Find Nearby Plumbers In Orland Park, Illinois

Bullseye Heating receives strong praise from many customers for responsiveness, reasonable pricing, and knowledgeable service, with multiple reviewers highlighting same-day availability and fair rates. However, the review set contains meaningful negative signals that cannot be ignored: one reviewer was charged $179 for a $17.99 thermostat, representing a significant markup that directly contradicts the pricing praise from other reviewers. A faulty humidifier installation led to a furnace failure on the coldest night of the year, with the customer receiving no warranty response from Phil, raising serious project completion and workmanship concerns. Additionally, one reviewer reported rude treatment of an elderly family member and failure to honor advertised 24-hour emergency service. These negative reviews, while fewer in number, describe specific, credible incidents that meaningfully drag down scores across all dimensions.

• PRICING CONFLICT: Multiple reviews praise reasonable pricing, but one reviewer (2016) reports being charged $179 for a thermostat retailing at $17.99 — a nearly 10x markup. These contradictory signals reduce pricing score confidence.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: A 2013 review describes a faulty humidifier installation that caused a furnace failure, with a second technician identifying multiple installation errors. Phil did not respond to warranty inquiries, suggesting possible abandonment of a defective job.
• SERVICE PROMISE FAILURE: A 2021 review reports that Phil advertises 24-hour service but refused a nighttime call in freezing weather, leaving a household without heat overnight. This is a direct contradiction between advertised and delivered service.
• RECENCY NOTE: Three of the four negative or mixed reviews are from 2013–2021. The two most recent reviews (2024 and 2023) are positive. There is a possible improvement trend, but the older negative reviews describe serious issues that cannot be dismissed.
• REVIEW VOLUME: Only 10 reviews span over a decade of business. This is a low volume for a long-operating contractor, which limits statistical confidence in any direction.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating. No suspicious patterns of identical phrasing or coordinated generic praise were identified.

This WW Score is based on 10 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries moderate-to-high reliability, but the presence of specific, credible negative reviews describing overcharging, a failed installation, and a broken service promise means the score should be treated as a genuine mixed signal rather than a strong endorsement.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile. The majority of positive reviews are older (2015–2017), praising punctuality, communication, reasonable pricing, and quality workmanship across plumbing, electrical, and remodeling projects. However, two detailed and credible negative reviews from 2022 and 2023 describe serious issues including dishonest pricing, post-job cost disputes, subpar subcontractors, incomplete or poor-quality work, and aggressive behavior from the owner when questioned. These recent negative reviews carry elevated weight due to recency and drag all four dimensions down significantly. The contrast between the older glowing reviews and the more recent critical ones suggests a possible decline in service quality or management over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2015–2017, making them 6–9 years old. The two most recent substantive reviews (2022 and 2023) are both 1-star with serious complaints. Recent performance appears to be significantly worse than historical performance.
• PRICING INTEGRITY FLAG: Two independent reviewers explicitly allege dishonest or inflated pricing and post-completion cost disputes. One reviewer was quoted $400 for a job an insurance adjuster valued at $70. This is a significant red flag for price transparency.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: Multiple recent reviews describe workers who had to return to fix errors, subpar subcontractors unfamiliar with the work, and poor finishing quality including paint, drywall, and cleanup.
• CONDUCT FLAG: Two separate reviewers independently report the owner becoming angry, defensive, and using profanity when questioned about costs or work quality. This is a consistent behavioral pattern, not an isolated incident.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW SKEW: Several 5-star reviews from 2016–2017 share similar generic praise language and two were posted on the exact same date (2017-03-02). While not conclusive, this warrants mild caution about the authenticity of the older positive review cluster.
• SUBCONTRACTOR RISK: Two reviewers allege the company used undertrained subcontractors who did not know how to perform the assigned work, suggesting inconsistent quality control.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence based on mention volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the sharp quality decline suggested by recent reviews — prospective customers should weight the 2022–2023 reviews most heavily when making a hiring decision.

Goodberlet demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with many customers praising courteous technicians, prompt service, and knowledgeable staff. However, the company is significantly undermined by persistent pricing concerns—numerous reviews explicitly cite overcharging, inflated parts costs, lack of transparency in quotes, and prices substantially higher than competitors. Project completion shows mixed results, with some customers reporting excellent follow-through but others describing abandoned work, no-shows, and unresolved issues. The stark divide between recent 5-star reviews (mostly 2025) and older 1-star reviews (2011–2023) suggests either significant operational changes or potential review authenticity concerns.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 35 of 75 reviews are dated 2025-04-10 through 2025-06-09 (past 2 months), with 28 being 5-star ratings with minimal detail or generic praise ('Great service', 'Thank you', empty text fields). This clustering is atypical and raises authenticity concerns.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain no text, only 5-star ratings. These provide no actionable data and suggest potential review padding.
• POLARIZED SENTIMENT: Stark bifurcation between recent glowing reviews and older detailed negative reviews (2011–2023) describing serious issues (gas leaks, overcharging, no-shows, refusal to complete work). This pattern warrants skepticism about recent review authenticity.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple detailed reviews (2015–2020) describe systematic overcharging—parts marked up 300–600%, quotes not honored, estimates inflated. One customer reported a $324 igniter charge when the part cost $47–65. Another paid $610 estimate vs. $200 actual parts cost. These are not isolated complaints.
• SAFETY CONCERNS: One 2020 review describes three separate major gas leaks from improper fittings, gas line buried only 5.5–8 inches deep (should be 18–24 inches), and spliced/coupled lines—serious safety violations.
• ABANDONMENT & NO-SHOWS: Multiple reviews describe dropped jobs ('Dropped fast from a job for higher paying project'), no-shows without notice, and refusal to complete promised work (trenching, repairs).
• CONDESCENDING BEHAVIOR: Several reviews describe rude, dismissive technicians and office staff, including one tech who mocked a customer for attempting troubleshooting.
• RECENCY BIAS: Recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive with minimal detail; older reviews (2011–2023) are detailed and overwhelmingly negative. This temporal inversion is a red flag for review manipulation or significant but undocumented operational changes.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the calculated score of 62.8 reflects the full dataset, the recent flood of generic 5-star reviews (35 in 2 months, many with no text) creates serious authenticity concerns that artificially inflate the score. The older, detailed negative reviews (2011–2023) describe systematic overcharging, safety violations, and abandonment—patterns that appear credible and specific. The company's professionalism and technical skill are genuine strengths, but pricing practices and project follow-through are significant weaknesses. Prospective customers should heavily weight the detailed negative reviews and request itemized quotes in writing before engaging this contractor.

Dee Plumbing shows strong professionalism and technical skill based on explicit mentions of responsiveness, courtesy, and quality workmanship across multiple reviews. However, a critical 2008 billing dispute involving a double-charge attempt with poor communication significantly undermines trust. Project completion appears solid with repeat business and multi-day work completed successfully. The extremely limited review volume (4 total) and heavy recency bias (3 of 4 reviews are 16+ years old) severely constrain confidence in this score.

• CRITICAL: Serious billing integrity issue in 2008 review — double-charge attempt and non-responsiveness to customer complaint. This is a major red flag for business practices.
• SEVERE RECENCY PROBLEM: 75% of reviews (3 of 4) are from 2005–2008, over 16 years old. Only 1 recent review from 2021. Current business practices cannot be reliably assessed.
• VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total. Statistically insufficient for reliable scoring.
• CAPS-LOCK REVIEWS: Two reviews (2005 dates) are entirely in caps, suggesting possible data entry artifacts or low-quality review sources.

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution. The small sample size, severe age bias, and a documented billing dispute create substantial uncertainty about current service quality and trustworthiness.

Red Hot Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile: a cluster of enthusiastic 5-star reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and completed work sits alongside a serious set of 1-star reviews documenting no-shows, ghosting, misdiagnosis, incomplete work, permit violations, and an explicit offer to commit insurance fraud. The positive reviews are largely from 2022 and early-to-mid 2023, while the most damaging reviews are concentrated in late 2023 and 2024, suggesting a meaningful decline in service quality over time. Project completion is the most heavily penalized dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing abandoned jobs, work not done to code, and failure to honor commitments. The insurance fraud allegation raised independently by two separate reviewers in the same time period is an extremely serious flag that significantly undermines trust in this contractor.

• SERIOUS FLAG: Two independent reviewers (Sept 2024) both describe the owner 'Brandon' offering to write an inflated estimate so 'we both could make some money' — this is an explicit offer to commit insurance fraud and represents a major integrity concern.
• PERMIT VIOLATION FLAG: At least one reviewer confirmed via their alderman's office that no permit was pulled for a sewer line job in Chicago, and the work was reportedly not up to City of Chicago code (PVC used where prohibited).
• GHOSTING PATTERN: Multiple reviewers across different time periods (2023, 2024) describe being completely ghosted after scheduling — no-shows with no communication from both technicians and the owner Brandon personally.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW FLAG: Reviews dated 2024-07-28 and 2024-07-30 appear to be nearly identical in content from what may be the same reviewer submitted twice, or two separate people with nearly identical experiences. Treated as two separate mentions but flagged for awareness.
• RECENCY DECLINE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2022 and early 2023. The majority of negative reviews are from late 2023 and 2024. This suggests a significant and recent decline in service quality that should weigh heavily on current hiring decisions.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews use vague, generic praise with limited specifics (e.g., 'amazing job,' 'honest and quick'). While not conclusive, combined with the sharp positive/negative split and recency pattern, some positive reviews may not reflect current business practices.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least two negative reviewers explicitly describe being given incorrect diagnoses that led to unnecessary or incomplete work, raising concerns about technical competence in complex jobs.
• SECOND YELP PROFILE: Multiple reviewers reference a second Yelp profile for this business, which may be used to dilute or obscure negative reviews — a known reputation management tactic.

This WW Score is based on 28 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be interpreted with serious caution due to credible allegations of insurance fraud, permit violations, a clear pattern of ghosting and non-completion, and a sharp negative trend in the most recent reviews from 2023–2024.

Birk Plumbing receives generally positive marks for responsiveness, friendliness, and willingness to accommodate urgent or last-minute jobs, which lifted professionalism and project completion scores. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern: three separate reviews — spanning multiple years — explicitly describe billing surprises, charges that exceeded verbal quotes, undisclosed trip charges, and an owner unwilling to negotiate or be transparent. This pattern of opaque billing practices significantly dragged down the pricing dimension. Experience scores moderately well, with at least two reviewers explicitly praising the technical skill of the plumbers sent, though the sample is small. Overall, the contractor appears capable on the job site but has a documented and consistent problem with billing transparency that prospective customers should take seriously.

• PRICING CONCERN — RECURRING PATTERN: Three independent reviews across different years (2013, 2019, 2020) describe billing amounts that exceeded quoted prices, undisclosed charges, and lack of itemized invoices. This is not an isolated complaint and represents a systemic issue.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total. Scores should be treated with caution. The WW Score is directionally useful but not statistically robust.
• RECENCY WARNING: Three of the five reviews are from 2017 or earlier (2013, 2017, 2019). Only two reviews are from 2020 or later. The score may not reflect current business practices.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating. No suspicious patterns of identical phrasing or generic praise were identified.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review sample, significant recency gaps, and a strong recurring negative signal on pricing that materially affects trustworthiness of the overall score.