Find Nearby Plumbers In Joliet, Illinois

Expert Plumbing Service demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism in execution, with multiple reviews praising knowledgeable technicians (particularly Chris and Lukasz), prompt response times, and quality workmanship. However, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing complaints across 24 reviews spanning over a decade, with customers consistently reporting charges 3–10x higher than market rates for identical work. While project completion is generally solid and professionalism is above average, the extreme pricing disparity—combined with aggressive upselling tactics, hidden service fees, and targeting of elderly customers—creates a fundamental trust issue that dominates the overall assessment.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: 24 of 35 reviews (69%) explicitly criticize pricing as exorbitant, with documented examples of $1,200 for basic fixture installation, $455 for a $30 outdoor spigot, $833 for a budget toilet, and $685 for flex line replacement. This is not isolated—it is systemic and consistent across 15+ years.
• PREDATORY PRACTICES TOWARD ELDERLY: Multiple reviews document targeting of senior citizens (90-year-old father charged $833 for budget toilet; elderly parents charged $685 for flex lines). One detailed review from 2016 provides itemized cost analysis showing 400%+ markup on materials and labor.
• HIDDEN FEES AND BAIT-AND-SWITCH: Consistent pattern of $65 'free estimate' fees that are non-refundable, refusal to quote over phone, and dramatic price increases after technician arrival (e.g., $400 to $1,000 within 10 minutes). Customers report feeling trapped into accepting inflated quotes.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Two reviews document significant damage (camera head broken in sewer line, water damage to bathroom floor with grout staining) with inadequate remediation. One review reports work that leaked within 1 month and missing pipes after job completion.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite missed appointment windows, no-shows, lack of callback, and rude customer service representatives. One customer waited entire day with no communication until they called to inquire.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While some reviews praise Chris and Lukasz as exceptional, others describe inadequate inspections (sump pump inspection where technician did not actually inspect the unit) and incomplete diagnostics.
• REVIEW AGE DISTRIBUTION: Most negative reviews are from 2008–2016 (older), but pricing complaints continue through 2024. Recent 1-star reviews (2024, 2019) show pattern persists. Positive reviews cluster around 2014–2018 with specific technician names (Chris, Lukasz, Art G.), suggesting quality varies by individual technician rather than company standard.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('Chris was amazing,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend') and lack specific cost details, which is suspicious given that pricing is the dominant complaint theme. However, these reviews do contain specific project details (water heater replacement, sump pump, sewer line) that appear genuine, so confidence in fake detection is limited.

This WW Score of 54.8 is highly reliable due to large sample size (35 reviews) and consistent patterns across multiple dimensions, but it significantly underrepresents the severity of the pricing issue because the scoring formula weights all dimensions equally; in reality, pricing complaints dominate 69% of reviews and represent the primary driver of customer dissatisfaction, making the true customer experience worse than the numerical score suggests. The company demonstrates genuine technical competence but appears to operate a systematic pricing model designed to maximize extraction from customers, particularly vulnerable populations, which is a fundamental ethical and business practice concern that transcends technical capability.

Cleek Plumbing shows a deeply polarized customer base with stark contrasts between long-term satisfied clients and those experiencing significant failures. Positive reviews (2015-2020) praise professionalism, responsiveness, and technical competence, while negative reviews (2014-2015) document incomplete work, poor diagnostics, inflated pricing, and failure to honor callbacks. The company excels in communication and scheduling flexibility but is consistently criticized for excessive pricing and substandard workmanship on complex jobs. Multiple reviews document incomplete installations, misdiagnosis, and refusal to remedy company-caused problems without additional charges.

• CRITICAL: Multiple detailed negative reviews document specific failures including incomplete plumbing work (disconnected pipes, non-functional installations), misdiagnosis of drain issues, and refusal to warranty company errors. These are not generic complaints but specific technical failures with corroborating details.
• PRICING PATTERN: Five reviews explicitly mention excessive pricing. Negative reviews cite $851 for a sump pump install (later completed by another contractor for ~$450), $253.50 diagnostic fee, $160/hour rates with portal-to-portal billing, and $125/hour helper rates. Positive reviews acknowledge higher pricing but claim value justifies cost.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document incomplete work (disconnected pipes, non-functional sump pump installation, unfinished plumbing estimates, lack of follow-up on promised callbacks). One review explicitly states the company refused to remedy their own installation error without additional $140+ charge.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2014-2015 (8-10 years old). More recent reviews (2015-2020) are predominantly positive. However, the detailed nature of negative reviews and corroborating technical specifics suggest legitimate service failures rather than isolated incidents.
• CONFIDENCE CAVEAT: While mention counts are high, the extreme polarization (1-star vs 5-star with no middle ground) and temporal clustering suggest either significant company changes over time or systematic issues affecting certain customer segments (complex jobs vs routine service).

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to extreme review polarization and temporal clustering of negative reviews. The score reflects documented service failures in project completion and pricing practices, but the recency of positive reviews suggests possible company improvement. Customers should request detailed written estimates, verify work completion before payment, and consider the company's track record on complex installations before engaging.

Best Comfort Heating and Cooling presents a deeply divided review profile spanning 2013–2022, with a near-even split between glowing 5-star and damning 1-star reviews. Professionalism is severely undermined by a high volume of no-show and missed appointment complaints — at least 7 reviews explicitly describe technicians failing to arrive or call — which drags the score down despite genuine praise from satisfied customers. Pricing is a significant liability: multiple reviewers independently allege gross overcharging, misdiagnosis to upsell unnecessary equipment (e.g., recommending a full furnace replacement when a clogged filter was the issue, or a $3,500 AC unit when a $15 part fixed the problem), and non-transparent billing practices. Project completion is mixed — positive reviews describe timely, complete repairs, but negative reviews document unfinished work (a hole left in siding for over a year), failed callbacks, and recurring equipment failures post-installation. Experience scores moderately, with some reviewers praising technical knowledge and honest assessments, while others describe outright incompetence or deliberate misdiagnosis for financial gain.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several 5-star reviews are extremely vague and generic (e.g., 'Great service. Trey is awesome! Solid company. Fair prices.' and 'Trey is very knowledgeable.. I highly recommend'), with no specific job details, dates, or descriptions of work performed. One negative reviewer explicitly calls out the 5-star reviews as likely being from employees.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 3 independent reviews describe being told they needed expensive new equipment (full AC unit ~$3,500, full furnace replacement) when second opinions revealed minor, cheap fixes ($15 part, clogged filter). This is a serious and recurring pattern suggesting predatory upselling.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 7 reviews explicitly describe scheduled appointments where technicians never arrived and no proactive communication was made. This is a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• OVERCHARGING PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years cite excessive charges — $270 for a flame sensor, $285 for a thermocouple, $675 for a blower motor, $140 for changing batteries that did not fix the problem. This pattern is consistent and spans 2015–2019.
• UNRESOLVED PROPERTY DAMAGE: One reviewer reports a hole cut in their siding during installation that was never repaired despite repeated follow-up over more than a year, indicating poor accountability.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review (2022) is a 1-star complaint. The majority of 5-star reviews are from 2013–2017, while negative reviews are distributed across the full date range. The trend does not suggest improvement over time.
• RECURRING EQUIPMENT FAILURES: One reviewer reports purchasing an AC unit with installation and experiencing annual breakdowns over 4 years, suggesting possible installation quality issues.

This WW Score is based on 34 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the deeply polarized review set, credible patterns of misdiagnosis and overcharging documented by multiple independent reviewers, and suspected vagueness in several 5-star reviews mean this score should be treated as a serious caution signal — this contractor carries meaningful risk.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2013–2022. Positive reviews (2013–2019) praise professionalism, speed, and fairness, but negative reviews (2019–2022) report poor communication, overcharging, excessive labor time, and diagnostic failures. The most recent reviews are overwhelmingly negative, suggesting service quality has deteriorated. Pricing emerges as a major concern, with multiple customers reporting overcharges and unfair billing practices, particularly toward vulnerable clients. Project completion is mixed—some jobs solved problems cleanly, while others left customers with unresolved issues and unexpected charges.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2022, 2019) are 1-star; older reviews (2013–2015) are 5-star. This suggests significant service decline over time.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple independent complaints about overcharging, excessive labor billing, and unfair pricing. One review explicitly alleges targeting of elderly/vulnerable customers.
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURE: Review from 2019 reports customer charged $150 for diagnosis that was incorrect; hot water issue persisted next day.
• COMMUNICATION ISSUE: 2022 review documents poor phone communication and defensive attitude toward legitimate customer questions about service fees.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between older positive reviews and recent negative ones suggests either service quality decline or potential management/personnel changes.

This score should be treated with caution due to high volatility across time periods and serious allegations regarding pricing practices and customer targeting. The recent negative trend (2019–2022) is more predictive than older positive reviews, but the small sample size and wide date range limit confidence in predicting future performance.

Steve's Sewer & Drain shows severe inconsistency across reviews, with critical failures in professionalism and project completion offsetting occasional positive experiences. Three recent reviews (2021, 2019, 2016) document serious issues: unprofessional behavior during appointments, failure to honor callbacks and warranty commitments, and abandonment of scheduled follow-up work. Older positive reviews (2013–2015) praise technical skill and integrity, but the pattern of broken promises and poor follow-through in more recent feedback suggests deteriorating service quality. Pricing appears fair when work is completed, but customers report being charged for incomplete or abandoned services.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document failure to honor callbacks and scheduled appointments (2019, 2016 reviews). This is a severe red flag for reliability.
• PATTERN: Three of six reviews are 1-star with detailed complaints; three are 5-star with generic praise. The 5-star reviews are significantly older (2013–2015) while negative reviews are more recent (2016–2021), suggesting service quality decline over time.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (past 5 years) are predominantly negative. Older positive reviews may not reflect current operations.
• PROFESSIONALISM: Multiple independent witnesses (broker, inspector, contractor) corroborated unprofessional behavior in 2021 review. Owner (Ron) explicitly failed to follow through on multiple scheduled appointments in 2016 review.
• WARRANTY VIOLATION: 2019 review documents explicit warranty claim denial despite documented 1-year labor warranty on invoice.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust due to significant recency bias favoring negative reviews and documented pattern of broken commitments; however, the consistency of specific, detailed complaints across multiple independent sources (broker, inspector, customers) and the owner's documented failure to honor appointments suggests real operational issues that warrant serious consideration.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review history. Older reviews from 2018–2019 paint a picture of a responsive, friendly, and capable technician who showed up quickly and communicated well. However, the two most detailed negative reviews — one from 2019 and one from 2024 — describe serious failures in project completion, including abandoned work, missing parts, exposed wiring left in an attic, and a customer sold an unnecessary unit. The 2024 negative review is the most recent and most damaging, describing a pattern of misdiagnosis, incomplete work, and refusal to honor commitments. Project completion scores are dragged down significantly by these two detailed accounts of unfinished and improperly handled jobs. Professionalism scores reflect a split between early positive responsiveness and later reports of poor communication, evasiveness, and dismissive behavior toward customers.

• The three 5-star reviews from 2018 are now over 6 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• The most recent review (May 2024) is a detailed 1-star account describing misdiagnosis, failure to complete work, and refusal to return — this carries the highest recency weight.
• The 2019 1-star review describes abandoned work with exposed electrical wiring left in an attic, which is a serious safety and liability concern.
• The 2021 5-star review is the only positive review within the past 3 years, and it lacks specific detail about workmanship beyond satisfaction with speed and price.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the positive reviews are notably brief and generic compared to the highly detailed negative reviews, which reduces confidence in the positive signals.

This WW Score is based on 7 reviews spanning 2018–2024 with meaningful data across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution given that the most recent and most detailed reviews are strongly negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.