Find Nearby Plumbers In Orland Park, Illinois

This contractor shows severe and consistent deficiencies across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by no-shows, poor communication, unprofessional behavior, and refusal to provide customer updates. Project completion is severely hampered by incomplete work, code violations, and breach of contract allegations. While pricing appears reasonable when work is completed, the overwhelming pattern of non-completion and poor workmanship dominates the assessment. Three recent 5-star reviews (2024 and 2023) provide some counterbalance, but they are vastly outweighed by four 1-star reviews citing serious failures in execution and professionalism.

• CRITICAL: Potential fake review detected — Review dated 2024-08-17 (5-star) uses suspiciously generic praise ('awesome and without flaw', 'Quick, fast and efficient') with irrelevant personal credentials (combat veteran, law enforcement) that do not substantiate plumbing quality. This appears designed to artificially inflate rating.
• PATTERN ALERT: Four 1-star reviews (2024-09-27, 2024-09-16, 2024-05-16, and implicit in others) cite identical failure modes: no-shows, incomplete work, code violations, poor communication, and unprofessional behavior. This is not isolated — it is systemic.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege code violations, breach of contract, partial payment collection, and work that required correction by certified plumbers. These are not minor complaints.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2024 (recent), while positive reviews span 2023-2024. Recent pattern suggests ongoing problems.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Explicit complaints about refusal to provide updates and no-show appointments appear in multiple reviews, indicating systemic operational failure.

This WW Score of 42.3 should be trusted with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence due to consistent negative patterns across recent reviews and multiple corroborating failure modes, though one suspicious 5-star review slightly reduces overall confidence. The contractor demonstrates serious professional and completion deficiencies that warrant caution.

Alert Plumbing has a deeply polarized review profile, with strong praise from satisfied customers offset by serious allegations from others. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and reflects a mixed picture: several reviewers praised responsiveness and attitude, while two reviews describe a pattern of ignored calls, broken promises, and deceptive behavior. Pricing is a significant concern — three reviews explicitly mention overcharging or price gouging, while two others describe fair or mid-range pricing, pulling the score down considerably. Project completion is similarly split, with one reviewer explicitly stating the job was not finished and required costly remediation, and another describing an abandoned job after a cash deposit was taken. On the positive side, technical skill and problem-solving ability were praised in several reviews, though this is partially undermined by the completion failures noted elsewhere.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: One reviewer alleges Ed accepted an $800 cash deposit and then became completely unresponsive, never completing the contracted work — this is a potential fraud/theft allegation.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: A separate reviewer states the job was not finished, cost double to fix correctly, and a promised refund was never delivered — a second independent completion failure.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (November 2023). The majority of reviews are from 2014–2018, meaning recent performance is largely unknown.
• PATTERN NOTE: The negative reviews contain specific, detailed, and credible accounts with named individuals, dates, and dollar amounts — these are treated as high-credibility signals.
• PATTERN NOTE: Some positive reviews are somewhat generic (e.g., 'fair and reasonable,' 'always my go-to') with limited specifics, though others contain enough detail to be considered credible.
• SCORE IMPACT: The cash-deposit abandonment allegation and the unfinished job allegation are weighted heavily in the project completion and professionalism scores due to their severity and specificity.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while dimension mention counts are sufficient for scoring, the review pool is small (8 reviews), spans nearly a decade with minimal recent data, and contains credible allegations of serious misconduct that materially drag down multiple dimensions.

The most recent review (Feb 2024) is a detailed, credible 1-star account describing a no-show appointment, ignored messages, and poor communication — a serious professionalism and project completion failure that significantly drags down both dimensions. The two positive reviews from 2023 describe completed jobs and satisfied customers, providing some counterbalance, but the 2024 negative experience is the most recent data point and must be weighted heavily. The experience dimension scores moderately well based on three reviews noting competent problem-solving and technical ability, though one of those reviews dates to 2020 and carries reduced recency weight. Pricing was not mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with apparent technical skill but a meaningful and documented reliability problem.

• The 2020 review is over 4 years old and carries significantly reduced recency weight under Rule 6.
• Only 4 reviews total — this is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• The most recent review (2024-02-06) is a detailed negative account of a no-show and non-response, which is the single most current data point available and is weighted accordingly.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• Two of the three positive reviews use somewhat generic praise ('no job too big or too small', 'do it right the first time') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews, though they are not flagged as definitively fake.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 4 years, with no pricing data and a significant recent negative experience; it should be considered LOW reliability and treated as a preliminary signal only — substantially more review data is needed before this score can be trusted.

The review set is deeply polarized: two strongly negative reviews describe rude, dismissive, and irresponsible behavior by the owner and a technician named Alex, while two positive reviews praise a technician named Mo for responsiveness, knowledge, and thoroughness. Professionalism is the most heavily evidenced dimension and is dragged down significantly by explicit accounts of rudeness, refusal to provide documentation, and an owner using profane language when confronted with damage he caused. Project completion is similarly mixed — Mo is credited with thorough follow-through, while Alex is accused of charging for services not rendered and the company caused unremediated water damage to a neighboring unit. Experience scores moderately because Mo received genuine praise for technical knowledge, but the broken P-trap incident in the negative review reflects a serious workmanship failure. Pricing receives the lowest score due to one explicit account of opaque, unjustified charges totaling $775 with no itemization provided.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable and directional only, not definitive.
• The two positive reviews both reference 'Mo' and the two negative reviews reference 'Alex' or the owner — this may indicate inconsistent quality between individual technicians rather than a uniform company standard.
• The most recent review is from October 2022; the oldest is from April 2018. Three of four reviews are more than 2 years old, reducing recency reliability.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific names, dates, incident details, and varied language consistent with genuine experiences.
• One review describes serious property damage (flooded unit, uninhabitable condo) caused by the company's work, with the owner explicitly refusing responsibility. This is a significant liability and ethics flag.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning over 4 years and should be considered highly unreliable — treat it as an early directional signal only, not a trustworthy assessment of current contractor quality.

A-1 Suburban Plumbing scores extremely poorly across nearly all dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of negative reviews spanning 2016 through 2022. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and the most damning: a specific office staff member named Tracey is cited repeatedly by name across multiple reviews for rude, hostile, and dismissive behavior, and the pattern is consistent enough across years to indicate a systemic cultural problem rather than isolated incidents. Project completion is catastrophically poor, with multiple reviewers documenting repeated no-shows, missed appointments, abandoned jobs mid-service, failure to follow up after collecting payment, and work that caused additional damage rather than resolving the original issue. Pricing received a low score due to documented overcharging, a near-tripling of an estimate on one job, double-billing for a sewer rodding, and a lack of transparent quotes. Experience scores slightly higher than the other dimensions only because a small number of reviewers noted that individual plumbers on-site were knowledgeable or polite, but this is heavily offset by documented misdiagnosis of a sewer issue and incomplete or damaging workmanship.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR OUTLIER REVIEW: The 5-star review from 2016-01-07 uses nearly identical language ('Honest plumbers are hard to find!') to the opening line of a 1-star review from 2022-06-17. This phrasing match is suspicious and may indicate a planted positive review or copied template.
• STAFF-SPECIFIC PATTERN: The name 'Tracey' appears as a rude supervisor/scheduler in at least 4 separate reviews across 2017–2019, indicating a persistent and unresolved staffing problem that management appears aware of but has not addressed.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews are from 2016–2022, with the most recent being November 2022. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2023–2024 analysis window) are present, meaning current performance cannot be assessed.
• PAYMENT WITHOUT SERVICE: Multiple reviewers paid service call fees ($60–$300) and received no completed work and no follow-up, which may constitute a consumer protection concern.
• LICENSING FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the company is 'not licensed and bonded,' which if accurate is a serious legal and safety concern. This could not be verified from reviews alone but warrants independent verification.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: At least 4 reviews describe the company collecting payment and then going completely silent, never returning calls or completing the job. This is a consistent and serious pattern.

This WW Score is based on 20 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable and trustworthy reflection of this contractor's performance, strongly indicating that A-1 Suburban Plumbing poses significant risk to consumers across professionalism, pricing transparency, and job completion.

This contractor receives consistently poor ratings across all dimensions. All four reviews explicitly cite severe pricing issues, with customers reporting dramatic quote-to-final-bill discrepancies ($1,000 quoted vs. $4,000 charged; $7,000 estimate rejected for $1,500 elsewhere). Project completion is compromised by incomplete work requiring multiple callbacks, ignored issues, and poor workmanship (incorrectly installed pipes, below-standard installations). Professionalism is severely lacking, with poor communication, ignored calls, unannounced charges, and dismissive behavior. Technical execution shows deficiencies in plumbing installation quality. The WW Score of 18.8 reflects a contractor with fundamental business and service delivery problems.

• All four reviews are 1-star ratings with highly negative language and specific allegations of fraud, overcharging, and poor workmanship
• Multiple reviews cite dramatic pricing discrepancies (quotes vs. final charges), suggesting potential predatory billing practices
• Consistent pattern across reviews of incomplete work requiring additional paid callbacks for issues that should have been addressed initially
• Reviews span from June 2023 to August 2024, indicating ongoing problems over time rather than isolated incidents
• While language is emphatic, reviews contain specific, detailed examples (valve replacement, copper piping, dishwasher valve, sump pump work) that suggest genuine customer experiences rather than fabricated complaints
• No positive reviews present to balance assessment; sample size is small (4 reviews) which limits statistical confidence despite consistency of negative findings

This WW Score should be treated as highly reliable within the context of available data. All four reviews consistently document serious deficiencies in pricing transparency, project completion, and professionalism with specific examples. However, the small sample size (4 reviews) means this assessment reflects only these particular customers' experiences and should ideally be validated against additional recent reviews before making final contractor decisions.