Find Nearby Plumbers In Oak Lawn, Illinois

Aaron's Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative feedback across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is critically poor, with multiple reviewers citing no-shows across repeated appointments, unreturned calls, poor attitude, and a complete disregard for customers' time. Project completion is nearly as damaging — jobs were routinely left unfinished, tickets sat open for weeks without resolution, and follow-through was essentially absent across multiple engagements. On the experience front, reviewers documented incorrect diagnoses, improper installations (including a blower assembly installed incorrectly), and unauthorized fixture replacements, all pointing to serious deficiencies in technical competence. Pricing received a marginally higher score only because one reviewer noted a lower-cost drain rodding experience early on, but this is heavily offset by a separate review documenting an alleged attempt to overcharge by more than 300% of the actual repair cost.

• All 7 reviews are 1- or 2-star ratings with no positive reviews present — while this may reflect genuine poor performance, the complete absence of any positive feedback warrants noting.
• The most recent review is dated 2021-06-10, meaning all reviews are more than 3 years old. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data set.
• The majority of reviews (5 of 7) are from 2018 or earlier, with only 2 reviews from 2020–2021. Recency weighting significantly limits confidence in current operational quality.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific, varied, and credible detail consistent with genuine negative experiences.

While the WW Score carries HIGH confidence given that all four dimensions are supported by multiple specific and credible reviews, the score reflects a contractor's historical performance only, as all reviews predate 2022 and no recent data is available to assess whether conditions have improved.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe a contractor who repeatedly fails to show up, abandons jobs mid-project, and refuses to issue refunds for work never completed — resulting in near-zero scores for project completion and professionalism. Multiple reviewers explicitly describe rude, verbally abusive, and dishonest behavior including cursing at clients and hanging up on them, driving the professionalism score to the floor. Pricing was flagged negatively in several reviews, with customers noting they were charged premium or top-dollar rates for incomplete or damaging work, making value for money extremely poor. Workmanship quality was described as careless, mistake-ridden, and in multiple cases worse than the original problem — including cutting the wrong pipe, broken tiles, and leaks that were never resolved. The single positive review (5 stars) is vague, lacks detail, and is heavily outweighed by nine detailed negative accounts spanning multiple years.

• 9 out of 10 reviews are 1-star ratings with highly specific, detailed complaints — this pattern is consistent with genuine negative experiences rather than fake reviews.
• The sole 5-star review (2017-10-24) is extremely vague with no specifics about the contractor, pricing, or work performed. It may be a fake or planted positive review and has been given minimal weight.
• A pattern of financial misconduct is present across multiple reviews: accepting deposits and not returning them, charging in full and abandoning jobs, and refusing to answer calls for refunds. This may indicate fraudulent business practices beyond mere incompetence.
• Reviews span from 2015 to 2022, indicating persistent and long-standing issues. The most recent review (2022) continues the same pattern as older reviews, suggesting no improvement over time.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months relative to a 2024 evaluation date. The most recent usable negative review is from May 2022. No recent positive data exists to suggest improvement.
• Verbal abuse toward clients and reportedly toward the contractor's own worker (wife) was noted in multiple reviews — a serious conduct concern.

This WW Score is based on 10 reviews with 9 containing rich, specific, and independently corroborated negative detail across all four dimensions — the score of approximately 8.7 out of 100 is highly reliable and should be treated as a strong warning against engaging this contractor.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for reliable scoring. While all three reviews are positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience, the sample size is too small to produce a trustworthy aggregate score. Additionally, no reviews mention pricing or value for money, leaving a critical dimension completely unaddressed.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews provided — below minimum threshold for reliable WW Score calculation
• All reviews are from 2016 (8+ years old) — recency is severely compromised; no recent customer feedback available
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or balanced feedback — potential selection bias
• No pricing dimension mentioned in any review — cannot assess value for money or fairness of rates
• Suspiciously uniform positive tone across all reviews with generic praise language ('phenomenal,' 'highly recommend,' 'definitely call again') — possible review curation or fake review pattern

This score cannot be calculated and should not be trusted. The sample size is insufficient (3 reviews minimum required), all reviews are extremely dated (2016), and the absence of any pricing feedback combined with uniformly positive language raises concerns about review authenticity or selection bias.

This contractor receives overwhelmingly negative feedback centered on predatory pricing practices. All three reviews explicitly criticize excessive charges, hidden fees, and exploitation of customers in vulnerable situations (emergency calls, unfamiliar customers). While the plumber demonstrated basic competence by arriving quickly and completing repairs, the pricing dimension is severely compromised by consistent allegations of overcharging (service fees not honored as advertised, charges 2-3x market rate). The limited sample size and age of reviews (2014-2015) prevent a reliable WW Score calculation, but the pattern of pricing abuse is unmistakable and damaging.

• All three reviews are from 2014-2015 (8-10 years old) — recency is severely limited
• Consistent pattern across all reviews: explicit accusations of price gouging and taking advantage of customers
• Review 1 mentions failure to honor advertised service fee waiver — potential deceptive practice
• Review 2 explicitly states company 'took advantage' of customer unfamiliar with work
• Insufficient review volume (n=3) to calculate reliable WW Score
• No positive reviews present to balance assessment

This assessment cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 usable reviews is the threshold, and while we have 3, the extreme age and uniformly negative nature limit generalizability). However, the pricing dimension shows HIGH confidence of serious problems based on consistent corroboration across all available reviews. Any decision should await more recent feedback.

Only two reviews contained usable content, with one review having no text at all. The reviewers described the team as nice and the work as good and detailed, though one reviewer explicitly noted a couple of items were left unaddressed, which tempers the project completion score. Pricing was mentioned positively in one review, but a single mention carries very low confidence. The flood-response review suggests reasonable responsiveness and follow-through, but the highly enthusiastic and generic language in that review raises some concern about its specificity. All scores have been kept conservative given the extremely limited data pool.

• One of three reviews contains no text whatsoever — it cannot be scored and reduces usable data to 2 reviews.
• All reviews are older than 10 years (2012–2014), making them significantly outdated and unreliable indicators of current service quality.
• The flood-response review uses heavily enthusiastic, exclamation-heavy language with limited specific detail, which is a mild indicator of potentially inflated or generic praise.
• With only 2 usable reviews, no dimension reaches even MODERATE confidence. All scores should be treated as highly speculative.
• Per scoring rules, fewer than 3 usable reviews means a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

This score report has extremely low reliability due to only 2 usable reviews, all of which are over a decade old, providing insufficient and outdated evidence to draw any meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality of service.

Both reviews are severely negative and describe a contractor who accepted payment, performed little to no work, and abandoned jobs entirely. Professionalism is near zero — the contractor was unresponsive, made repeated false promises, and in one case sent inexperienced day laborers while the owner arrived only to collect checks. Project completion is the lowest-scoring dimension, as both reviews explicitly describe unfinished or abandoned work, with one job stretching two months beyond a two-day estimate. Pricing is also critically poor, with allegations of taking half-payment upfront without delivering work and even placing fraudulent liens on a client's property for work never completed. Experience scores marginally above zero only because initial inspections and some tile removal were performed in one case, but the second review describes multiple leaks, a burst pipe, and city inspector failures, indicating severely deficient workmanship.

• SERIOUS FRAUD ALERT: One reviewer alleges the contractor placed a lien on their property for work never completed and sold that lien to a third party — a pattern reportedly repeated against 15+ other clients per Cook County recorder of deeds records.
• ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Both reviews independently describe the contractor accepting payment and then failing to complete or continue work, suggesting a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY WARNING: Both reviews are older than 10 years (dated 2008 and 2015). Current business practices may differ, but the severity of the allegations warrants extreme caution regardless of age.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews were provided. Per WW Score Engine rules, a minimum of 3 reviews is required for a reliable WW Score calculation. All dimension scores carry LOW confidence and should not be used as definitive assessments.
• NO POSITIVE SIGNALS DETECTED: There are zero positive mentions across any dimension in either review. This is an extreme outlier pattern and should be treated as a serious warning to prospective customers.

This score assessment is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are over a decade old, making it statistically insufficient and temporally outdated — however, the severity and specificity of the fraud allegations described across both reviews means prospective customers should treat this contractor with extreme caution until substantial recent positive evidence is available.