Find Nearby Plumbers In Lombard, Illinois

Block Plumbing has a strong and consistent track record across professionalism, pricing, project completion, and technical experience, supported by a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade. The vast majority of reviewers praised punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and fair pricing — including on emergency and weekend calls. Multiple reviewers specifically highlighted Brad's technical problem-solving ability, quality of workmanship (e.g., clean copper soldering, creative sewer solutions), and willingness to go beyond the scope of work. However, two notable negative data points — a 2019 review citing a failure to return a call and a 2012 review citing a similar responsiveness failure — introduce a meaningful deduction to professionalism and project completion scores, preventing a top-tier result. Scores are modestly reduced to reflect that the majority of reviews are more than five years old, with very limited recent data to confirm current service quality.

• RECENCY WARNING: The overwhelming majority of reviews are from 2009–2017. Only one review is from 2019 and none are from 2020 or later. Current service quality cannot be reliably inferred from this dataset.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Two separate reviews (2012 and 2019) explicitly cite failure to return calls, including one where a customer with an urgent leak never received a callback. This is a meaningful pattern that reduces confidence in consistent responsiveness.
• GENERIC/THIN REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no usable detail ('unknown', 'The services went well.', 'Professional all the way.', 'Quick and clean, the way it should be.'). These were counted toward totals but contributed minimally to scoring.
• POSSIBLE DUAL-OPERATOR CONFUSION: Reviews reference both 'Brad' and 'Mike' and 'Brian' as the plumber. It is unclear if these are different employees or owners. One review (Mike Holvey, 2018) reads as a personal acquaintance writing a highly informal and hyperbolic review, which reduces its evidentiary weight.
• ONE REVIEW (2013) describes a somewhat ambiguous experience — the customer balked at pricing for additional work and the plumber offered a future visit as compensation. This was not scored as a strong negative but suggests occasional pricing friction.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Despite the high proportion of 5-star reviews, most contain specific job details, named individuals, and varied language. The dataset does not appear to contain coordinated fake reviews.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of detailed reviews and carries HIGH overall confidence in reflecting historical service quality, but should be treated with caution as a predictor of current performance given that nearly all reviews are more than five years old and two documented responsiveness failures exist in the record.

Able Plumbing has a large and long-running review base that reveals a genuinely mixed picture. On the positive side, a substantial majority of reviewers praise responsiveness, same-day availability, polite technicians, and fair pricing — with named plumbers like Rob, Nelson, Danilo, and Dwayne frequently cited for skill and professionalism. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spread across multiple years and involving different customers — describe serious recurring issues: poor workmanship requiring callbacks, failure to honor guarantees, pricing disputes with no transparency, and office staff who are dismissive or unresponsive. Project completion is the most contested dimension, with multiple reviews describing jobs that leaked after completion, were abandoned, or were never followed up on. Pricing scores are dragged down by several credible accounts of inflated labor charges, undisclosed hourly rates, and parts marked up well above retail — though many other customers found pricing fair or even better than competitors.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'Called for a fix to a leak behind the wall of my upstairs bathroom. Rob (owner) came out...' appears twice with different dates (2024-06-06 and 2023-11-11) and identical text. This is a likely duplicate and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'I called Able in off hours and left a message...' (garbage disposal / Sa's Plumbing) appears twice with different dates (2023-06-07 and 2023-01-19) and near-identical text. Counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review beginning 'Nope. I was horrified to find an Able plumber without a mask...' appears twice with different dates (2021-06-07 and 2020-10-10). Counted only once for scoring purposes.
• GENERIC/CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: Six reviews consist solely of a star rating with no text, or single-word responses ('Great', 'The absolute best.'). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2025. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2016–2025. Negative reviews are distributed across the full date range, indicating persistent rather than isolated issues. No strong recency trend toward improvement or decline is clearly evident.
• PATTERN OF UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same failure modes — jobs that leaked after completion, guarantees not honored, and office staff refusing to engage with complaints. This consistency across unrelated reviewers increases the credibility of these negative accounts.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Several credible negative reviews describe being charged without upfront quotes, parts marked up significantly above retail, and hourly rates never disclosed. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ONE REVIEW (2013-04-16, 1-star) references a different listing address and contains no substantive content. It was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the recurring and credible negative patterns around billing transparency, guarantee enforcement, and project follow-through alongside the genuine praise for responsiveness and technician skill.

This contractor exhibits a deeply polarized performance pattern with severe reliability and quality control issues that substantially outweigh positive attributes. While early reviews (2014-2022) show some satisfied customers praising punctuality and professionalism, the overwhelming majority of reviews document systematic failures in project completion, including incomplete work, misdiagnosis, failure to follow up on callbacks, and dangerous workmanship (gas pipe safety hazard). Pricing concerns appear frequently, with customers reporting unnecessary upsells, inflated quotes, and hidden charges. The most damaging pattern involves work that either fails to solve the stated problem or creates new problems, with multiple customers forced to hire competing plumbers to complete or redo jobs. The company's association with American Home Shield warranty work shows a consistent pattern of customer dissatisfaction across that channel.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document incomplete work and failure to honor callbacks—a direct violation of project completion standards. At least 6 reviews explicitly state work was not completed or had to be redone by other plumbers.
• SAFETY HAZARD: One review documents a gas pipe left untightened, creating an 8+ hour gas leak in the home—a serious safety violation.
• PATTERN OF MISDIAGNOSIS: Multiple reviews show incorrect problem identification (claiming pipes were busted when they weren't, blaming lint when roots were the issue, diagnosing failed pumps without inspection).
• UPSELLING CONCERNS: At least 4 reviews document unnecessary repairs or modifications being quoted/performed that other plumbers confirmed were not needed or not code-required.
• DEPOSIT/REFUND ISSUES: One review documents a $100 deposit taken with no work performed and company refusing to return calls or refund.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most negative reviews are from 2012-2016 (older), but negative reviews continue through 2020. Most recent reviews (2022) are positive, but sample size is very small (2 reviews). This may suggest business model or management changes, but insufficient recent data to confirm improvement.
• COMPANY NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference TMD Plumbing, TMP Plumbing, Vito Iozzo Plumbing Inc., and VIP interchangeably, suggesting possible rebranding or confusion about corporate structure.
• AMERICAN HOME SHIELD PATTERN: Disproportionate number of complaints involve AHS warranty work, suggesting either selection bias (unhappy customers more likely to review) or systematic issues with warranty-covered work.

This WW Score of 48.2 is highly reliable given the large sample size (26 reviews) and consistent patterns across multiple dimensions, but should be interpreted as a strong warning signal: the contractor demonstrates critical deficiencies in project completion and workmanship quality that pose both financial and safety risks to customers, despite occasional positive experiences with punctuality and initial professionalism.

Lockhart Plumbing exhibits a stark and concerning divide in customer experience. Four recent reviews (2024-2023) describe serious failures: unlicensed work, missed appointments, inadequate diagnostics, dishonest pricing tactics, and refusal to complete callbacks. In contrast, six older reviews (2021) praise professionalism and timeliness. The preponderance of detailed, specific negative allegations—including licensing violations, deceptive upselling, and poor workmanship—substantially outweighs generic positive reviews. The company's apparent reliance on AHS contracts may explain why dissatisfied customers feel trapped. Overall, this contractor presents significant risk.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews allege Matthew Lockhart operates as an unlicensed plumber in North Carolina, which is a legal and safety violation.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Six reviews from 2021-05-20 show suspicious clustering with nearly identical generic praise ('professional,' 'timely,' 'great'), minimal detail, and all high ratings. These lack specificity and appear potentially fabricated or incentivized.
• RECENCY BIAS: Negative reviews are recent (2022-2024) with specific, detailed complaints; positive reviews are all from 2021 and lack substantive detail. Recent experience is far more reliable.
• REPEATED ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent customers report identical deceptive practices: false diagnoses to AHS, inflated non-covered charges, refusal to honor callbacks, and inadequate tools/preparation.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One review explicitly verified through NC Board of Licensing that the technician is unlicensed. This is a disqualifying issue.
• PATTERN OF HARM TO SENIORS: Multiple reviews note targeting of elderly customers with dishonest upselling tactics.

This score should be treated with CAUTION but leans toward the negative findings. The recent, detailed, and corroborated complaints about unlicensed work, deception, and poor completion are far more credible than the generic 2021 praise. Recommend independent verification of licensing status and strong consideration of alternative contractors.

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score, but the available evidence paints a mixed picture. The positive review (2024) highlights friendly, professional service, accurate diagnosis, and a successful callback to resolve a recurring issue. The negative review (2023) describes a serious failure in follow-through: a promised estimate was never delivered despite three follow-up calls, and the customer was charged for a diagnostic visit that produced no actionable result. Professionalism and project completion scores are pulled down significantly by the abandonment of the second customer's job and poor communication. Pricing received a low score because the negative reviewer explicitly felt charged unfairly for a visit that yielded nothing. Experience scores modestly higher because both reviews acknowledge the contractor correctly identified the problem, even if follow-through was lacking in one case.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The negative review (2023) describes a pattern of non-responsiveness, unkept promises, and charging for a diagnostic visit without delivering an estimate — this is a significant service failure flag.
• The two reviews are separated by over a year; the more recent review (2024) is more favorable, but a sample of 2 is too small to determine whether service quality has genuinely improved.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews contain specific, credible details and contrasting sentiments.

This score should be treated with very low confidence — only 2 reviews were available, which is below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score, and the mixed results mean no meaningful trend can be established.

Both reviews praise Nate's professionalism, cleanliness, and work quality across drywall repair and painting projects. Project completion is strongly affirmed with detailed descriptions of finished results and customer satisfaction. However, the sample size is critically small (only 2 reviews), all reviews are from 2021 (over 3 years old), and pricing is never mentioned. No WW Score can be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from February 2021 — over 3 years old. No recent customer feedback available.
• PRICING DATA MISSING: No mentions of pricing, value, or affordability across any reviews. Cannot assess Price Friendly dimension.
• SAMPLE SIZE TOO SMALL: Confidence in all dimensions is LIMITED due to only 2 mentions each. Results are not statistically reliable.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and complete absence of recent feedback or pricing information.