Find Nearby Plumbers In Oak Lawn, Illinois

Two of the three reviews provide positive signals across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with one long-term client noting emergency responsiveness, competitive pricing, and standing behind their work. A third review from 2016 corroborates quality and reliability. However, the extremely small review pool of only 3 reviews — two of which are from 2016 and 2020 — severely limits confidence in any dimension score. The one-star review alleges credit card fraud entirely unrelated to any contracted work, and while alarming, it does not appear to reflect a service experience and was treated as an outlier with no bearing on workmanship dimensions. Scores have been kept conservative across all dimensions due to the minimal evidence base.

• VERY LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. No dimension has more than 2 mentions. All scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be relied upon without additional data.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of three reviews are older than 3 years (2016 and 2020). Only one review (2023) falls within the past 12 months. The score is heavily influenced by outdated feedback.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION: The 1-star review alleges credit card theft by this company. The reviewer states they have never used the company, suggesting this may be a case of mistaken identity, identity theft by a third party, or a fraudulent review. This could not be verified and was excluded from workmanship scoring, but it is a serious flag that warrants caution.
• GENERIC POSITIVE LANGUAGE: The 2016 and 2023 positive reviews contain somewhat generic praise with limited specifics about the nature of work performed, reducing their evidentiary weight slightly.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW DEPTH: No reviews provide detailed descriptions of specific projects, pricing figures, or technical problem-solving scenarios, making precise scoring difficult.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 7 years, with all dimensions rated at LIMITED confidence — this score should be treated as highly preliminary and not relied upon without a substantially larger and more recent body of reviews.

Water Works shows strong technical expertise and professionalism in positive reviews, with customers praising diagnostic ability and problem-solving. However, a significant 1-star review from 2012 alleges dishonest practices and unnecessary upselling, creating a serious credibility conflict. Pricing feedback is mixed: three reviews mention fair/good pricing, but one explicitly warns of overcharging tactics. The small sample size (4 reviews) and extreme rating polarization (three 5-stars, one 1-star) limit confidence in this score. The oldest review is over 12 years old, reducing its relevance.

• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: Three perfect 5-star reviews and one 1-star review with no middle ground suggests potential underlying service inconsistency or review authenticity concerns.
• RECENCY ISSUE: One review is from 2012 (12+ years old), one from 2019 (5 years old), one from 2021 (3 years old), and only one from 2023. Most data is stale.
• CONFLICTING PRICING CLAIMS: Positive reviews praise 'fair price' while negative review explicitly accuses company of overcharging and unnecessary work. This is a material contradiction.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total is below the threshold for reliable scoring. Results should be treated as preliminary.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: The 1-star review alleges dishonest practices and deliberate upselling—a critical trust issue that cannot be ignored despite being one review.

This score should be treated with significant caution due to insufficient review volume (4 reviews), extreme rating polarization, conflicting claims about pricing integrity, and heavy reliance on outdated data. The company should be evaluated with additional recent reviews before making a high-confidence decision.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses and individual operators all operating under or associated with the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different regions and time periods, making direct comparison difficult but revealing a deeply polarized reputation. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of explicit complaints about rudeness, no-shows, broken appointments, and dismissive customer service — including multiple accounts of technicians yelling at customers, slamming doors, and hanging up on home warranty representatives. Pricing is the single most-criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing charges 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, non-itemized invoices, and aggressive upselling tactics; a minority of reviewers — particularly those dealing with individual operators like Oscar, Jeff, and Rick — praised fair and transparent pricing. Project completion suffers from a notable pattern of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, work left incomplete for weeks or months, and instances where problems were made worse rather than fixed. Experience scores are moderate-positive, as many positive reviews do cite skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship from specific named technicians, but are offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect parts installation, and damage caused during service.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: These reviews appear to aggregate multiple distinct businesses and sole operators all using the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different U.S. regions (Georgia, New Jersey, Oklahoma, California, New York, Indiana, Tennessee, etc.). Scores reflect a blended profile and should not be applied to any single operator without filtering by location.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews — particularly those dated 2025-05-07, 2025-05-10, and 2025-05-19 with no review text — are blank ratings only and provide zero usable data. Several other 5-star reviews are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., two reviews from 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10 are word-for-word duplicates for 'Michael'). These have been excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star average.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews are near-verbatim duplicates submitted on consecutive or same dates (the 'Michael' gas line reviews dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10; the rude technician reviews dated 2023-08-09 and 2023-08-10). These were counted as single mentions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal text, while the most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2018–2024. The oldest reviews (2005–2013) skew positive but reflect a different era of the business. Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no evidence per Rule 1.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One review (dated 2021-06-07, 5 stars) references a healthcare provider ('very helpful with my daughter and son... ADHD and learning disabilities') and is clearly posted to the wrong business. It was excluded entirely.
• PRICING PATTERN: A recurring pattern of non-itemized invoices, refusal to provide cost breakdowns, and prices dropping significantly when customers push back strongly suggests systematic price gouging practices at certain franchise or affiliate locations, particularly those associated with Coolray/Mr. Plumber in the Atlanta, GA market.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe technicians starting jobs, leaving for parts, and never returning — sometimes for months. This pattern appears across different named technicians and locations, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the dataset aggregates multiple distinct businesses operating under the same trade name across different regions and time periods — consumers should filter reviews by their specific geographic location and verify the operator before relying on this blended score.

Allan E. Power Plumbing presents a deeply divided review profile. A cluster of positive reviews — mostly from 2017 to 2023 — praise specific technicians (Dan, Zach, Jack, Mel, Frank, Alex) for professionalism, promptness, and fair pricing, suggesting individual workers can deliver strong results. However, a substantial and consistent body of negative reviews spanning over a decade raises serious concerns across all four dimensions: office staff are repeatedly described as rude and dismissive, pricing is frequently cited as excessive or non-transparent (including a $1,700 quote vs. a $250 competitor quote, and a $5,000 estimate resolved elsewhere for $600), and multiple reviews describe incomplete or botched work requiring callbacks or third-party fixes. Project completion is particularly damaged by accounts of technicians leaving without finishing jobs, failing to return, and work failing within days. The recency of positive reviews slightly improves the picture but does not overcome the volume and specificity of negative feedback.

• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The majority of negative reviews are from 2010–2018, while most positive reviews cluster in 2017–2023. This may reflect a genuine improvement in field technician quality, but office/customer service complaints persist into 2022.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years cite dramatically inflated quotes compared to competitors — this is a consistent and specific pattern, not isolated complaints.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE PATTERN: At least 4 separate reviews name or describe office staff (Denise, Betty, Deb, unnamed women) as rude, dismissive, or having hung up on customers. This is a recurring structural issue, not a one-off.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One review (2013) describes a technician running an electrical cord through standing water and office staff defending the practice — a serious workmanship and safety red flag.
• ABANDONED JOB: One reviewer describes a technician leaving mid-job without explanation or follow-up, which was confirmed by the office failing to resolve the situation.
• ELDERLY TARGETING CONCERN: Two separate reviews (2013, 2016) allege the company may be taking advantage of elderly customers with inflated estimates or unnecessary work recommendations.
• VEHICLE INCIDENT (2021): One review describes a company trailer detaching and crashing into a residential property, with the company allegedly refusing to file an insurance claim and failing to provide adequate restitution — raising serious ethical and liability concerns.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS: Reviews are sufficiently varied in language, detail, and rating to appear authentic. No fake review patterns detected.
• OLDEST REVIEWS: Several reviews date to 2006–2013 and are given reduced weight in scoring due to age, but recurring themes across years reduce the ability to dismiss them entirely.

This WW Score is based on 28 reviews spanning 17 years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable, though the wide date range and mixed ownership history mean current performance may differ from historical lows.

Almighty Rooter Plumbing presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is a significant weak point, with multiple reviews citing rude technicians, a screaming worker using profanity on the job, an unprofessional phone receptionist, and a technician who never returned with a promised estimate — offset only partially by a handful of reviews praising courteous and communicative workers like Jesse and John Madden. Pricing is a serious concern, with multiple reviewers describing bait-and-switch tactics, charges nearly 4x the original quote, and one reviewer alleging a deliberate sabotage of plumbing to inflate the bill — though a few reviews did find pricing fair or below competing estimates. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: multiple reviews describe jobs that were never fixed, a sump pump problem unresolved after three visits over three years, a gas leak left unrepaired, and a technician who simply never returned — these failures substantially drag down the score despite some positive completion experiences. Experience scores modestly higher, as several reviewers praised specific technicians for quickly diagnosing problems and demonstrating solid technical knowledge, but this is undercut by repeated failures to actually resolve issues.

• One review (2023-06-10) contains no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. This provides no usable data and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• One review (2018-06-11) contains only 'Very good' with no specifics — treated as minimal usable data and not counted toward any dimension.
• The reviewer who left a 1-star review in 2019 explicitly stated that 5-star reviews are likely from friends and family. While this cannot be verified, it warrants caution when interpreting the positive reviews.
• The majority of reviews (15 out of 18) are older than 12 months from a 2024 reference point, and most are from 2012–2021. Only one review is from 2023 and one from 2022. Recency is very low — this score may not reflect current business performance.
• Several negative reviews describe serious ethical concerns including alleged price manipulation, deliberate disabling of plumbing to force higher charges, and charging for work not completed. These are not mere quality complaints but potential fraud indicators.
• No reviews are recent enough (within the past 12 months of a mid-2024 reference) to confirm whether the business has improved or declined.

While the WW Score is calculated with HIGH confidence due to sufficient mention counts across all dimensions, the score should be treated with caution given the age of the review pool, serious fraud allegations from multiple independent reviewers, and a pattern of unresolved work — this contractor carries meaningful risk.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile: several positive reviews praising promptness, professionalism, and clean work are directly offset by serious negative reviews alleging warranty non-compliance, dangerous gas leak installations, and refusal to remedy mistakes. The two 2023 reviews — the most recent in the dataset — both cite failure to honor warranties, which is a significant red flag for project completion and professionalism. One 2019 review describes a severe workmanship failure involving gas leaks that required a third-party contractor to correct, dragging down the experience and project completion scores considerably. The positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are largely from 2017–2020 and may not reflect current service quality.

• WARRANTY NON-COMPLIANCE: Two separate reviewers in March 2023 explicitly state the company does not honor its warranty — this is the most recent data and carries elevated weight.
• SERIOUS SAFETY INCIDENT: A 2019 review describes dangerous gas leaks resulting from improper pipe installation, forcing tenant hotel relocation and third-party remediation — this is a critical workmanship failure.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All positive reviews are from 2017–2020; the two most recent reviews (2023) are both 1-star complaints. This suggests a possible decline in service quality over time.
• LEGAL ACTION MENTIONED: One reviewer explicitly states they are pursuing legal action against the company for refusal to refund after poor work.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, and rating, suggesting authentic authorship across the dataset.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review sample of 8 reviews, but the pattern of serious recent complaints about warranty violations and a documented safety failure meaningfully suppresses confidence in this contractor's current service quality.