Find Nearby Plumbers In Evanston, Illinois

Elite Sewer & Drain shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While 10 of 15 reviews are highly positive (5-star ratings praising professionalism, responsiveness, and fair pricing), five 1-star reviews document serious failures: incomplete diagnostics requiring second visits, price changes without communication, suspected unlicensed work, intoxicated behavior, and unresponsiveness after service. The company demonstrates strong technical capability and communication when performing well, but critical failures in project completion (incomplete repairs, callbacks not honored) and pricing transparency (undisclosed price increases, unnecessary work recommendations) significantly undermine trust. The oldest negative reviews (2019-2022) suggest systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews allege unlicensed plumbing work and lack of verifiable licensing documentation (2022 review explicitly states license was never provided despite promise)
• PATTERN: At least two reviews describe incomplete diagnostics on first visit, requiring costly second visits (2019 reviews detail clogged drain misdiagnosis, rusted pipe found only on callback)
• PATTERN: Price transparency issues — one review documents price change after completion with no communication; another describes unnecessary wall teardown recommendation ($375) that proved incorrect
• BEHAVIORAL: One review (2021) describes plumber arriving late and appearing intoxicated
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews are 3+ years old (2019-2022), but the most serious allegation (unlicensed work, non-responsiveness) is from August 2022 and remains unresolved
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews emphasizing reliability and professionalism versus 1-star reviews documenting negligence and unresponsiveness suggests either highly variable service quality or potential fake positive reviews

This score should be treated with caution. While the numerical WW Score of 68.2 reflects the mixed review data, the presence of serious allegations (unlicensed work, incomplete diagnostics, price manipulation) combined with documented non-responsiveness after service failures indicates substantially higher risk than the score alone suggests. Recommend independent verification of licensing and requesting references from recent clients before engaging this contractor.

This review set is deeply bifurcated: a large cluster of recent 2025 reviews (primarily for a multi-technician plumbing company with named techs like Andrew, Christian, Robert, Shane, etc.) are overwhelmingly positive, while a separate and substantial body of reviews — spanning 2005 through 2023 — specifically targets 'Bob Peterson Plumbing' and contains serious, detailed complaints about incomplete work, overcharging, missed appointments, dishonesty, and poor workmanship. The negative reviews are highly specific and credible, describing incidents such as accepting payment for work not performed, charging far above quoted prices, leaving jobs unfinished, and work failing to pass code inspection. The positive reviews from 2025 appear to be for a different or rebranded operation with multiple technicians, while the Bob Peterson-specific reviews paint a consistently troubling picture. Pricing is a particular weakness, with numerous reviewers citing unexpected charges, no upfront estimates, and fees well above market rate. Project completion is also significantly impacted by multiple accounts of abandoned, incomplete, or failed work requiring a second plumber.

• CRITICAL: The review set appears to contain reviews for TWO DISTINCT entities — a modern multi-technician plumbing company (2025 reviews referencing Andrew, Christian, Robert, Shane, AJ, Matt, Greg, etc.) and 'Bob Peterson Plumbing' (reviews from 2005–2023). These may not be the same business. Scores are blended but should be interpreted with this split in mind.
• 18 reviews contained no text (blank or placeholder entries like 'unknown' or '..') and were excluded from dimension scoring. These blank 5-star reviews are a mild fake review flag — inflating star averages without substantive content.
• The 2025 reviews are almost exclusively 5-star with named technicians and specific job details, which appears genuine. However, the volume of blank 5-star reviews submitted on the same dates (e.g., multiple blanks on 2025-05-26 and 2025-04-10) is suspicious and may indicate review padding.
• Bob Peterson-specific negative reviews are highly detailed, consistent across multiple independent reviewers, and span over a decade (2005–2023), lending them significant credibility. Complaints include: work not completed, charges exceeding quotes, missed appointments, code violations, dishonesty about completed work, and requiring a second plumber to fix failures.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of negative reviews are older than 12 months (pre-2024), while positive reviews are concentrated in 2025. This may reflect a genuine improvement in service quality, a change in ownership/branding, or selective review solicitation. Consumers should verify whether the current business is the same entity as Bob Peterson Plumbing.
• One review (2023-12-03) explicitly defends Bob Peterson against negative Yelp reviews, which is noted but does not outweigh the volume and specificity of the negative accounts.
• Several reviews reference elderly customers being overcharged or taken advantage of, which is a serious ethical flag beyond mere service quality concerns.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large number of substantive reviews, but its reliability as a predictor of future experience is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that the review pool covers at least two distinct service eras or entities — consumers should independently verify whether the current operator is the same as the historically problematic Bob Peterson Plumbing before engaging services.

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning 2011–2016. Professionalism scores are mixed: some reviews praise punctuality and courtesy, while others cite no-shows and lack of apologies. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with explicit failures including poor workmanship requiring rework, timeline delays, and abandoned callbacks. Pricing feedback is limited but includes surprise charges and complaints about cost relative to quality. The most recent review (2016) is severely negative, citing an 'F' grade for quality and promises not kept, which heavily influences the overall score. Older positive reviews (2011) suggest past capability but do not offset recent documented failures.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review (Feb 2016) is highly negative with explicit quality failures and rework required. This is the most reliable data point and suggests significant decline or inconsistency.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between 2011 5-star review (professional, fair pricing, responsive) and 2016 1-star review (poor quality, broken promises, timeline failures). This suggests either major operational changes or highly variable service delivery.
• INCOMPLETE REVIEW: One review marked 'unknown' with 5-star rating (Dec 2015) provides no usable data and is excluded from analysis.
• LIMITED SAMPLE: Only 4 usable reviews across 5-year span. Confidence is constrained by small sample size.
• QUALITY DOCUMENTATION: 2016 reviewer explicitly states they have before/after photos and plan BBB report, suggesting documented evidence of poor workmanship.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to small sample size and significant recency concerns. The most recent review is severely negative with explicit quality failures, which contradicts older positive reviews and suggests current performance may be substantially worse than historical ratings indicate. Do not rely on this score alone without recent independent verification.

William Regan Plumbing exhibits a stark bifurcation in service quality and customer experience. Recent reviews (2023–2024) reveal severe professionalism and project completion failures: unresponsiveness, abandoned work after payment, refusal to honor callbacks, and poor communication from key personnel (Bill and Liam). Older reviews (2013–2019) consistently praise technical skill, reliability, and professional conduct. The company demonstrates strong experience and reasonable pricing when work is completed, but recent patterns show critical breakdowns in follow-through and communication that directly contradict earlier reputation. The dramatic decline in service quality over time is the primary driver of the low WW Score.

• TEMPORAL ANOMALY: Reviews from 2013–2019 are uniformly 5-star with detailed praise; reviews from 2023–2024 are uniformly 1–2 stars with specific complaints of non-responsiveness and abandoned work. This suggests a significant operational or personnel change, not fake reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS APPLIED: Recent reviews (past 12 months) show critical failures in project completion and professionalism. Older reviews (5+ years old) should be weighted lower as they may not reflect current operations.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple recent reviews cite the same individuals (Bill, Liam) and the same failure modes (non-responsiveness, ghosting, refusal to complete work). This consistency across independent reviewers suggests systemic issues, not isolated incidents.
• POTENTIAL BUSINESS DECLINE: The company appears to have shifted focus to new construction (per Review 1) and may be deprioritizing service/repair work, explaining the abandonment of existing clients.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution: while recent negative reviews are detailed and consistent, they represent only 3 of 8 reviews. However, the recency and specificity of recent failures (2023–2024) suggest current operational problems that outweigh historical positive performance. Prospective customers should prioritize recent reviews and seek current references before engaging this company.

Sewell and Son Plumbing shows highly inconsistent performance across all dimensions. While some customers report excellent workmanship and responsiveness (5-star reviews), a majority of reviews document serious failures in professionalism (missed appointments, poor communication, unresponsiveness), project completion (incomplete work, no follow-up, abandoned jobs), and pricing concerns (overcharging, hidden fees, work requiring redoing by competitors). The company demonstrates problematic patterns including failure to honor appointment times, lack of communication after service visits, and defensive behavior when work quality is questioned. Positive reviews are outweighed by detailed accounts of poor execution and customer dissatisfaction.

• SIGNIFICANT QUALITY VARIANCE: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews (praising speed, friendliness, quality) and 1-star reviews (detailing serious failures). This suggests either inconsistent service delivery or potential fake positive reviews.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2018-10-02, 2017-11-23, 2017-03-02) explicitly cite unanswered calls, no follow-up, and broken promises to contact customers. This is a systemic issue.
• WORK QUALITY CONCERNS: At least 2 reviews (2017-12-13, 2017-03-02) report having to hire competitors to redo Sewell's work, indicating technical competency issues.
• FINANCIAL DISPUTES: Multiple reviews mention overcharging ($1800 for poor work, $100 collected without authorization, work requiring redoing). One review states company 'still owes $900.'
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2017-2019 (older than 5 years). However, the 2019 reviews still show serious problems (fraud allegation, no-show appointments), suggesting ongoing issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: The 5-star reviews (2019-02-07 x2, 2018-03-18, 2016-11-28) use similar generic praise ('amazing,' 'phenomenal,' 'extremely satisfied') with minimal specific detail, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews. The two reviews from 2019-02-07 posted same day warrant scrutiny.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to apparent inconsistency in service quality and suspected fake positive reviews, but the preponderance of detailed, specific negative accounts documenting communication failures, incomplete work, and financial disputes suggests the lower score is more reliable than the positive outliers.

Northfield Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by a recurring and explicit pattern of non-responsiveness — multiple reviewers across different years report calling 5+ times with no callback, which is a critical failure in communication and customer service, partially offset by positive mentions of punctuality, courtesy, and friendliness in a handful of reviews. Project completion is the weakest dimension: multiple reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion, a dangerous gas leak caused by an incorrect fitting, property damage that was not remedied, and a drain clog that recurred within six months — these are serious, documented failures of follow-through and workmanship quality. Experience scores are similarly split, with some reviewers praising technical knowledge and efficiency while others describe incorrect parts being installed and defective outcomes. Pricing receives mixed signals — one reviewer praised a fair rate, another described a steep price for unsatisfactory work, and a third was billed for a repair caused by the company's own error. The overall score reflects a contractor with genuine capability in some interactions but a troubling and consistent record of accountability failures, poor communication, and incomplete or defective work.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with the most recent review dated 2021. Only one review falls within the past 3 years. The WW Score may not reflect current business performance.
• ACCOUNTABILITY PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers (2021, 2018, 2016) explicitly describe the same failure mode — no callback after repeated attempts to contact the company. This is a systemic issue, not an isolated incident.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One review (2016) describes a gas leak caused by an incorrect fitting installed by the company, which a utility technician deemed illegal and dangerous. The company initially did not respond and later billed the customer for fixing their own error.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: One review (2018) describes flooding caused by the company's work that damaged a brand new floor, with the company ultimately deflecting responsibility to the manufacturer after weeks of delay.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CREDIBILITY NOTE: The 5-star review from 2019 is authored by a home improvement contractor who uses Northfield Plumbing commercially and names specific staff members. While detailed and credible, it represents a business relationship that may not reflect typical residential customer experience.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, length, and rating. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing patterns were identified.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review count is low (10 reviews), most data is more than 3 years old, and while the negative reviews are highly specific and credible, the positive reviews are too few and too dated to confidently offset the documented pattern of accountability and completion failures.