Find Nearby Plumbers In Peoria, Illinois

Tiger Plumbing, Heating, A/C, and Electrical Services receives a below-average WW Score of 42.3, driven primarily by severe pricing concerns and mixed project completion outcomes. While technicians frequently demonstrate professional demeanor and technical competence, the company is overwhelmingly criticized for extreme price gouging, with hundreds of reviews documenting quotes 3-10x higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion is inconsistent, with numerous reports of incomplete work, follow-up failures, and quality issues requiring third-party remediation. Professionalism scores are dragged down by aggressive sales tactics, pressure to purchase unnecessary services, and poor communication regarding scheduling and follow-ups.

• SEVERE PRICING ABUSE: 156 mentions of overpricing detected. Systematic pattern of inflated estimates (e.g., $9,000-$12,000 quotes reduced to $300-$750 by competitors). Multiple reviews document quotes 10x market rate.
• PREDATORY SALES PRACTICES: High-pressure upselling, scare tactics about safety/code violations, targeting elderly/vulnerable customers, and aggressive financing offers (9.99% APR) documented across 80+ reviews.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: 98 mentions reveal incomplete work, abandoned jobs, technicians not returning, broken promises, and customers forced to hire other companies to finish or fix Tiger's work.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE SCAM: Multiple reviews (15+) report $99 'diagnostic/fuel surcharge' fees charged without clear consent, with threats of liens on homes if not paid.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Documented cases of incorrect diagnoses, missed problems, broken equipment left in customer homes, damage to property (holes in ceilings/walls), and poor cleanup.
• MEMBERSHIP/CONTRACT TRAP: 20+ reviews report difficulty canceling monthly service plans ($19-$35/month), continued billing after cancellation requests, and 30-day cancellation delays.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: 40+ reviews cite missed appointments, no-shows, technicians arriving hours late, failure to call ahead, and unresponsiveness to callbacks.
• BBB RATING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews reference company's poor BBB rating (C-/2-star), 14+ complaints in 12 months, and allegations of paying customers to remove negative reviews.
• FINANCIAL COERCION: Documented cases of requiring payment before work begins, refusing refunds for incomplete/incorrect work, and aggressive collection tactics.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 120 reviews (24% of dataset) from June 2025 and May 2025 show suspicious clustering with identical phrasing ('very professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'friendly'), generic praise lacking specifics, and all 5-star ratings with minimal detail. This suggests coordinated positive review campaign to offset legitimate negative feedback.
• GENDER DISCRIMINATION: Multiple reviews allege sexist behavior, targeting women for upselling, and disrespectful treatment based on gender.
• UNLICENSED WORK: Reviews document apprentices working without proper supervision (illegal in Illinois), expired licenses, and misrepresentation of technician qualifications.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 98-187 mentions each). The score is supported by consistent, detailed, and corroborated evidence across 500 reviews spanning 2012-2025. The company exhibits a systematic pattern of overpricing, incomplete work, and aggressive sales tactics that far outweighs instances of competent service. The detected fake review campaign (24% of recent reviews) further undermines trust in positive testimonials and suggests the company is aware of its poor reputation. This score should be considered a strong warning against using this contractor.

Arnold and Sons Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with two detailed 1-star reviews explicitly describing charges as exorbitant, swindling, or far above market rate, while only two older positive reviews describe pricing as fair. Professionalism is similarly split — two positive reviews praise specific technicians like Robert and Joe as courteous and professional, but two negative reviews describe aggressive upselling, unprofessional staff (Beth), and dismissive attitudes toward customer concerns. Project completion is concerning, with one reviewer explicitly stating work was not completed yet they were still charged, and another paying for an estimate but refusing the job due to pricing. The positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are all dated 2016–2019, meaning no favorable feedback exists within the past several years.

• All positive reviews are dated 2016–2019; no positive reviews exist from 2020 onward. The two most recent reviews (2021) are both strongly negative 1-star reviews. This recency gap is a significant red flag.
• The two most recent negative reviews describe pricing practices that are highly specific and credible — one citing a $500/hour effective rate for a sub-1-hour job, and another describing a 4x overcharge. These are serious and detailed complaints.
• One review explicitly describes incomplete work being charged for, which directly impacts the project completion score.
• The positive reviews, while not appearing fake, are generic in some respects and are now 5–8 years old, significantly reducing their reliability for assessing current business practices.
• Aggressive upselling behavior described in detail by one reviewer suggests a potential systemic sales practice rather than an isolated incident.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while based on 6 reviews with usable data across all dimensions, the stark recency gap between positive (2016–2019) and negative (2021) reviews, combined with serious and specific pricing and professionalism complaints in the most recent feedback, suggests the score may overstate current service quality.

The review set is very small (3 reviews) and paints a predominantly negative picture of this contractor. Two of the three reviews are highly critical: one describes a serious workmanship failure resulting in a leaking pipe one year later, an owner who dismissed the customer's request for an inspection, and an employee who reportedly failed the plumbing licensing exam seven times; the other describes a technician wasting billable time and leaving an oil stain on the customer's driveway, resulting in an unjustified extra charge. The sole positive review (from 2021) praises a specific plumber's courtesy and same-day responsiveness but offers no detail on workmanship quality. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by the arrogance and dismissiveness described in the 1-star review and the time-wasting behavior in the 2-star review. Project completion and experience scores reflect the documented pipe failure and the explicit concern about employee competency.

• Very small sample size (3 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• The single positive review (5-star, 2021) is over 3 years old and predates both negative reviews; it carries reduced weight due to recency rules.
• The 1-star review (2024) describes a documented post-job failure (leaking pipe) and raises serious concerns about employee licensing competency (reportedly failed plumbing exam 7 times) — this is a significant red flag for experience and project completion.
• The 2-star review (2024) describes deliberate or negligent time-wasting that inflated the customer's bill — this is a pricing integrity concern.
• Owner reportedly relocating and handing off operations to another party — business continuity and accountability are uncertain.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the contrast between the generic positive review and the highly specific negative reviews warrants caution about the authenticity of the 5-star review.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with very limited data across all dimensions and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of this contractor's overall quality — prospective customers should seek additional independent references before hiring.

BL Plumbing demonstrates severe deficiencies across nearly all dimensions. Project completion is critically weak, with multiple reviews documenting abandoned work, incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, and unresolved issues (leaks persisting after service, drainage problems recurring). Professionalism is compromised by poor communication, unresponsiveness to follow-up inquiries, missed appointments, and unprofessional conduct (refusing cleanup, inconsistent diagnoses between crews). Pricing concerns are substantial, with customers reporting inflated charges, unnecessary upsells, and disputed estimates. Only experience shows moderate strength, with two positive reviews praising technical competence on specific jobs, but this is heavily outweighed by systemic failures in execution and customer care.

• CRITICAL: 6 of 8 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed complaints of serious service failures. Pattern is consistent and specific, not generic.
• Multiple reviews document incomplete work and abandoned projects—the most serious red flag for a service contractor.
• Pricing complaints include allegations of overcharging, unnecessary upsells (faucet replacement), and disputed estimates—suggests potential predatory practices.
• Communication failures documented across multiple reviews: unresponsiveness to messages, missed callbacks, inconsistent information from different crews.
• Two positive 5-star reviews (2018 and 2020) are older and outnumbered 6:1 by recent negative reviews (2019-2022), suggesting possible service decline or inconsistency.
• One positive review mentions repeat customer (4th time), but this is contradicted by overwhelming negative feedback from other customers.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected; complaints are detailed, specific, and credible with concrete examples (amounts, dates, outcomes).

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 8 reviews with consistent patterns of failure across professionalism, completion, and pricing. The company should not be recommended for plumbing services without significant caution.

This contractor's reviews paint an overwhelmingly negative picture across all four scored dimensions. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with five of six reviews describing abandoned work, unresolved issues after multiple visits, and jobs left in worse condition than before — including a bathtub leak unresolved after nearly a month and a yard hole left open for 60+ days. Professionalism scores are similarly devastated by reports of poor communication, condescending phone interactions, no-shows, and failure to follow through on repeated promises. Experience scores reflect serious concerns including misdiagnosis, unlicensed plumbers performing work, code violations, and unnecessary repairs costing a customer over $2,400. The sole positive review, praising a technician named Bruce for knowledgeable and cost-conscious replumbing work, prevents scores from reaching zero but carries limited weight against five detailed 1-star accounts.

• Five of six reviews are 1-star with highly specific, detailed complaints — this pattern is consistent with genuine negative experiences rather than fake reviews.
• The one 5-star review (dated 2023-12-13) is older than 12 months relative to the cluster of recent negative reviews (2024), and all five 1-star reviews are from 2024, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• Multiple reviews reference unlicensed plumbers performing licensed work, which is a serious legal and safety concern beyond a typical service complaint.
• Recency weighting applied: the five most recent reviews (all from 2024) are heavily negative and were given primary weight in scoring.
• No fake review patterns detected — negative reviews contain specific dates, named individuals, itemized complaints, and unique circumstances that indicate authentic customer experiences.

This WW Score is based on a small but highly consistent and detailed set of reviews, all from the past 14 months, and should be treated as a reliable warning signal — the score of 22.1 reflects genuine, documented service failures across every measured dimension.

With only 3 reviews, this dataset is too small to produce a reliable WW Score. The reviews are highly polarized: two 1-star reviews citing serious professionalism failures (miscommunication on scope, no-show with no follow-up), and one 5-star review praising responsiveness and project completion. The positive review is notably older (November 2022) while negative reviews are more recent (February and May 2023), suggesting potential service quality decline. The extreme variance and recency pattern warrant caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• Highly polarized ratings (two 1-star, one 5-star) with no middle ground
• Most recent reviews (Feb-May 2023) are negative; oldest review (Nov 2022) is positive — possible service quality deterioration
• First review suggests serious scope miscommunication — contractor may have misunderstood customer needs
• Second review documents no-show and complete lack of communication/follow-up — critical professionalism failure
• Single positive review is from 2022 and may not reflect current service standards

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=3). The extreme polarization and recency pattern of negative reviews suggest potential service quality issues, but a minimum of 5-8 recent reviews would be needed to establish a trustworthy WW Score.