Find Nearby Plumbers In Elmhurst, Illinois

The Fair Plumber shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with strong technical capability and occasional excellent customer service undermined by serious professionalism and reliability issues. While many customers praise individual technicians (Rolando, Manny, Pat, Alex) for skill and friendliness, the company suffers from chronic communication failures, no-shows, delayed callbacks, and aggressive sales tactics. Pricing complaints are substantial—multiple reviews cite overcharging and bait-and-switch tactics, though some customers report fair pricing. Project completion is mixed: some jobs are handled excellently with follow-up, while others involve faulty work (sump pump installation, water damage, incomplete diagnostics) and abandoned callbacks. The most damaging reviews involve safety/liability issues (faulty electrical work, water damage from poor repairs, unprofessional owner conduct).

• SERIOUS PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2024-01-04, 2023-12-12, 2021-01-19, 2020-07-25, 2016-06-24) document no-shows, non-responsiveness, and abandoned callbacks—this is a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• SAFETY/LIABILITY CONCERNS: Review from 2024-01-04 describes faulty sump pump repair causing basement flooding, unauthorized removal of customer property ($700 panel), and owner refusing insurance claims. Review from 2012-02-13 describes dangerous electrical work with sparks and blown fuses. Review from 2020-07-25 describes water damage from careless work and owner's unprofessional conduct.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2022-06-30, 2023-04-26, 2018-04-29, 2018-04-29) document overcharging, inflated quotes, and aggressive upselling tactics. One customer was quoted $6,977 for work another plumber completed for $280. Another was quoted $550 for $50 in materials.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Reviews describe owner Ron as rude (2024-01-04), dismissive (2024-01-04), and unprofessional (2021-11-09, 2020-07-25). One review notes he hung up on an insurance adjuster.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2020-2024 (recent), while many positive reviews are from 2012-2019 (older). This suggests deterioration in service quality over time.
• INDIVIDUAL TECHNICIAN VARIANCE: Positive reviews consistently name specific technicians (Rolando, Manny, Pat, Alex, John, Eddie, Dimitri), suggesting quality depends heavily on which employee is assigned. This indicates inconsistent training or quality control.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on substantial data (45 reviews, 18-24 mentions per dimension), the company exhibits extreme inconsistency—excellent technical work by some technicians is offset by systemic failures in communication, reliability, and owner conduct. Recent reviews (2020-2024) show more serious issues than older reviews. The score of 68.2 reflects this volatility: the company is capable of good work but unreliable and potentially risky, particularly for large projects or when owner involvement is required.

Andy receives genuinely strong praise from long-term clients who describe excellent workmanship across a wide variety of tasks including decking, flooring, door installation, and general repairs. However, a persistent and serious pattern of communication failures — multiple reviewers explicitly reporting unanswered calls and emails, and one reviewer reporting that work was taken on and not completed — significantly drags down both the professionalism and project completion scores. The positive reviews are largely older (2011–2015) and the negative communication complaints span multiple years, suggesting this is a systemic issue rather than an isolated incident. Pricing data is too sparse to draw meaningful conclusions. The overall picture is of a skilled tradesman whose responsiveness and reliability are inconsistent enough to pose real risk to prospective customers.

• Two reviews dated 2013-04-01 share the exact same date and both describe being ignored after initial contact — possible duplicate submission or two separate incidents on the same day; treated as two distinct reviewers given differing detail levels.
• Two reviews contain no usable text ('unknown' and '.') and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• One review (2014-04-01, 1-star) explicitly states work was paid for but not completed and a second handyman had to be hired — this is a serious project completion failure and was weighted heavily.
• Multiple reviews (at least 4) explicitly cite failure to return calls or emails, indicating a systemic responsiveness problem rather than an isolated incident.
• All reviews are dated 2011–2015, meaning ALL reviews are more than 9 years old. There is NO data from the past 12 months. This score should be treated with significant caution as it does not reflect current performance.
• Recency warning: The most recent review is from November 2015. This contractor's current reliability, availability, and quality cannot be assessed from this data.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to a reasonable number of mentions across most dimensions, but should be treated with serious caution given that all reviews are over 9 years old and a clear pattern of communication failures and at least one documented case of incomplete paid work has been identified.

Berner Plumbing receives strong praise from repeat customers who highlight Rich's technical knowledge, responsiveness, and thoroughness across a wide range of plumbing jobs including tankless water heater installations and backflow testing. However, the review set is significantly undermined by three negative reviews that raise serious concerns about rudeness and abusive behavior, overcharging, material markup schemes, tardiness, and a failure to file a required Village report after a completed backflow test. The professionalism dimension is the most contested, with glowing praise from loyal customers directly contradicted by accounts of yelling, harassment, and unprofessional conduct. Pricing is similarly split, with one reviewer calling it fair and another explicitly alleging overcharging and material fraud. Project completion scores are dragged down by the unfiled backflow report, which represents a clear failure to deliver on a promised service obligation.

• Three of seven reviews are 1-star and contain specific, detailed negative allegations including verbal abuse, overcharging, material theft/resale, chronic tardiness, and failure to file a required regulatory report — these are serious and credible concerns that significantly affect scoring.
• The positive reviews span 2017–2023 and include specific job details, which increases their credibility. However, the negative reviews (2014–2018) are also specific and independently corroborated across different dimensions, so they cannot be dismissed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review is from July 2023. Three of the four positive reviews are from 2019 or earlier. The negative reviews are all from 2014–2018. It is unclear whether conduct has improved or worsened over time, and the small sample size limits conclusions.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, tone, specificity, and rating, suggesting authentic authorship across the set.
• The 1-star review from 2014-06-02 makes an allegation of material theft (stealing leftover materials and refunding for cash). This is an unverified criminal allegation and should be treated with appropriate caution, though it is noted for transparency.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review volume is low (7 reviews), the time span is wide (2014–2023), and the sharp polarization between loyal repeat customers and strongly negative one-time reviewers creates genuine uncertainty about consistent service quality.

4S Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. On the positive side, several individual plumbers — particularly Ahmad, Marcus, Eric, and Paul — are repeatedly praised for technical skill, honesty, and professionalism, and many customers report successful job completions with fair pricing. However, a substantial volume of negative reviews documents serious and recurring failures: no-shows, abandoned jobs, poor communication, billing disputes, unlicensed or unqualified plumbers being sent, and a specific plumber (Pete) repeatedly cited for demanding unauthorized cash payments and unprofessional conduct. Project completion is significantly dragged down by multiple reviews describing work that was started but never finished, requiring customers to hire other companies at additional cost. The administrative and communication side of the business is flagged even by otherwise satisfied customers as disorganized and unreliable, preventing the score from reflecting the quality of the better individual plumbers on the team.

• RECURRING PLUMBER MISCONDUCT: A plumber named 'Pete' is cited across multiple independent reviews (2021, 2023) for demanding unauthorized $100 cash payments, arriving unprepared, and behaving unprofessionally. This is a systemic issue, not an isolated incident.
• OWNER RESPONSIVENESS INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews praise owner Bill/William for responsiveness, while an equal or greater number describe him failing to return calls, ignoring texts, and not honoring verbal commitments (e.g., free cleanout promise). This inconsistency is a reliability concern.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: At least 5 reviews describe jobs that were started but never completed, with customers ultimately hiring other companies to finish the work. This is a significant and recurring project completion failure.
• MULTIPLE BUSINESS NAMES FLAG: One reviewer explicitly notes the company operates under at least four names (Four Seasons Sewer & Plumbing, Good Plumbing Inc., Midwest Sewer and Plumbing, 4S Plumbing Companies Inc.) at the same address. This is a known pattern associated with reputation management and BBB complaint avoidance.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews are generic, brief, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Amazing plumbers,' 'Very fast service & fair pricing. I love these guys.'). While not conclusive, combined with the multiple-name flag and the owner's pattern of detailed defensive replies to negative reviews, there is moderate suspicion that some positive reviews may be inauthentic. Confidence in the positive score cluster is reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2018–2024. Negative reviews are distributed across the entire timeline, including recent ones from 2023 and 2024, indicating that problems have not been resolved over time. The most recent reviews (2024) include both a strong positive and a strong negative, suggesting no clear improvement trend.
• LICENSING CONCERN: At least two reviews explicitly raise concerns about unlicensed plumbers being sent to jobs, which is a serious legal and safety issue for customers.

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews spanning six years with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the suspected presence of generic fake positive reviews, a documented pattern of operating under multiple business names, and recurring systemic issues that have persisted across the full review timeline.

Advanced Air Home Services presents a deeply polarized review profile: a large cluster of recent 5-star reviews praising individual technicians for punctuality, courtesy, and professionalism sits alongside an extensive and detailed body of 1-star reviews describing systemic failures in pricing, warranty honoring, project completion, and customer service. The pricing dimension is the most severely damaged, with numerous credible, detailed accounts of extreme price gouging — including a $709 charge for 30 minutes of plumbing work, $491 for a $50 capacitor, and $7,900 for a $3,200 unit — dragging that score to the lowest of all dimensions. Project completion suffers significantly from repeated patterns of no-shows, abandoned warranty repairs lasting weeks or months, misdiagnoses left unresolved, and technicians leaving without confirming work was functional. Professionalism scores moderately due to many positive individual technician mentions, but is substantially offset by documented rude call center staff, unreturned calls, broken appointment promises, and management failures. Experience is mixed: many reviewers praise specific technicians as knowledgeable, but multiple reviews describe misdiagnoses, incorrect installations, and unqualified technicians being dispatched to jobs they were not certified for.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: A large number of 5-star reviews dated 2025-06-07 through 2025-06-09 are extremely brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Excellent service.', 'Good service tech Abel', 'Great job as always.'). Several are completely blank with only a 5-star rating. This pattern — a sudden cluster of vague, high-rated reviews — is a strong indicator of review padding or solicited reviews, and confidence in those positive scores has been reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY SPLIT: The most recent reviews (2025) skew heavily positive but are largely low-detail. Reviews from 2022–2024 are predominantly 1-star and contain highly specific, credible accounts of systemic failures including warranty fraud, price gouging, no-shows, and misdiagnosis. The negative reviews carry substantially more evidentiary weight due to their specificity.
• WARRANTY FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the company refusing to honor paid warranties, failing to file warranty claims with manufacturers, and using warranty situations as leverage to sell new units. This is a serious and recurring pattern.
• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: At least 10 separate reviews with specific dollar figures document charges that are 3x–10x market rate for parts and labor, including non-itemized invoices that obscure markups. This is a consistent and credible pattern across multiple service types (AC, plumbing, pool heater).
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE NOTE: Multiple reviewers explicitly state that the company was sold and that service quality declined sharply after acquisition by a larger corporate entity. Pre-acquisition reviews (pre-2021 approximately) are more positive and may not reflect current operations.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical reviews dated 2024-06-28 describe the same plumbing incident (invoice #71795454). These appear to be the same customer posting on multiple platforms. Only counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical reviews dated 2022-11-14 describe the same post-hurricane service failure. Counted once for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 13 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.

This WW Score of 52.1 is based on a large volume of reviews and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of review padding among recent 5-star submissions and a clear post-acquisition decline in service quality that makes older positive reviews largely irrelevant to current performance.

This company exhibits a stark performance divide tied to ownership change. Under original owner Dave (pre-2015), reviews consistently praised honest pricing, skilled workmanship, and excellent customer service, earning 5-star ratings. Post-acquisition by corporate ownership, the company faces severe criticism for dramatically inflated pricing (45-60% increases for identical work), poor responsiveness to complaints, unresolved project issues, and aggressive upselling tactics. While individual technicians (particularly Josh) maintain competent workmanship and responsiveness, office management demonstrates rudeness and lack of transparency. The $14,000 unresolved plumbing job with no callback response represents the most serious project completion failure.

• CRITICAL: Ownership change in 2015 creates two distinct company profiles. Pre-2015 reviews (2009-2013) are uniformly positive; post-2015 reviews (2015-2023) are uniformly negative. This is not fake review pattern but rather reflects genuine business deterioration.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT: $14,000 job with unresolved issues and weeks of non-response to customer contact attempts (2019 review). No evidence of resolution or callback.
• PRICING MANIPULATION: Multiple reviews document 45-60% price increases for identical services post-acquisition. Flat-rate pricing not disclosed at appointment stage.
• BUSINESS PRACTICE CONCERN: Company operates under multiple names (Koehlinger, M&M Plumbing) without transparently notifying existing customers of ownership change or rebranding.
• BBB ACCREDITATION ISSUE: One review cites 'F' grade for illegal use of BBB accreditation, raising questions about business ethics and advertising practices.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE DEGRADATION: Office staff described as rude and dismissive; one customer reported being told to 'go somewhere else' during pricing dispute.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster 2015-2019 (post-acquisition). Only one review from 2023 (pricing complaint). Older positive reviews (2009-2013) reflect pre-acquisition business model.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted with caution: the company's dramatic performance decline post-2015 ownership change means historical positive ratings are not predictive of current service. Current customers should expect high prices, potential project completion issues, and poor responsiveness to complaints based on recent evidence. The positive dimension scores are heavily weighted by pre-2015 reviews under different ownership and do not reflect current corporate operations.