Find Nearby Plumbers In Des Plaines, Illinois

Able Sewerage has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, fair pricing, and pleasant workers — several reviewers note multi-year or even 15-year relationships with the company. However, the review set contains multiple serious negative experiences that meaningfully drag down every dimension: two reviews describe misdiagnosis of plumbing problems that led to unnecessary and costly repair recommendations, one describes repeated no-show appointments with no communication, and one describes a disputed service charge and an unprofessional owner response. Professionalism is mixed — while many reviewers praise attitude and communication, at least three reviews cite poor communication, missed appointments, or dismissive responses. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with credible accounts of jobs left unresolved, incorrect diagnoses, and work described as a 'bandaid' without disclosure to the customer. Pricing scores moderately well overall, but is undercut by two reviews where customers paid competitors significantly less for the same or better work.

• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Good quality service. Timely response. Professional attitude.') with little specific detail — mild fake review risk, though not conclusive.
• Two reviews (2020 and 2022) describe near-identical patterns: Able misdiagnosed a sewer issue, recommended expensive excavation or pipe replacement costing thousands, and a second company resolved the problem quickly and cheaply. This pattern is a significant credibility concern for the experience dimension.
• One negative reviewer (2021) references an 'unprofessional response' from owner Chris, suggesting a public dispute — this is a reputational flag for professionalism.
• Recency note: Only 5 of 19 reviews are from 2022 or later. The majority of reviews (14) are from 2021 or earlier, with several dating back to 2013–2017. The score should be treated with caution as current performance may differ from historical patterns.
• One review (2016) explicitly describes two cancelled appointments with no notification and blames being given misleading information about scope of work — this is a direct project completion and communication failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to review volume, but the score itself should be treated with moderate trust given the age of most reviews, a recurring pattern of misdiagnosis complaints, and documented communication failures that suggest inconsistent service quality.

PT Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions, with genuine strengths undermined by a significant number of serious complaints. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praised fast response times, fair pricing relative to competitors, and friendly technicians who completed jobs efficiently and thoroughly. However, negative reviews are substantive and specific: one technician (George) was cited for rude and dismissive behavior, poor workmanship, and dodging warranty callbacks; another job involved hidden charges for drive time, no drop cloth, and a messy workspace; one job was abandoned mid-project with a deposit dispute; and one reviewer reported a bait-and-switch on pricing. Project completion is a particular concern, with at least three reviews describing incomplete work, abandoned jobs, or failure to follow through on estimates and callbacks. Pricing scores are dragged down by multiple credible reports of undisclosed charges and price increases after the fact, despite several reviewers praising competitive quotes. The overall WW Score of 62.1 reflects a contractor with real capability but inconsistent execution and accountability, especially for larger or more complex jobs.

• Several highly positive reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Best prices in town. Quick, friendly and knowledgeable techs.' and 'George is super! Quick to respond, does great work and fixed several plumbing issues.') with no specific job details, which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews.
• A disproportionate number of 5-star reviews lack specifics while negative reviews are highly detailed and specific — this asymmetry is a mild fake-review risk flag for some positive entries.
• Many reviews are older than 12 months; only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024), and 2 of those 3 are 1-star complaints. This recency pattern suggests a possible decline in service quality over time.
• Technician 'George' is named negatively in multiple independent reviews (hidden charges, rude behavior, poor workmanship, warranty dodging) — this represents a specific and credible pattern of concern tied to a named individual.
• One review (2023-01-31) is about unsafe driving behavior and contains no usable data about plumbing services — it was excluded from dimension scoring.
• At least two reviews describe price increases after initial quotes, suggesting a pattern of inconsistent or non-transparent pricing practices.
• One review (2015-01-08) describes an abandoned job and a disputed $1,500 deposit — a serious project completion failure.
• One review (2019-03-12) describes a contractor who stopped returning calls after an estimate visit — a follow-through and communication failure.

This WW Score of 62.1 is based on 26 reviews spanning over a decade, with HIGH confidence across all dimensions due to mention volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the recency trend showing that the two most recent reviews (2024) are both 1-star complaints describing specific workmanship and professionalism failures.

NJL Heating and Cooling has a mixed but generally positive track record across its review history. The majority of reviewers praise Nick's friendliness, punctuality, and technical knowledge, with several noting he went above and beyond — such as topping off AC coolant at no charge or sourcing parts same-day to avoid a second appointment. However, two serious negative reviews significantly drag down the scores: one describes a no-show appointment with poor follow-through on rescheduling, and another alleges dishonest overcharging under a home warranty contract, which is a significant red flag for both professionalism and pricing. Pricing confidence is tempered by the overcharging allegation, which directly contradicts the otherwise fair-pricing sentiment expressed in positive reviews. The overall picture is of a capable technician whose service quality and business practices appear inconsistent.

• One review (2018-04-09) alleges deliberate overcharging under a home warranty contract and describes the company as 'VERY DISHONEST' — this is a serious integrity concern that materially impacts pricing and professionalism scores.
• One review (2018-08-06) describes a no-show appointment and poor customer service when attempting to reschedule, directly impacting professionalism and project completion scores.
• The majority of positive reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2015–2017. Only two reviews are from 2023–2024, limiting confidence in current service quality.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.
• Recency note: Only 2 of 9 reviews fall within the past 12–24 months (2023 and 2024). The bulk of the review base is 6–9 years old and may not reflect current business practices.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review pool of 9 reviews, a significant gap in recent feedback, and two credible negative reviews alleging dishonesty and no-show behavior that cannot be dismissed.

This contractor shows severe and consistent professionalism issues across multiple recent reviews, including no-shows, missed appointments, unsafe behavior during COVID-19, lack of communication, and reported profanity toward customers. Two older positive reviews (2017, 2019) praise fair pricing and quick service, but these are heavily outweighed by two detailed 1-star reviews from 2020-2021 documenting unprofessional conduct, incomplete work (sink re-clogged days later), lack of transparency on pricing, and poor project follow-through. The stark contradiction between old and recent reviews suggests a significant decline in service quality or potential reliability issues with the business.

• CRITICAL: Extreme polarity detected — two generic 5-star reviews (2017, 2019) with minimal detail vs. two detailed 1-star reviews (2020, 2021) with specific incidents. The older positive reviews lack specificity and may not reflect current operations.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2020-2021) are uniformly negative and detailed, while positive reviews are 3-5+ years old. This suggests significant service degradation over time.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: Multiple documented incidents including no-shows, missed appointment times, lack of protective equipment during pandemic, inaccurate assessments, and reported profanity. These are explicit behavioral issues, not subjective complaints.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: Kitchen sink re-clogged within days of service, indicating incomplete or ineffective work.
• TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: No invoices provided, no receipt shown for materials, no cost estimates given despite customer requests.
• The two positive reviews use generic language ('amazed,' 'pleasure,' 'can't say enough') with no specific details about work performed, which is atypical of genuine detailed reviews.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to extreme review polarity and recency concerns, but the detailed negative reviews from 2020-2021 contain specific, verifiable incidents that cannot be dismissed. The score reflects a contractor with serious documented professionalism and project completion issues in recent years, though the small sample size (4 reviews) limits absolute confidence. Potential customers should heavily weight the recent negative reviews and request references from work completed in 2021 or later.

Of the three reviews analyzed, two are significantly negative and describe serious failures in professionalism, project completion, and workmanship. The 1-star review (2020) describes a contractor who charged for two hose replacements but only completed one, then ignored six follow-up calls and messages — a major red flag for both project completion and professionalism. The 2-star review (2012) describes a job left in worse condition than before, no receipt provided, and complete non-responsiveness when the customer sought resolution. The sole positive review (2023) praises pricing and family character but provides little specific detail about workmanship or completion. The pattern of non-responsiveness and incomplete work across two independent negative reviews is a serious concern that heavily suppresses all dimension scores.

• RECENCY WARNING: One review is from 2012 and one from 2020 — both are outside the past 12 months. Only the positive review (2023) is recent. The most recent data point is a single glowing review with limited specifics, which is insufficient to override the documented failures in older reviews.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Two separate reviews describe work that was not completed as agreed — one where only one of two hoses was replaced despite being charged for both, and one where the replaced hose was left in a worse functional state than before.
• NON-RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Two reviews independently describe the contractor failing to respond to follow-up contact — one customer left 6 unanswered calls and messages, another received no response after requesting the issue be remedied.
• NO RECEIPT ISSUED: One reviewer explicitly states they were given no receipt after paying $166, which raises transparency and accountability concerns.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CAUTION: The sole 5-star review is warm but vague, focusing on the family rather than specific job quality or completion details. It cannot be weighted heavily against two detailed negative accounts.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. This is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation and results in very low statistical reliability.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution — it is based on only 3 reviews spanning over a decade, two of which document serious and specific failures in completion, honesty, and responsiveness, making the overall score LOW in reliability despite meeting the minimum threshold for calculation.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Review 1 (2024) explicitly criticizes product quality and consistency, citing contamination with plastic, metal, and chemical odors that persisted across multiple seasons, indicating poor workmanship or quality control. Review 2 (2023) praises communication and timely delivery. The stark contradiction between these reviews, combined with the extremely limited sample size and lack of sufficient mentions across dimensions, prevents reliable WW Score calculation.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews — insufficient for reliable scoring. Minimum 3 reviews recommended.
• MAJOR QUALITY CONCERN: Review 1 documents severe product contamination (plastic, metal, chemical odors) persisting over multiple years, suggesting systemic quality control failure.
• CONTRADICTION: Review 1 (1-star, 2024) vs Review 2 (5-star, 2023) show extreme polarity with no middle ground — suggests either inconsistent service delivery or different product lines.
• RECENCY: Review 1 is recent (May 2024) and documents ongoing problems; Review 2 is older (Oct 2023).
• DIMENSION COVERAGE: Professionalism, project completion, and experience each mentioned in only 1-2 reviews. Pricing not mentioned at all.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2). The extreme polarity and quality concerns documented in the recent review warrant immediate investigation before any business decision is made.