Find Nearby Plumbers In Elmhurst, Illinois

Dr. Rooter 911 demonstrates severe deficiencies across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. Multiple reviews document chronic non-responsiveness, missed appointments, failure to complete promised work, and lack of follow-through on callbacks spanning over a decade. Pricing complaints are consistent, with customers reporting charges significantly exceeding quotes and feeling overcharged for minimal work. While the one positive review and several others acknowledge competent technical work when completed, this is severely undermined by incomplete job delivery, poor communication, and apparent abandonment of customers mid-project. The contractor's willingness to perform initial work but then become unresponsive to completion requests is a critical pattern.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document complete non-responsiveness and abandonment after initial service. The 2022 review details $525 paid for incomplete video inspection and sewer line location with zero follow-up for months despite repeated contact attempts.
• CRITICAL: Pattern of incomplete project completion across multiple reviews (2020, 2022 reviews show 75% completion, unfilled holes, no cleanup, no video documentation despite payment).
• CRITICAL: Significant pricing discrepancies documented. Review from 2018 shows $99 quote charged as $280; 2012 review cites $190 for 15 minutes work; multiple reviews describe overcharging and lack of transparency.
• CRITICAL: Chronic communication failure. Multiple reviews (2017, 2018, 2020, 2022) document voicemail boxes full, no callbacks for weeks, text messages ignored, and excuses rather than follow-through.
• CRITICAL: Legal history noted in 2022 review citing 24 Wisconsin Circuit Court cases involving John Werkmeister operating under multiple business names (T Rooter Plumbing, Tropical Rooter, Doctor Rooter, Doctor Rooter 911) with cases involving nonpayment of unemployment compensation.
• Review dates span 2011-2022 with consistent negative patterns throughout, indicating systemic rather than isolated issues.
• One positive 2019 review appears anomalous given overwhelming pattern of complaints; however, it is genuine and factored into experience score.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 8 reviews with consistent, detailed documentation of failures across all major dimensions, spanning 11 years with no evidence of improvement. The contractor demonstrates systematic problems with responsiveness, completion, and pricing that represent serious risk to any customer.

Abbott Industries receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism and pricing being the most severely criticized. Multiple reviewers describe office staff — specifically Fred and Rob — as rude, condescending, and unwilling to let customers speak, while the owner reportedly never returned calls seeking billing resolution. Pricing is a dominant complaint across nearly every review, with customers citing charges they describe as grossly inflated, lacking transparency, and unsupported by itemized breakdowns or upfront quotes. Project completion is also poor, with multiple accounts of plumbers leaving jobs unfinished, requiring return visits, missing scheduled times, and failing to check their own work. Workmanship quality is questionable, with incidents including wrong parts being used, undetected loose wires, and inefficient on-site execution — though one reviewer noted a plumber was polite and courteous at the individual level.

• All reviews dated 2013–2022; the most recent review is from June 2022, meaning all reviews are more than 2 years old. Current performance may differ.
• No positive reviews are present in this dataset. While this is consistent with a genuinely poor service record, the absence of any positive signal means this score reflects a one-sided sample and should be interpreted with that context in mind.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews are highly specific, include dates, staff names, dollar amounts, and detailed narratives — consistent with authentic customer experiences.
• Billing disputes appear in at least 6 of 8 reviews, suggesting a systemic pattern of pricing opacity and overcharging rather than isolated incidents.
• Owner and office staff non-responsiveness to complaints is mentioned in at least 4 reviews, indicating a structural customer service failure.

This WW Score is based on 8 detailed, specific, and independently written reviews covering all four dimensions with HIGH confidence, and should be considered a reliable reflection of poor performance — though the absence of recent reviews (post-2022) limits certainty about the contractor's current state of operations.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe a contractor who collects payment — often in full or in advance — and then abandons jobs, ignores calls, and repeatedly breaks scheduled appointments with no-shows and empty promises. Professionalism scores are near-zero across most reviews, with explicit descriptions of dishonesty, rudeness, unresponsiveness, and deceptive behavior by the owner Ron Janis Jr. Project completion is catastrophically poor, with at least 10 reviewers describing unfinished work spanning months or years after payment. Pricing and experience receive marginally higher scores only because two positive reviews praised fair pricing and competent workmanship, and a small number of negative reviewers acknowledged that the actual physical work performed — when it was done — was adequate; however, these positives are vastly outweighed by the pattern of fraud and abandonment. The BBB rating of F, noted by multiple reviewers, corroborates the review pattern.

• STRONG PATTERN OF FRAUD: At least 10 of 15 reviews describe the owner taking advance or full payment and then abandoning the job — this is a consistent, specific, and credible pattern of predatory business conduct.
• TWO POSITIVE REVIEWS (5-star, dated 2014-07-30 and 2014-08-14) are generic in praise and lack the specific detail present in negative reviews. Given the overwhelming negative pattern, these may be fake or outlier reviews and should be treated with skepticism.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are dated between 2013 and 2020. The most recent review is from September 2020. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 analysis date) are present, meaning current business behavior is unknown.
• BBB RATING: Multiple reviewers independently confirmed the company holds an F rating with the Better Business Bureau, with numerous unresolved complaints — directly contradicting the company's own claimed A+ accreditation on quotes.
• LEGAL ISSUES NOTED: At least one reviewer reported involvement of police and a lawyer regarding fraudulent check activity. Another contacted the State's Attorney's office. These are serious indicators beyond typical contractor disputes.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The two 5-star reviews use notably positive and generic language ('fun and friendly,' 'great customer service') with no specific names, dates, or job details, contrasting sharply with the highly specific and detailed negative reviews. Confidence in positive scores is reduced accordingly.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews with strong internal consistency across negative experiences, and should be considered highly reliable as a warning signal — this contractor demonstrates a well-documented pattern of payment fraud, job abandonment, and dishonesty that makes hiring them an extremely high-risk decision.

Only 2 of 3 reviews contain substantive data; one review is a single period with no usable information. The two usable reviews are both from 2015 (8+ years old) and provide detailed positive feedback on professionalism, punctuality, responsiveness, fair pricing, and workmanship quality. However, the extremely limited sample size (2 reviews), advanced age of the data, and absence of any negative feedback or recent performance history prevent reliable WW Score calculation.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 usable reviews — insufficient data for reliable scoring (minimum 3 required)
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both substantive reviews are from October 2015 (8+ years old); no recent data available
• INCOMPLETE REVIEW: One review consists only of a period (.) with 5-star rating — no usable data
• POTENTIAL SURVIVORSHIP BIAS: All reviews are 5-star with no critical feedback; cannot assess actual performance issues or weaknesses
• SINGLE CONTRACTOR: Described as 'one man show' — limited capacity and no team redundancy information

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (only 2 usable reviews) and critically outdated data (8+ years old with no recent performance history). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews describe severely negative experiences with deceptive practices, including false advertising, bait-and-switch pricing, use of inferior equipment misrepresented as professional service, and work that failed immediately. The company allegedly operates under multiple names to evade accountability. Professionalism is undermined by dishonesty and lack of transparency; pricing is criticized for hidden charges and coupon fraud; project completion failed as drains re-clogged within one day; and experience is questioned due to use of inadequate equipment and poor workmanship. However, with only 2 reviews from 2009-2011, the sample size is critically insufficient for reliable scoring.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed, both from 2009-2011 (13+ years old). No recent data available to assess current business practices.
• Both reviews are 1-star with extremely negative language and serious allegations (fraud, deception, multiple business names). Cannot verify claims independently.
• First review makes sweeping accusations about multiple companies being the same operator but provides limited specific details about the actual work performed.
• Second review contains detailed allegations of false advertising, equipment misrepresentation, and warranty fine-print abuse. These are serious claims but unverified.
• Insufficient data to calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 rules (fewer than 3 reviews with balanced perspective).

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews) and extreme age (13+ years old with no recent data). The reviews describe serious allegations of fraud and deception, but without recent corroboration or independent verification, and with such a small sample, any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

With only two reviews, data is extremely limited and no reliable WW Score can be produced. The most recent review (2023) is deeply concerning: a reviewer with professional plumbing knowledge describes drainage lines out of code, chaotically run copper plumbing, missing ground straps, and a complete refusal by the contractor to respond or remedy the situation — including blocking the customer on the platform. The older positive review (2020) describes a straightforward faucet replacement with good communication and competitive pricing, which provides a modest counterpoint but does not offset the severity of the 2023 complaint. The gap between these two reviews spans over three years, and the more recent account carries greater weight under recency rules. Overall, the pattern raises serious concerns about workmanship quality, code compliance, and accountability.

• CRITICAL — Only 2 reviews total. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules (fewer than 3 reviews).
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP CONCERN — Review from 2023-12-17 alleges plumbing work was out of code, copper lines were improperly run, and ground straps were not connected, which poses a safety hazard. This was corroborated by a union plumber.
• ACCOUNTABILITY FAILURE — Contractor allegedly ignored multiple follow-up messages and blocked the customer on TaskRabbit rather than addressing legitimate complaints.
• RECENCY WEIGHTING — The negative review is from December 2023 and is the most recent data point. The positive review is from May 2020, over three years prior, and should be weighted less heavily.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW VOLUME — Two reviews are not enough to establish reliable patterns in any dimension. All scores carry LIMITED confidence and should be treated as highly provisional.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews spanning 3+ years and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality; the serious code compliance and accountability issues raised in the most recent review are a significant red flag that prospective customers should weigh heavily.