN: Excellent service quality when work is performed, but serious follow-through and communication issues when scheduling/contracting. Suggests inconsistent professionalism.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW: The 2024 5-star review praising 'plumber skills' immediately follows a complaint about non-responsiveness. The phrasing 'give him another chances' and 'might have experienced plumber skills' is awkwardly worded and may indicate a fake/defensive review.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 1 review from past 12 months), significant age of most reviews (9+ years), and a critical pattern of communication/responsiveness failures that directly contradict positive service reviews. The WW Score reflects technical competence but masks serious business reliability concerns.

Proper Plumbing & Drain has a strong base of positive reviews praising Nick's responsiveness, punctuality, fair pricing, and quality workmanship across a wide variety of jobs. However, three serious negative reviews significantly drag down the scores, particularly for professionalism and project completion: one customer reported a no-show with no advance notice, one reported an unresponsive contractor who failed to honor a warranty on a sump pump, and one reported multiple incomplete or incorrectly performed tasks combined with a charge nearly double the quoted price and no response to follow-up communications. These are not minor complaints — they describe fundamental failures in reliability, warranty follow-through, and billing transparency. The positive reviews, while numerous, show some clustering in late October 2019 that raises mild concern about authenticity, which tempers confidence slightly. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with genuine skill and many satisfied customers but a documented pattern of serious service failures that cannot be ignored.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Four reviews were posted within a two-day window (October 19–23, 2019), all 5-star, with generic praise and limited job-specific detail. This clustering pattern is suspicious and may indicate solicited or inauthentic reviews. Confidence in those specific reviews is reduced.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are from 2019–2021. Only one review is from 2022. There is no data from 2023 or later. The contractor's current reliability and quality cannot be confirmed from recent evidence.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT — NO-SHOW: One reviewer (March 2021) reported Nick failed to arrive within the agreed window, gave no advance notice of delay, and ultimately did not show up at all.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT — WARRANTY NOT HONORED: One reviewer (February 2021) reported that Nick installed a sump pump with a 3-year parts and labor warranty but became completely unresponsive when the pump failed, rendering the warranty worthless.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT — INCOMPLETE WORK AND OVERBILLING: One reviewer (December 2020) reported multiple items left incomplete or done incorrectly (non-functional drain, toilet, taps), air introduced into the plumbing system, and a charge of $1,800 against a quoted price of $1,000 with no itemized receipt provided and no response to follow-up. This is the most severe complaint in the dataset.
• PATTERN NOTE: Three of the four 1-star reviews describe the same core failure — Nick becoming unresponsive after a job or appointment. This is a recurring and documented pattern, not isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the volume of reviews is sufficient for scoring, but the presence of three serious and credible negative reviews describing recurring patterns of non-responsiveness and incomplete work, combined with a suspicious cluster of generic 5-star reviews in October 2019 and a lack of any reviews from the past two years, means prospective customers should treat this score with caution and seek current references before hiring.

Professionalism is the strongest and most consistently mentioned dimension, with multiple reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and polite demeanor across several reviews. Project completion scores well, with reviewers noting jobs were seen through to resolution — including weekend and emergency callbacks — though the small total review count limits confidence. Pricing is mentioned positively in a few reviews, with one reviewer explicitly calling the price fair for a large Sunday job and another noting reasonable pricing, but the limited mentions keep this score conservative. Experience is supported by references to diagnosing complex issues, explaining the process, and delivering quality workmanship, though again the low review volume constrains confidence. One review (the window-cleaning review) appears to be for an entirely different type of business and was treated as non-applicable to plumbing-specific scoring.

• One review (dated 2016-09-06) describes a window-cleaning service with a crew of three and references Angie's List coupons — this is almost certainly a misattributed review for a different business entirely and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• One review (dated 2014-10-22) contains only the word 'unknown' with no usable content and was excluded from all scoring.
• All reviews are rated 5.0 stars with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants mild fake-review awareness caution, though most reviews do contain specific, credible details that reduce this concern.
• All reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent plumbing-relevant review dates to January 2018, making this data significantly outdated. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred.
• Total usable review count is very low (7 reviews, with only 6 fully applicable to plumbing). Scores should be treated as directional only.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small number of usable reviews, the complete absence of any negative feedback across all ratings, the presence of one clearly misattributed review, and the fact that all reviews are more than six years old — meaning this score should not be used as a confident indicator of current contractor quality.