Find Nearby Plumbers In Hinsdale, Illinois

This aggregated review set spans multiple companies operating under similar or related names (Action Plumbing, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, and individual plumbers like Jeff Satterthwaite), which significantly complicates scoring and reduces reliability. The majority of reviews are positive and praise professionalism, punctuality, and communication, but a substantial minority of negative reviews describe serious failures including fire damage, abandoned work, misdiagnosis, property damage, dishonest billing practices, and chronic non-responsiveness — particularly in the context of American Home Shield warranty work. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers found costs fair or competitive, while others reported inflated fees, hidden charges, and deceptive billing. Project completion is a notable weakness, with multiple reviews citing incomplete jobs, failed callbacks, and work that required correction by other plumbers. Experience scores are dragged down by documented cases of poor workmanship, incorrect diagnoses, and code violations, despite many reviews praising skilled technicians by name.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span multiple distinct businesses (Action Plumbing in multiple states/cities, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, Jeff Satterthwaite Plumbing, and others). Scores reflect an aggregated pool that may not represent any single contractor accurately. Consumer should verify which specific entity they are evaluating.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: A significant number of reviews contain no text (rating only), particularly clustered around dates like 2024-06-09, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, and 2015. These blank 5-star reviews inflate the average rating and are treated as non-usable data. Additionally, some reviews use nearly identical phrasing across different dates, suggesting possible review padding.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least one review describes Action Plumbing causing a fire that left four families homeless (2024-09-06), with the owner allegedly unresponsive. Another describes a bathtub installation so defective it required full drywall and tile replacement. A third describes a whole-house re-pipe job where lines were not flushed, causing debris damage throughout the home. These are severe outliers that materially affect trustworthiness.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about Jake damaging a home during water heater installation (rating 1.0) appears verbatim on two separate dates (2024-06-09 and 2023-10-10). This duplication was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• AHS WARRANTY PATTERN: A recurring pattern of negative reviews involves American Home Shield (AHS) warranty assignments, where the contractor is accused of misdiagnosis, inflated modification fees, non-responsiveness, and claim denial manipulation. This pattern appears across multiple years and locations, suggesting a systemic issue with warranty work specifically.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2001 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) show a mixed but somewhat improved pattern for Astro Plumbing specifically, while Action Plumbing reviews remain mixed across the full date range.
• GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSION: Reviews reference locations including Las Vegas NV, Cleveland OH, Lawrence KS, Corpus Christi TX, Silsbee TX, Kaysville UT, Rhode Island, Indiana, and others. This strongly suggests these are reviews for multiple unrelated businesses sharing similar names, not a single contractor. The WW Score should be interpreted with extreme caution as a result.

This WW Score has LOW reliability for evaluating any single contractor because the review pool almost certainly aggregates multiple unrelated businesses operating under similar names across different states; consumers should independently verify the specific entity they intend to hire and seek reviews specific to that business's location and ownership before making a hiring decision.

Alexander Plumbing earns strong marks for technical skill and workmanship, with numerous reviewers praising knowledgeable technicians like Paul, Adam, and Patrick who go above and beyond to fully resolve problems and explain their work clearly. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by a recurring pattern of complaints about rude, dismissive, or explosive behavior — primarily attributed to the owner — spanning multiple years and multiple independent reviewers, which cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents. Project completion is similarly mixed: many reviews praise same-day or next-day responsiveness and thorough job completion, but several credible negative reviews describe no-shows, cancelled appointments without notice, and at least one case of abandoned work mid-project. Pricing is the most contested dimension, with a meaningful minority of reviewers describing charges they felt were excessive or inconsistent with quoted amounts, while the majority found pricing fair or reasonable. The overall picture is a company with genuinely skilled technicians and strong operational capability, undermined by inconsistent customer-facing behavior and reliability issues that have persisted across many years.

• ATTITUDE/TEMPERAMENT PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviews across different years (2016, 2017, 2019, 2021) describe the owner or a senior figure as rude, dismissive, explosive, or having a 'bad attitude.' This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe scheduled appointments where the plumber never showed and never called (2015, 2016, 2018, 2021). One review describes work being abandoned mid-project after multiple visits.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Three reviews explicitly describe feeling overcharged — one citing $187.50 for 11 minutes of work, another citing ~$700 for one hour with minimal materials, and another citing $400 as excessive for a simple shower valve. These are specific and credible.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2017-12-16 appear to be near-identical in content (Rheem water heater refusal). These may represent the same reviewer submitting twice or a copied review. One was excluded from scoring to avoid double-counting.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 8 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are from 2013–2021, while the majority of positive reviews are from 2024–2025. This may indicate genuine improvement in service quality over time, or it may reflect a shift in review demographics. Scores were weighted toward more recent reviews but older negatives were not discarded as the patterns they describe (attitude, no-shows) have some corroboration in the 2021 period.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW: Several 2025 reviews share similar phrasing ('prompt, professional, reasonable') but most contain specific names, job details, and narrative context. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, though the uniformly 5-star recent cluster warrants mild caution.
• ONE 1-STAR REVIEW (2021) describes a detailed, specific incident of a flapper chain left with too much slack causing a recurring problem, and an explosive owner response when the customer called back. The level of technical specificity and narrative detail makes this review credible.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over 15 years, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to strong mention counts; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given a documented and recurring pattern of owner temperament issues and no-show incidents that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong technical performance of the field crew.

A&M Plumbing receives strong praise across many recent reviews for punctuality, communication, and courteous service, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting on-time arrivals, proactive updates, and above-and-beyond behavior. However, professionalism scores are meaningfully dragged down by two older but detailed reviews describing a contractor (Matt) who gave quotes and then completely failed to show up or communicate, as well as one review citing poor communication during a job. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: there are multiple serious, specific complaints about faulty installations — including leaking dishwashers, sinks, and toilets installed incorrectly, a flooded rec room caused by an improperly secured discharge hose, and an alleged attempt to upsell unnecessary repairs — all of which represent significant workmanship failures. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by those who mention it, with several reviewers calling costs fair or reasonable, though one review describes a high-pressure upsell attempt that undermines this. The experience dimension reflects a split picture: many reviewers praise skill and attention to detail, but the documented installation failures indicate inconsistent technical execution across jobs and possibly across different technicians.

• Three reviews dated 2015–2015 contain only the word 'unknown' with no review text and 5-star ratings — these are not usable for scoring and may represent placeholder or fake entries.
• Two reviews dated 2022-09-30 contain only the word 'Excellent' with identical dates and identical text — possible duplicate or fake reviews; excluded from substantive scoring.
• The review set spans from 2008 to 2024, meaning many reviews are significantly older than 12 months. Reviews from 2013–2018 reference different named technicians (Ty, Matt, Alin) suggesting personnel or ownership changes over time, which limits the reliability of older reviews as indicators of current performance.
• The two most damaging no-show reviews (2015 and 2016) reference a 'Matt' who may no longer be associated with the business. However, they cannot be dismissed without confirmation and are included in scoring with appropriate weight reduction due to age.
• The 2020 review describing multiple simultaneous installation failures (dishwasher, sink, toilet) is highly specific and credible, and significantly impacts the project completion score.
• The 2008 review about the flooded rec room is over 15 years old and has been given minimal weight in scoring due to extreme age, but is noted as a documented workmanship failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence in terms of data volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given the wide date range of reviews, evidence of personnel changes over time, and several specific and credible complaints about installation failures that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong pattern of positive recent feedback.

The contractor shows genuine strengths in working with older homes and handling specialized plumbing situations, with positive mentions of fair pricing and cleanup. However, the most detailed review raises meaningful concerns about diagnostic sequencing — replacing the most expensive part first rather than performing basic cleaning checks, resulting in unnecessary delays and costs for the customer. The owner did demonstrate responsiveness by assisting via phone on a Saturday night, which partially offsets the technical missteps. Overall, the picture is of a competent but occasionally costly plumber whose workmanship is generally satisfactory but not without procedural lapses. The small review pool and age of most reviews significantly limit confidence in any conclusions drawn.

• Only 6 reviews total, with 2 containing no usable text ('unknown' and '.') — these were excluded from scoring.
• 4 of 6 reviews are older than 5 years; the most recent usable review is from 2021. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, making recency-weighted scoring impossible.
• The detailed 2014 review describes a two-visit scenario where a basic diagnostic step (cleaning/blowing out the line) was skipped in favor of replacing the most expensive component first, suggesting a potential gap in diagnostic thoroughness.
• The second technician left water temperature set to 'max,' indicating a quality-control issue on that visit.
• Sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about consistent performance patterns.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review pool (6 total, only 4 with usable data), the near-complete absence of recent reviews, and the presence of two content-free placeholder reviews that contributed no scorable information.

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.

All Family Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, a substantial number of older reviews (pre-2022) describe courteous, knowledgeable technicians, fair pricing, and jobs completed thoroughly — including emergency responses and complex sewer/pipe work. However, more recent reviews (2022–2025) reveal a troubling pattern of no-shows, repeated cancellations without notice, hidden charges added after job completion, and at least one instance of an estimate fee collected with no follow-through. Professionalism is further undermined by multiple independent reports of aggressive and dangerous driving behavior by company vehicle operators, which, while not directly plumbing-related, reflects on the company's culture and employee conduct. Project completion scores are dragged down significantly by credible accounts of jobs not finished, repeat service calls for the same unresolved issues, and a failure to honor callbacks. Pricing scores are mixed — several reviewers praised fair and transparent pricing, while others explicitly described bait-and-switch tactics and undisclosed charges added post-completion.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2022–2025) skew heavily negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Older positive reviews (2010–2018) should be weighted less heavily.
• DRIVING/CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: At least 4 reviews (2023–2024) describe dangerous or aggressive driving by company vehicle operators, including road rage incidents and threats. While not plumbing-related, this reflects on company culture and employee vetting.
• HIDDEN CHARGES FLAG: At least 2 credible reviews explicitly describe pricing bait-and-switch — quoted one price, charged significantly more after job completion with fabricated add-ons. This is a serious consumer protection concern.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe repeated appointment cancellations, no-shows without notice, and failure to return calls — a consistent operational failure pattern in recent years.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review 'Can't recommend them highly enough. Installed a tankless water heater...' appears verbatim twice under different dates (2020 and 2021). This may indicate a fake or duplicated review submission.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 4 reviews contain no text content (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• ESTIMATE FEE COMPLAINT: One reviewer reports paying an $80 estimate fee with no estimate ever delivered, suggesting possible deceptive business practices.
• WORK QUALITY CONCERN: One review describes a plumber recommending a $1,100 water heater replacement for a problem that was ultimately solved with a $12 dip tube — raising questions about upselling or diagnostic competence.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews from the 2013–2015 era are extremely brief and generic ('It is a small business owner that is well worth definitely using', 'unknown') with no specifics. These were scored conservatively.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (57 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it statistical breadth, but the strong negative trend in recent reviews (2022–2025) and the presence of duplicate, blank, and suspiciously generic reviews reduce confidence in the score as a reflection of current service quality — prospective customers should weight recent negative reviews heavily.