Find Nearby Plumbers In Joliet, Illinois

The review set is deeply divided, with a cluster of positive reviews praising professionalism and workmanship contrasted sharply by multiple detailed negative reviews describing serious failures. Negative reviews cite workers arriving hungover, incomplete repairs, disconnected emergency lines, refusal to honor warranties, and rude customer service — all of which heavily penalize professionalism, project completion, and experience scores. Pricing concerns appear in multiple reviews, including allegations of charging for work that did not fix the problem and disputed billing. The positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are largely older and less detailed, reducing their counterbalancing weight. Overall, the pattern of recurring, specific complaints across independent reviewers paints a concerning picture of inconsistent and at times unethical service delivery.

• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review is from September 2022, and the majority of reviews are from 2011–2016. Only one review falls within the past 3 years. Score reliability for current service quality is significantly reduced.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers describe structurally similar failures — incomplete repairs, refusal to return calls, refusal to honor warranties or refund disputed charges. This consistency across unrelated reviews increases credibility of the negative accounts.
• ETHICAL CONCERN: Two separate reviews allege the company refused refunds or warranty service after acknowledged failures, and one review describes a BBB complaint that was still not resolved. This is a significant red flag for consumer trust.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: One review describes workers arriving and admitting to being hungover, installing incorrect fixtures, and leaving the job site in disarray — a severe professionalism and experience failure.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 9 total reviews with 8 usable. This is a small sample and limits statistical confidence in any direction.
• ONE UNUSABLE REVIEW: The review dated 2015-12-03 contained only the text 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review volume, the age of most reviews, and the stark polarization between positive and negative accounts — however, the specificity and consistency of the negative reviews lend them significant credibility and should be weighted seriously by any prospective customer.

Professionalism is deeply mixed: Anthony is described as kind, knowledgeable, and responsive in several reviews, but a serious pattern of non-responsiveness after a failed job and a pre-diagnosis recommendation over the phone without gathering basic information significantly drag this score down. Pricing is a notable concern — a $150 service fee for five minutes of non-work and a $385 charge for an incomplete drain job that the homeowners ultimately fixed themselves suggest poor value and lack of transparency. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: one review explicitly describes an incomplete job, no follow-through on a promised refund, and total communication breakdown after payment, which is a severe failure. Experience scores moderately — Anthony demonstrates solid diagnostic ability in positive reviews (sump pump diagnosis, quick identification of a furnace leak), but the failed drain rodding job and the premature garbage disposal recommendation without gathering facts undermine confidence in consistent technical judgment.

• The review dated 2023-02-13 is from someone who has never hired the company and is based solely on a chance meeting at a store. This review provides no usable data about actual service quality and should be treated as anecdotal at best.
• Only 6 total reviews span a date range from 2019 to 2024, meaning the sample size is very small and confidence in all scores is inherently limited.
• The most recent review (2024-07-08) and the most detailed negative review (2020-01-02) both describe significant issues with pricing fairness and follow-through, which are concerning patterns.
• The promised $150 reimbursement that was never paid (per the 2020 review) represents a potential integrity concern beyond just service quality.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only one review falls within the past 12 months (July 2024), limiting the ability to assess current performance trends.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning five years, with significant negative incidents that are specific and credible, making the score directionally useful but not statistically reliable — treat with caution.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across professionalism and project completion. Eight reviews explicitly document unprofessional behavior including chronic lateness (2+ hours), unauthorized home entry, poor communication, lack of preparation, and failure to follow through on callbacks. Project completion is critically compromised with six reviews detailing incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and failure to honor commitments. While three reviews mention affordable pricing positively, this cannot offset the overwhelming pattern of non-delivery and poor workmanship. The contractor shows inconsistent quality—some jobs completed acceptably while others were abandoned or required extensive rework.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Multiple reviews (door refinishing, painting callbacks, deck project) document incomplete work and failure to return for promised follow-up. One review explicitly states unauthorized entry into home without permission, resulting in police report.
• PROFESSIONALISM CRISIS: Eight of nine reviews mention serious professionalism issues including chronic lateness, showing up unprepared without materials/tools, poor communication, and disrespectful behavior.
• TEMPORAL INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews (5.0 and 4.0 ratings) are from 2021; negative reviews (1.0 and 2.0 ratings) dominate 2022-2024, suggesting deterioration in service quality or possible business management changes.
• QUALITY VARIANCE: Same contractor appears to deliver acceptable work on some projects (hardwood floor matching, basement painting in 2021) but consistently fails on others (painting, deck staining, tile work), indicating unreliable execution.

This score is highly reliable due to consistent negative patterns across 8 of 9 reviews with explicit, detailed evidence of failures. The overwhelming majority of recent reviews (2022-2024) document serious professionalism and completion failures, making this contractor unsuitable for hire despite isolated positive reviews from 2021.

This contractor has a very mixed and thin review record across only 3 reviews. One reviewer gave 1 star and explicitly stated the work did not match what was explained and that quality deteriorated over time, which is a serious red flag for both professionalism and project completion. A second reviewer praised rapid response and Sunday availability but found the $300 price for a faucet swap unaffordable on a fixed income, suggesting pricing may not be senior- or budget-friendly. The third review was positive, noting floors, cabinets, and a shower were completed in a timely manner, providing the only clear positive signal for project completion and experience. The conflicting signals and extremely small sample size make it impossible to draw reliable conclusions about this contractor's overall quality.

• Only 3 reviews total — sample size is far too small for reliable scoring; all scores should be treated with extreme caution.
• The 1-star review explicitly describes declining quality over time and a mismatch between what was promised and what was delivered — a significant trust concern.
• The pricing concern raised by a senior on a fixed income ($300 for a faucet swap) may indicate pricing is not transparent or tailored to customer circumstances.
• One review is dated February 2023, which is over 12 months old and carries reduced recency weight.
• The positive 5-star review (2023) is somewhat generic and lacks specific detail about workmanship quality, which limits its evidentiary value.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with directly conflicting signals and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's true quality or consistency.

The Sewer Experts receives a critically low WW Score of 28.4, driven by severe failures in project completion and professionalism across multiple reviews. Two of three reviews describe incomplete work, failed repairs, warranty denial, and customer deception—including a $10k job that failed within days and required a competitor to fix for $1,400. A third review documents an emergency service that left equipment unplugged, resulting in basement flooding. One positive review from 2018 praising communication and fair pricing is substantially outweighed by explicit allegations of dishonesty, incompetence, and financial exploitation. The company's technical execution is questioned in multiple reviews.

• CRITICAL: Two of three reviews (67%) describe catastrophic project failures and alleged fraud. First review explicitly accuses company of deception, taking advantage of homeowner's wife, and warranty denial after failed $10k repair.
• Second negative review documents incomplete emergency service with equipment left unplugged, causing water damage to basement during customer's vacation.
• Significant recency concern: Positive review is from December 2018 (5+ years old); negative reviews from January 2019 and August 2018. No recent positive reviews to suggest improvement.
• Pattern of incomplete work and failure to diagnose root cause (tree root damage) despite claiming to run camera inspection.
• Warranty claims appear to be systematically denied when problems resurface, suggesting either misrepresentation or fundamental incompetence.

This score should be treated with HIGH caution due to small sample size (n=3), but the consistency and severity of failure allegations across two independent negative reviews, combined with absence of recent positive feedback, suggests genuine and serious performance issues with this contractor.

This contractor demonstrates catastrophically poor performance across all measured dimensions. Project completion is the most critical failure: every single review documents incomplete work, abandoned jobs, no-shows, or defective repairs that required customers to hire other contractors. Professionalism is severely compromised by communication failures, unresponsiveness, language barriers, rudeness, and dishonesty. Pricing practices include hidden charges, bait-and-switch tactics, and charging for work that was never completed or was done incorrectly. Technical competence is consistently poor, with multiple instances of deliberate sabotage (rocks placed in pipes), incorrect installations, and repairs that failed within weeks. The company does not honor warranties and avoids accountability.

• CRITICAL: All 19 reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly negative content. While this is not necessarily fake (the consistency reflects genuine customer harm), the pattern indicates a systematically failing business rather than normal review variance.
• Multiple reviews (at least 5) describe what appears to be deliberate sabotage: rocks placed in pipes after work, loose pipe caps, broken pipes caused by negligent towing. This suggests either extreme incompetence or intentional damage to generate repeat business.
• Language barrier and communication issues mentioned in 4+ reviews; one review notes technician 'seems like he's on drugs.'
• Warranty non-compliance documented in 6+ reviews; company explicitly states no warranty offered.
• No-show pattern: at least 6 reviews document missed appointments or failure to return calls.
• All reviews are from 2014-2020 (6-9 years old). No recent reviews provided. Unable to assess if business practices have improved.
• Company appears to operate under multiple names (Señor Rooter, 24 Hour Plumbing) per reviews, raising transparency concerns.

This WW Score of 8.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 19 detailed reviews with unanimous negative findings across all dimensions, providing exceptionally strong evidence of systematic business failure. The score reflects genuine customer harm, not measurement error or insufficient data.