Find Nearby Plumbers In Dunlap, Illinois

Salzer Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across all dimensions, with particularly high marks for project completion and professionalism. The contractor consistently arrives on time, completes work efficiently, and communicates clearly with customers. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and reasonable, though one customer noted lack of itemized billing. Technical skill and problem-solving ability are evident across multiple complex jobs including water heater replacements and pipe work. One significant negative review from 2019 regarding warranty documentation and customer service substantially impacts the overall score, but is outweighed by 34 positive experiences.

• One severely negative review (1.0 rating, 2019-06-06) regarding warranty documentation and customer service refusal—this is a legitimate complaint with specific details and materially impacts professionalism and customer care assessment.
• Three reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5.0 ratings (2016-06-28, 2016-04-15, 2015-12-15)—these cannot be analyzed for content and are excluded from scoring.
• One review (2018-11-15) is vague and suggests frustration, but lacks detail on whether this reflects contractor performance or customer expectations.
• Review dates range from 2014 to 2020; most reviews (31 of 35 usable) are older than 3 years, with only 4 reviews from 2020 or later. This limits recency assessment.
• High concentration of 5-star ratings (31 of 35 usable reviews) is typical for contractor review platforms but suggests potential selection bias toward satisfied customers.

This WW Score of 88.2 is highly reliable based on 35 usable reviews with consistent positive feedback across professionalism, completion, and experience dimensions. However, the score should be interpreted with awareness that the single severe negative review (2019) represents a legitimate service failure in customer advocacy, and the age of most reviews (pre-2020) limits assessment of current performance standards.

Fauser Plumbing has a long track record of satisfied customers who frequently praise punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous service, which forms the backbone of their positive reputation. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and up to the most recent months of 2025 — consistently cite rude behavior from both the owner and office staff, poor communication, and failure to follow through on inquiries or emergency calls. Pricing is a mixed signal: several reviewers praised reasonable or below-market rates, while two recent reviews (2025) explicitly called the business overpriced, and one older review flagged a significant markup on a delivered item. Project completion is generally solid for straightforward jobs, but a notable 2015 review documents incomplete work, no follow-up, and unresolved issues, and a 2024 review noted poor installation quality from a dispatched technician. Experience scores are dragged down by a 2020 incident where a technician admitted unfamiliarity with a standard water heater model, contrasting with many reviews praising skilled, efficient repairs.

• 11 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• One review is labeled 'unknown' and one is a single period '.', both excluded from scoring.
• Recency concern: The two most recent reviews (April and May 2025) are both 1-star and cite overpricing and rude behavior. This is a negative trend signal that should be weighted seriously.
• A significant portion of older 5-star reviews (2010–2017) are brief and generic (e.g., 'friendly service', 'great job'), which limits their evidentiary value, though they are not conclusively fake.
• The 2020 review describing a technician who had 'never seen anything like this before' regarding a standard water heater, combined with the business deleting the Facebook comment and refusing follow-up calls, is a credibility and experience concern.
• The 2012 review documents a $530 markup on a delivered item and delivery of the wrong product with no accountability taken — a significant pricing integrity flag.
• The 2015 detailed review documents incomplete project follow-through, shouted responses, and ALL CAPS communication from the office manager — corroborating a pattern of unprofessional communication under pressure.
• Most reviews older than 3 years were given reduced weight per recency rules. The bulk of high-praise reviews are from 2017 and earlier, while negative reviews are more evenly distributed across the timeline including recent dates.

This WW Score is based on 46 reviews with usable content spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence due to volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a clear pattern of recurring professionalism complaints — particularly around staff rudeness and communication failures — that appear consistently across multiple years and into 2025.

Arnold and Sons presents a deeply split profile: a large bloc of recent 5-star reviews praises individual technicians by name for professionalism, communication, and timely service, while a substantial and persistent thread of negative reviews spanning over a decade consistently accuses the company of grossly inflated pricing, upselling unnecessary work, and bait-and-switch advertising tactics. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with dozens of reviewers independently describing quotes that were two to ten times what competitors charged for identical work — this pattern is too consistent and specific to dismiss. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were finished well, but multiple reviewers report incomplete work, callbacks not honored, and at least one incident where a fire was started due to technician negligence. Professionalism scores moderately because individual technicians frequently receive genuine praise, but owner-level conduct (yelling at customers, refusing refunds, ignoring complaints) and repeated failures of the after-hours emergency line drag the score down significantly. Experience is above average when technicians engage fully, but several reviews describe technicians refusing to attempt work or misdiagnosing problems that competitors resolved quickly and cheaply.

• SUSPECTED REVIEW CLUSTERING: A large number of 5-star reviews are dated within a very narrow window (2025-06-03 through 2025-06-09), many with minimal detail ('Highly recommended', 'Great worker', 'Kendrick and Levi did a great job'). This clustering pattern is consistent with a coordinated review push and warrants skepticism.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text at all but carry 5-star ratings. These provide no usable data and inflate the star average artificially.
• PRICING PATTERN — SYSTEMIC OVERCHARGING: At least 15 independent reviewers across multiple years (2010–2025) describe quotes that were 2x–10x competitor prices for identical work. This is not isolated; it reflects a documented business model of by-the-job pricing from a proprietary binder with no upfront rate disclosure.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH ADVERTISING: Multiple reviewers explicitly describe the '$99 drain special' as misleading, with technicians refusing to honor it for anything other than main sewer lines despite website language suggesting broader applicability.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE FAILURES: At least 3 reviews (2013, 2014, 2017) describe the after-hours emergency line failing to dispatch a technician despite promises, leaving homeowners with active flooding situations unresolved overnight.
• SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (2021) describes technicians starting a fire in a customer's home due to failure to follow written safety procedures before performing hot work. This is a serious liability flag.
• HARASSMENT PATTERN: At least 2 reviewers (2025) independently report being unable to be removed from the company's mailing list despite multiple requests, with one threatening legal action.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2025 and may reflect a reputation management campaign. Negative reviews span 2010–2025 consistently, suggesting the pricing and upselling issues are structural and long-standing rather than resolved.

The WW Score of 62.1 is based on a high volume of reviews and carries HIGH data confidence, but should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of a coordinated positive review push in June 2025, multiple blank reviews inflating star ratings, and a decade-long pattern of pricing complaints that is too consistent and specific to be dismissed as outliers.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across projects and time periods. Recent detailed reviews (2021-2022) reveal severe deficiencies in communication, project management, and workmanship quality, with projects running 2-4 weeks over promised timelines and incomplete work requiring customer follow-up. Older reviews (2012-2016) predominantly show 5-star ratings with minimal detail, suggesting potential review inflation. When substantive feedback is provided, professionalism and completion issues dominate complaints. Experience scores are supported by positive workmanship mentions in older reviews, but recent projects demonstrate poor quality control and lack of oversight. The contractor's responsiveness and accountability have deteriorated significantly.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 13 reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', or single-word responses with no substantive content. These appear between 2015-2016 and lack credibility.
• TEMPORAL BIAS: Older reviews (2012-2016) are predominantly 5-star with generic praise; recent reviews (2021-2022) are 1-2 stars with detailed, specific complaints. This suggests either service quality decline or review manipulation.
• CONSISTENCY ISSUE: Two nearly identical detailed negative reviews from March 2021 (same date range, same project, nearly identical wording) suggest possible duplicate submission rather than independent feedback.
• CREDIBILITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews with ratings but no text content (5 instances) inflate apparent review count without providing evidence.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Recent reviews document false BBB membership claims, worker intoxication on job, safety violations (exposed electrical box causing water damage), unprofessional threats, and billing for work not completed.

This score should be treated with caution. While based on 31 reviews, approximately 42% contain no usable detail, and recent substantive reviews (2021-2022) paint a dramatically different picture than older generic 5-star ratings. The WW Score of 62.8 is driven down by credible recent complaints but artificially supported by undated/unverified older reviews. Recommend prioritizing the detailed 2021-2022 feedback as more reliable indicators of current service quality.

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

This company shows a stark divide in customer experience. Professionalism scores are mixed—some customers praise prompt, courteous service and reliability over decades, while others report poor communication, lack of follow-up, and messy work. Pricing is a critical weakness, with multiple customers reporting inflated bills, unexplained charges, and dishonest labor hour padding. Project completion is severely compromised by reports of abandoned work and unfinished callbacks. Technical experience appears solid when work is completed, but this is overshadowed by systemic issues in billing transparency and project follow-through.

• CRITICAL: Billing fraud pattern detected across multiple reviews (2023, 2018)—customers report 2-3 hours of labor charges for work never performed and unexplained invoice padding. This is a serious red flag.
• Project abandonment reported: Review from 2023-04-28 explicitly states 'They start projects and don't come back to finish' with unresponsive management (Brad Dunlap).
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews are from 2022-2023 (recent), while positive reviews are older (2019-2022). This suggests deteriorating service quality over time.
• Inconsistent service quality: Positive reviews emphasize reliability and professionalism; negative reviews describe dishonesty and poor accountability. This inconsistency warrants caution.
• Communication failures: Multiple reviews cite lack of explanation, no follow-up calls, and poor customer service responsiveness.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust. While the sample size is small (7 reviews), the pattern of billing dishonesty and project abandonment in recent reviews is concerning and suggests systemic operational issues that outweigh isolated positive experiences from loyal long-term customers.