Find Nearby Plumbers In Peoria, Illinois

Bailey Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across a large review base. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a cluster of 1-star reviews dated 2025-03-11 — many of which are blank or contain only brief hostile phrases — alongside credible complaints about no-shows, poor communication, and at least one allegation of discriminatory treatment. Pricing is the weakest dimension: a substantial and consistent pattern of complaints across multiple years describes quotes that are 2x–5x competitors' prices, commissioned-based upselling, non-transparent fees, and in some cases alleged predatory targeting of elderly customers. Project completion is moderate-positive among reviews that describe completed work, but is undermined by multiple credible accounts of no-shows, abandoned estimates, and failure to follow through on scheduling commitments. Experience scores are relatively stronger, with many detailed positive reviews praising specific technicians (Elijah, JJ, Randy, Joe, David) for skill and problem-solving, though offset by a few accounts of misdiagnosis and poor workmanship.

• SUSPECTED REVIEW BOMBING: A cluster of approximately 20+ reviews all dated 2025-03-11 are 1-star with either blank text or extremely brief hostile phrases ('Terrible people!!', 'Horrible company', 'WORST COMPANY EVER AND RACIST'). This pattern is highly consistent with a coordinated negative review campaign, possibly triggered by a labor or discrimination dispute referenced in several reviews (wrongful termination of workers, discrimination allegations). These reviews should be treated with caution but cannot be fully dismissed as some reference a specific incident.
• SUSPECTED FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews dated 2025-03-11 use generic, non-specific praise with no job details and appear to directly counter the negative cluster on the same date ('Great reputable company! Don't be afraid to call them', 'Professional, Honest, Friendly. SO Helpful'). One review (2024-10-16) reads 'Best plumber in town. I love bailey plumbing. Bailey plumbing is the very best. Sjjsjdjdjsjjs' — the nonsense characters strongly suggest a fake or test review. Confidence in 5-star reviews from the March 2025 cluster is reduced.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CONSISTENT AND CREDIBLE: Unlike the review-bomb cluster, pricing complaints span from 2013 through 2025 across many different reviewers with specific dollar amounts cited. Multiple reviewers independently obtained second quotes and found Bailey's prices to be 2x–5x higher. This is a structural business pattern, not a one-off complaint.
• PREDATORY UPSELLING ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviews (2023-12-21, 2024-09-27, 2023-08-07, 2024-08-10, 2022-11-02) describe technicians pushing unnecessary full replacements or inflated scopes of work. The elderly scam allegation (2024-08-10) is particularly serious.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Credible no-show complaints span from 2011 through 2025, suggesting a persistent operational issue with scheduling reliability, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2023–2025 and are given full weight. Reviews from 2010–2018 are present but given reduced weight in scoring due to age.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (155 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced due to a suspected coordinated review-bombing campaign in March 2025 and suspected fake positive reviews on the same date; the pricing and no-show concerns are corroborated by independent, detailed reviews spanning over a decade and are considered highly credible.

Arnold and Sons presents a deeply split profile: a large bloc of recent 5-star reviews praises individual technicians by name for professionalism, communication, and timely service, while a substantial and persistent thread of negative reviews spanning over a decade consistently accuses the company of grossly inflated pricing, upselling unnecessary work, and bait-and-switch advertising tactics. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with dozens of reviewers independently describing quotes that were two to ten times what competitors charged for identical work — this pattern is too consistent and specific to dismiss. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were finished well, but multiple reviewers report incomplete work, callbacks not honored, and at least one incident where a fire was started due to technician negligence. Professionalism scores moderately because individual technicians frequently receive genuine praise, but owner-level conduct (yelling at customers, refusing refunds, ignoring complaints) and repeated failures of the after-hours emergency line drag the score down significantly. Experience is above average when technicians engage fully, but several reviews describe technicians refusing to attempt work or misdiagnosing problems that competitors resolved quickly and cheaply.

• SUSPECTED REVIEW CLUSTERING: A large number of 5-star reviews are dated within a very narrow window (2025-06-03 through 2025-06-09), many with minimal detail ('Highly recommended', 'Great worker', 'Kendrick and Levi did a great job'). This clustering pattern is consistent with a coordinated review push and warrants skepticism.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text at all but carry 5-star ratings. These provide no usable data and inflate the star average artificially.
• PRICING PATTERN — SYSTEMIC OVERCHARGING: At least 15 independent reviewers across multiple years (2010–2025) describe quotes that were 2x–10x competitor prices for identical work. This is not isolated; it reflects a documented business model of by-the-job pricing from a proprietary binder with no upfront rate disclosure.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH ADVERTISING: Multiple reviewers explicitly describe the '$99 drain special' as misleading, with technicians refusing to honor it for anything other than main sewer lines despite website language suggesting broader applicability.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE FAILURES: At least 3 reviews (2013, 2014, 2017) describe the after-hours emergency line failing to dispatch a technician despite promises, leaving homeowners with active flooding situations unresolved overnight.
• SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (2021) describes technicians starting a fire in a customer's home due to failure to follow written safety procedures before performing hot work. This is a serious liability flag.
• HARASSMENT PATTERN: At least 2 reviewers (2025) independently report being unable to be removed from the company's mailing list despite multiple requests, with one threatening legal action.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2025 and may reflect a reputation management campaign. Negative reviews span 2010–2025 consistently, suggesting the pricing and upselling issues are structural and long-standing rather than resolved.

The WW Score of 62.1 is based on a high volume of reviews and carries HIGH data confidence, but should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of a coordinated positive review push in June 2025, multiple blank reviews inflating star ratings, and a decade-long pattern of pricing complaints that is too consistent and specific to be dismissed as outliers.

Schlueter Plumbing shows a deeply polarized customer experience with stark contrasts between highly satisfied and severely dissatisfied clients. Positive reviews (7 five-star ratings) consistently praise professionalism, punctuality, fair pricing, and technical competence. However, four one-star reviews reveal critical failures: incomplete work with unauthorized charges ($3,000 charged without completion), repeated no-shows (6 missed appointments), loose faucet installations that damaged pipes, and defensive customer service that resulted in firing a customer. The most recent negative review (June 2024) indicates ongoing quality and service issues. While the company demonstrates strong capabilities when executing work, reliability in scheduling, installation quality, and financial integrity are significant concerns that substantially lower overall trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL: Unauthorized charge of $3,000 on customer credit card without work completion (Nov 2022 review) — potential fraud or severe billing practice violation
• CRITICAL: Pattern of no-shows — customer reported 6 scheduled appointments with 5 instances of discovering cancellation only after calling an hour past appointment time (June 2019)
• Quality control issue: Multiple reports of loose faucet installations that failed or caused pipe damage; defensive manager response when customer complained
• Customer service failure: Company 'fired' customer for complaining about defective work, indicating poor conflict resolution
• Recency concern: Most positive reviews are from 2016–2019; most recent reviews (2024, 2023, 2022) are predominantly negative or mixed, suggesting service degradation over time
• Inconsistency: Stark polarization between 5-star and 1-star reviews with little middle ground suggests either highly variable service quality or potential review authenticity issues

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization and serious red flags including unauthorized charges, chronic no-shows, and quality control failures in recent reviews; while the company demonstrates technical competence when work is completed, systemic issues with reliability, integrity, and customer service significantly undermine confidence in overall trustworthiness.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency in service delivery. While positive reviews highlight excellent workmanship, fair pricing, and professional demeanor, multiple negative reviews cite critical failures in responsiveness and follow-through—specifically no-shows and failure to return calls during emergencies. The positive reviews are detailed and specific, but the negative reviews reveal a pattern of communication breakdown that directly impacts project completion and professionalism. The most recent negative review (2021) suggests ongoing issues. Strong technical skills are evident, but reliability concerns substantially lower the overall score.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 5+ years old (2015-2019), while the most recent review (2021) is negative, suggesting potential service degradation over time.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (3 of 8) explicitly mention failure to respond to calls or show up—this is a critical reliability issue that contradicts the positive reviews.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews with specific details and damning 1-star reviews citing non-responsiveness suggests either significant service variability or possible scheduling/communication system failures.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 8 reviews total limits confidence in overall assessment; recommend collecting more recent data.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, significant recency bias toward older positive reviews, and a clear pattern of communication/responsiveness failures that contradict claims of professionalism—the WW Score reflects genuine inconsistency in service delivery rather than reliable quality.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across projects and time periods. Recent detailed reviews (2021-2022) reveal severe deficiencies in communication, project management, and workmanship quality, with projects running 2-4 weeks over promised timelines and incomplete work requiring customer follow-up. Older reviews (2012-2016) predominantly show 5-star ratings with minimal detail, suggesting potential review inflation. When substantive feedback is provided, professionalism and completion issues dominate complaints. Experience scores are supported by positive workmanship mentions in older reviews, but recent projects demonstrate poor quality control and lack of oversight. The contractor's responsiveness and accountability have deteriorated significantly.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 13 reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', or single-word responses with no substantive content. These appear between 2015-2016 and lack credibility.
• TEMPORAL BIAS: Older reviews (2012-2016) are predominantly 5-star with generic praise; recent reviews (2021-2022) are 1-2 stars with detailed, specific complaints. This suggests either service quality decline or review manipulation.
• CONSISTENCY ISSUE: Two nearly identical detailed negative reviews from March 2021 (same date range, same project, nearly identical wording) suggest possible duplicate submission rather than independent feedback.
• CREDIBILITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews with ratings but no text content (5 instances) inflate apparent review count without providing evidence.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Recent reviews document false BBB membership claims, worker intoxication on job, safety violations (exposed electrical box causing water damage), unprofessional threats, and billing for work not completed.

This score should be treated with caution. While based on 31 reviews, approximately 42% contain no usable detail, and recent substantive reviews (2021-2022) paint a dramatically different picture than older generic 5-star ratings. The WW Score of 62.8 is driven down by credible recent complaints but artificially supported by undated/unverified older reviews. Recommend prioritizing the detailed 2021-2022 feedback as more reliable indicators of current service quality.

Burton Plumbing has a deeply polarized review profile: a cluster of enthusiastic 5-star reviews praising professionalism, punctuality, and quality work is offset by several serious 1-star complaints involving overcharging, upselling, incomplete work, and unresponsiveness. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible complaints about inconsistent quotes, charges far exceeding estimates, and allegations of scamming vulnerable customers. Project completion is also significantly dragged down by a no-show incident, an incomplete sink installation, a botched toilet install that caused structural damage, and a $5,000 repair that failed to solve the problem. Professionalism scores moderately due to many positive mentions of courtesy and punctuality, but is undermined by documented instances of no-call no-shows, unanswered callbacks, and dismissive behavior. Experience scores similarly mixed, with many reviewers praising skill but at least two reviews describing serious workmanship failures.

• SUSPECTED DUPLICATE REVIEW: Reviews dated 2023-09-29 (one at 15:25:20, one at 00:00:00) are word-for-word identical. This is a strong indicator of a fake or artificially duplicated review. One instance has been discounted in scoring.
• REVIEW CLUSTER CONCERN: A large number of 5-star reviews are dated within a very narrow window (2021-12-01 through 2021-12-04), with generic praise, no specific job details, and no mention of pricing or problems. This pattern is consistent with solicited or inauthentic reviews and reduces confidence in the positive signals.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2022–2024) skew negative, including overcharging, a no-show, and upselling allegations. The positive reviews are predominantly from 2021 or earlier, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• ELDER EXPLOITATION ALLEGATION: One review (2022-08-02) alleges that a customer with early-stage dementia was upsold a year-long contract and that cancellation and reimbursement requests were ignored. This is a serious ethical and legal concern.
• STRUCTURAL DAMAGE COMPLAINT: A 2012 review describes a botched toilet installation causing subfloor rot and a failed housing inspection, with no returned calls. While old, this complaint is specific and credible.
• BLANK REVIEW: One review (2016-03-28) contains only a period with a 5-star rating and no usable content. It was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while there are enough reviews to calculate a score, the presence of suspected duplicate and clustered fake reviews, a sharp negative trend in recent reviews, and serious allegations of financial misconduct and workmanship failures mean this score should be interpreted cautiously — prospective customers should weight the 2022–2024 negative reviews heavily.