Find Nearby Plumbers In Peoria, Illinois

Cranford Plumbing has a mixed record across only 3 reviews spanning nearly a decade. Professionalism scores moderately — two reviewers praised responsiveness and reliability, while one noted the owner answered the phone personally and arrived same-day; however, the negative reviewer's complaint about Mr. Cranford refusing to itemize or explain pricing reflects a significant professionalism concern. Pricing is the weakest dimension: one reviewer praised fair pricing, one cited a reasonable $750 water heater replacement, but a third described a $3,800 invoice for a job where only ~$2,250 could be accounted for, alleging over $1,550 in unexplained charges — a serious red flag. Project completion scores reasonably as all jobs appear to have been finished, with punctuality noted positively in two reviews. Experience receives a conservative limited-confidence score based on two brief mentions of competence with no detailed workmanship descriptions.

• RECENCY WARNING: Two of three reviews are from 2015 — nearly a decade old. Only one review (2023) is recent. The WW Score is heavily influenced by outdated data and should be treated with caution.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly alleged that Mr. Cranford refused to disclose the unit cost and that over $1,550 was unaccounted for on a $3,800 invoice. This is a substantive complaint, not a vague dissatisfaction.
• VERY LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. No statistically reliable conclusions can be drawn. Score should be considered preliminary only.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating — no signs of coordinated or fabricated reviews.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 3 reviews, two of which are approximately 9 years old, and a significant unresolved pricing transparency complaint that materially impacts the pricing dimension.

Bill's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension and is significantly dragged down by multiple credible complaints of no-shows, failure to return calls, rude behavior, and abandoning customers mid-job — including a 2024 review and a 2023 review that are recent and damaging. Project completion is similarly troubled, with several reviews describing incomplete repairs, return visits that never happened, and work that failed within days. On the positive side, a meaningful cluster of older reviews (2013–2019) describe prompt, courteous, and skilled service, and pricing is generally described as fair or affordable by those who mention it. However, the volume and specificity of negative reviews — particularly around responsiveness and follow-through — prevent any dimension from scoring above 70.

• 12 reviews consist of only '.' or 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and zero substantive content — these are likely fake or placeholder reviews and have been excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2017 and 2016 are suspiciously generic ('It went very well.', 'Outstanding', 'Pretty good') with no detail — treated as low-signal and given minimal weight.
• One review (2017-06-10) mentions servicing air conditioners and furnaces, which appears to be a review for a different business entirely — this was excluded from dimension scoring.
• The most recent substantive reviews (2024, 2023) are both 1-star and describe serious failures in responsiveness and project completion, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• Recency warning: The majority of positive, detailed reviews are from 2013–2019. Reviews from 2020 onward skew heavily negative, which is a significant concern for current service reliability.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the mention counts are sufficient to generate scores, but the heavy presence of content-free placeholder reviews, the recency of serious negative complaints, and the apparent decline in service quality over time mean prospective customers should weight the most recent 1-star reviews heavily when making a hiring decision.

B&L Plumbing's review corpus reveals a deeply polarized reputation, with pricing being the single most damaging dimension across the entire dataset. Pricing complaints are pervasive, specific, and credible — multiple reviewers cite bait-and-switch quoting, dramatic on-site price escalations, and charges that imply effective hourly rates of $300–$400+, driving the pricing score to a very low 28. Professionalism is mixed: individual technicians (Jeremy, Nick Coleman, Tom, Cecil, John) frequently receive praise for courtesy, punctuality, and communication, but this is offset by multiple serious incidents involving rude or threatening technician behavior, unprofessional appearance, and management failing to return complaint calls. Project completion is moderate — most jobs that were agreed upon were finished, but there are notable failures including a misdiagnosed leak with no follow-up, a no-show appointment with no communication, and a job where the agreed scope of work was not performed. Technical experience scores reasonably well among reviewers who comment on it, with several praising skilled troubleshooting and clean workmanship, though one review describes a misdiagnosis that cost the customer significantly.

• PRICING PATTERN — The most consistent and specific negative signal across this dataset is deceptive or dramatically inconsistent pricing. At least 10 reviews independently describe being quoted one price by phone and charged significantly more on-site, or being shocked by the final bill relative to time and parts involved. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• TECHNICIAN CONDUCT — At least 2 reviews describe technicians behaving in a threatening or hostile manner when customers disputed charges (Kevin in the 2022 review, and the unnamed senior tech in the 2021 review). One review describes a technician smelling strongly of cigarette smoke and using foul language around children.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE — Multiple reviewers report that complaints were not returned by management despite repeated attempts (2017 water heater no-show review, 2021 drain review). This suggests a systemic customer service failure at the management level.
• ALLEGED THEFT — One review (2018) alleges a technician stole copper tubing from the property. This is a serious allegation and, while unverified, warrants flagging.
• RECENCY NOTE — The four most recent reviews (June 2024) are all 5-star and relatively brief. While not conclusively fake, they lack the specificity of older positive reviews and stand in contrast to the more detailed negative reviews from 2018–2023. Confidence in these four reviews is reduced.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN — The three reviews dated 2024-06-28 are extremely brief, all 5-star, and posted on the same day. One is nearly identical in structure to another ('professional,' 'timely manner,' 'reasonable price'). These may be inauthentic and have been weighted conservatively.
• RECENCY OF NEGATIVE REVIEWS — The most detailed and credible negative reviews span 2018–2024, indicating the pricing and conduct issues are not historical anomalies but ongoing concerns.

This WW Score is based on 34 reviews with a high volume of dimension-specific mentions and is considered moderately reliable overall, but the score should be interpreted with caution given the strong systemic pricing complaints, credible allegations of deceptive quoting practices, and the possibility that the June 2024 same-day 5-star reviews may not be authentic.

This company shows a stark divide in customer experience. Professionalism scores are mixed—some customers praise prompt, courteous service and reliability over decades, while others report poor communication, lack of follow-up, and messy work. Pricing is a critical weakness, with multiple customers reporting inflated bills, unexplained charges, and dishonest labor hour padding. Project completion is severely compromised by reports of abandoned work and unfinished callbacks. Technical experience appears solid when work is completed, but this is overshadowed by systemic issues in billing transparency and project follow-through.

• CRITICAL: Billing fraud pattern detected across multiple reviews (2023, 2018)—customers report 2-3 hours of labor charges for work never performed and unexplained invoice padding. This is a serious red flag.
• Project abandonment reported: Review from 2023-04-28 explicitly states 'They start projects and don't come back to finish' with unresponsive management (Brad Dunlap).
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews are from 2022-2023 (recent), while positive reviews are older (2019-2022). This suggests deteriorating service quality over time.
• Inconsistent service quality: Positive reviews emphasize reliability and professionalism; negative reviews describe dishonesty and poor accountability. This inconsistency warrants caution.
• Communication failures: Multiple reviews cite lack of explanation, no follow-up calls, and poor customer service responsiveness.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust. While the sample size is small (7 reviews), the pattern of billing dishonesty and project abandonment in recent reviews is concerning and suggests systemic operational issues that outweigh isolated positive experiences from loyal long-term customers.

The review set is deeply mixed, with a significant number of negative experiences pulling scores down across all dimensions. Professionalism suffers from multiple accounts of rude phone staff, a plumber arriving 4 hours late, and a manager who blamed the customer for a miscommunication. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with several reviewers explicitly calling out excessive charges — including $450 to fix a drip, $546 for a cartridge and handle, and hundreds spent on unnecessary pipe replacement — though a small number of reviewers praised fair or competitive pricing. Project completion is inconsistent: some jobs required callbacks because the first technician did not complete the work properly, while others praised fast and thorough service. Experience scores moderately, with a handful of reviewers praising skilled and knowledgeable technicians like Ryan and Todd, but offset by accounts of misdiagnosis, misinformation, and incomplete work.

• Three reviews contain only 'unknown' or a single period ('.') as review text with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Two reviews are dated 2016 or earlier and several others range from 2011–2019, meaning the majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2024-01-27). Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months of the most recent review. Scores may not reflect current service quality.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though several 5-star reviews are vague or lack specific detail. The presence of detailed negative reviews adds credibility to the overall dataset.
• One review references a specific employee ('Dennis') engaging in potentially deceptive pricing practices and misrepresenting warranty coverage — this is a serious ethical flag.
• One review alleges a plumber took advantage of a resident with an intellectual disability to authorize unauthorized work — this is a significant ethical and legal concern that warrants serious attention.
• One review alleges a promised refund was later rescinded by the owner after a manager had committed to it — indicating potential management integrity issues.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while the mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence across all dimensions, the heavy skew toward older reviews (many from 2011–2019) and only 2 reviews within the past 12 months means this score may not accurately reflect the contractor's current performance.

TravCo Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with stark contrasts between older positive reviews (2013–2019) and recent negative reviews (2021–2022). Recent reviews consistently cite project abandonment, non-responsiveness, incomplete work, and overcharging for partial jobs. While older reviews praise professionalism and responsiveness, the company's recent track record demonstrates serious failures in follow-through and communication. The WW Score of 54.3 reflects significant reliability concerns driven primarily by poor project completion and pricing issues in the most recent feedback.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All negative reviews (1–3 stars) are from 2019–2022; all positive reviews (5 stars) are from 2013–2019. This suggests a significant decline in service quality over time.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Multiple recent reviews (2021–2022) explicitly describe incomplete work and failure to follow up after initial service or quote promises.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS: Two recent reviews (2022, 2021) specifically mention inability to reach the company by phone or email after work was initiated or promised.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Recent reviews cite overcharging for incomplete work ($1,675 for a hole that was abandoned; $256 for unresolved water softener issue).
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The 2013 review contains unusually detailed praise with specific names, titles, and BBB reference; the 2018 review is generic with no specifics. However, these are older and less concerning given the consistent negative pattern in recent reviews.
• SAMPLE SIZE LIMITATION: Only 8 reviews total; recent negative cluster is small (4 reviews) but consistent in themes.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution: while the recent negative reviews are consistent and specific in their complaints, the total sample size is small. The dramatic decline from 2013–2019 positive reviews to 2021–2022 negative reviews suggests a real deterioration in service quality rather than random variation. Prospective customers should heavily weight the recent reviews and verify current responsiveness before engaging this company.