Find Nearby Plumbers In Rockford, Illinois

Giertsen Co. demonstrates significant inconsistency in service quality. While many reviews praise responsiveness, professionalism, and technical expertise—particularly for emergency restoration work—a substantial cluster of detailed negative reviews document serious failures in mold remediation, project completion, and accountability. The company excels in initial emergency response and communication but struggles with complex technical execution, follow-through on promised repairs, and honest acknowledgment of errors. Recent reviews (2024) show continued problems with missed appointments, incomplete work, and poor workmanship, suggesting systemic issues persist.

• FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER DETECTED: Reviews from 2001-2002 (5 reviews) are suspiciously generic with minimal detail ('FABULOUS JOB', 'unknown', vague praise). These appear artificially inflated and should be heavily discounted.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2017-2022. Recent 2024 reviews are predominantly negative (1-star ratings with detailed complaints), indicating potential service deterioration.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW: The HOA water damage complaint appears twice (2019 and 2018 dates), suggesting either a duplicate entry or pattern of similar failures.
• SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUES: Multiple reviews document mold remediation failures causing documented health problems (CIRS diagnosis, staff infection, allergic reactions). These are not minor complaints but health and safety failures.
• ACCOUNTABILITY PATTERN: Multiple reviews document the company denying responsibility for damage they caused, offering inadequate settlements, and avoiding owner communication.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Named employees (Kevin, Tony, James, Javier) receive consistent praise, while other projects show poor execution, suggesting quality depends heavily on individual crew assignment rather than company standards.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to conflicting evidence: strong emergency response credentials offset by documented failures in complex technical work, mold remediation, and project completion. The recent 2024 negative reviews and fake review cluster from 2001-2002 reduce overall reliability. Use this score cautiously and prioritize recent detailed reviews over historical praise.

This company shows significant internal inconsistency across reviews, with strong technical expertise and knowledge consistently praised, but professionalism and project completion severely undermined by multiple reports of unprofessional behavior, yelling, poor communication, and code violations. While some customers report excellent service and fair pricing, serious incidents involving confrontational conduct, structural code violations, and equipment failures within warranty periods indicate systemic issues. The company appears capable technically but unreliable in execution and customer interaction.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2023-07-27 dates) show identical or near-identical phrasing and all 5-star ratings with suspiciously generic praise ('knowledgeable', 'professional', 'highly recommend'). Four reviews share the exact same timestamp, suggesting potential fake or coordinated reviews.
• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: Review from 2023-12-07 documents structural code violations (load-bearing wall drilling with inadequate wood remaining) and unprofessional behavior (yelling, childlike reactions) during confrontation about safety issues.
• PATTERN OF UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Multiple independent reviews (2023-12-07, 2023-07-20, 2016-03-21) document yelling, confrontational behavior, and poor customer service from company representatives.
• EQUIPMENT FAILURE: 2016-03-21 review reports water heater failure after only 1.5 years with poor warranty support and dismissive service manager response.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS: 2023-07-20 review documents multiple failed attempts to contact company directly regarding serious professionalism concerns.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most positive reviews are from 2023-07-27 (clustered, potentially fake). Negative reviews span 2016-2023, suggesting long-standing issues. Only one recent positive review (2024-01-13 for 'Francisco').

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 68.2 reflects mixed data, the presence of suspected fake reviews, multiple documented safety violations, and a clear pattern of unprofessional conduct across independent reviews from different time periods suggests the company has serious operational and behavioral issues that may not be fully captured by the score alone. The positive reviews from 2023-07-27 are highly suspect and should be discounted.

Wagner Family Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While some customers praise fast response times, professional technicians (Glenn, Pat, Melissa), and fair pricing, a substantial number of reviews document serious failures in follow-through, communication, and accountability. Critical issues include multiple instances of no-shows or cancellations without callback, incomplete work requiring multiple visits, failure to honor guarantees, and unprofessional behavior. The company appears to have experienced a decline in service quality over time, with older positive reviews contrasting sharply with more recent negative experiences. Professionalism scores are dragged down by communication failures and rudeness; project completion is severely impacted by abandoned work and broken commitments.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2013-2021; only 2 reviews from 2024 and 2023. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple independent reviews (at least 6) document failure to return calls, no-shows, or cancellations without notification—this is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• QUALITY DECLINE PATTERN: Several long-term customers explicitly state service quality has deteriorated significantly in recent years.
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews describe company refusing to honor warranties, guarantees, or acknowledge mistakes (sump pump guarantee, sewer line work, water heater exhaust line).
• BILLING CONCERNS: At least 3 reviews document billing errors or overcharges (double charge, inflated estimates, coupon not honored).
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Named technicians (Glenn, Pat) receive consistent praise; other unnamed technicians receive harsh criticism for unprofessionalism, lack of due diligence, and dishonesty.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with caution due to significant recency issues (most data is 3+ years old) and a clear pattern of systemic failures in communication and project completion that appear to be ongoing concerns. The score reflects genuine high-confidence data but is based on historical reviews; current service quality may differ. The company shows capability (skilled technicians exist) but demonstrates unreliable follow-through and poor accountability, making it a moderate-to-high-risk choice.

C&M Plumbing has a mixed track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and shows a split picture: several reviewers praised punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous behavior, but notable complaints include rudeness toward a customer's wife, a plumber dismissing pricing concerns with 'it is what it is,' and one professional plumber flagging unprofessional workmanship on a new construction job. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with two detailed complaints about a $289 charge for a 25-minute gas log swap and a $600 charge for a 90-minute job that was quoted for 6 hours — both reviewers felt ripped off, and no reviews explicitly praised pricing as fair except one older review. Project completion is moderately positive but undermined by one significant failure where a shower connection was left incomplete, causing water damage, and a separate incident involving a billing error sent to the wrong address with no follow-up call. Experience scores moderately, with some reviewers praising quick and effective repairs, while a fellow plumber criticized the quality of workmanship on a new construction build.

• 13 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no usable content — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no verifiable information and may inflate the overall star average.
• Two reviews (dated 2022-02-02 and 2022-02-13) describe the same incident (gas log swap on Jan 26, 2022, $289 charge, 25-minute job) in nearly identical detail. These appear to be duplicate reviews from the same customer posted twice. Only one was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting.
• The majority of substantive reviews are from 2012–2016, with only two usable reviews from the past 12 months (2024 and 2022). The recency of data is poor and the business's current quality cannot be reliably assessed from this review set.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief ('great very pleased', 'very well.', 'Overall call C & M Plumbing you won't be sorry.') with no specific details, limiting their evidentiary value. These were not counted toward any dimension score.
• One reviewer identifies themselves as a fellow plumber and criticizes the quality of workmanship directly — this carries elevated credibility as a professional assessment.

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution: while enough substantive reviews exist to calculate a score, the bulk of usable data is 8–12 years old, 13 reviews were entirely uninformative, and two reviews appear to be duplicates — the score reflects a contractor with genuine service inconsistencies, particularly around pricing transparency and job completion, but the current state of the business cannot be confidently assessed from this dataset.

All Property Services shows reasonable professionalism across the usable reviews — reviewers consistently noted kindness, accessibility, responsiveness, and straightforward communication. Pricing was mentioned positively in two reviews, with one customer noting the final cost came in below their own estimate and another describing the project as fairly priced. However, project completion is a meaningful concern: one review explicitly noted the timeline ran approximately double what was quoted, and more critically, the interior painting work was of poor enough quality that a second contractor had to be brought in to redo most of it — a significant completion and workmanship failure. Experience scores are pulled down by that same review, which described light spots, poor trim work, overspray, and missing sections, suggesting inconsistent skill levels across trade types.

• One review contained only 'unknown' as text and was excluded from scoring — it provides no usable data despite carrying a 5-star rating.
• Three of the four reviews are from 2012–2013, making them over 10 years old. Only one review (2018) is within the last decade. The WW Score should be treated with significant caution given the age of the data.
• The sample size of 3 usable reviews is extremely small. Scores and confidence levels are inherently unreliable at this volume.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data set.

This WW Score is based on only 3 usable reviews, the most recent of which is from 2018, making it a low-reliability signal that should not be used as a primary basis for hiring decisions without seeking more current references.

Barker Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Positive reviews praise individual technicians (Dan, Rob, Louis, James) for friendliness, punctuality, and thoroughness, while a substantial cluster of negative reviews — several highly detailed — describe repeated failures to complete work correctly, leaking pipes after installation, refusal to warranty work, and dismissive or rude office communication. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers documenting return visits for the same unresolved issues, abandoned claims, and work that required a second plumber to fix. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by the receptionist and owner conduct described in multiple 1-star reviews, including being called irresponsible, being ghosted for a week, and the owner refusing to take calls. Pricing concerns are present but mixed — some find value, while others report being charged twice for incomplete work or pressured into unnecessary out-of-pocket costs. The review base spans 2013–2024, with the most recent reviews (2022–2024) skewing negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2022–2024) are predominantly 1-star and highly detailed, suggesting a possible deterioration in service quality in recent years. Older reviews (2013–2021) are more positive and should be weighted less.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The 5-star review from Mrs. Austin (2024-05-02) uses generic, non-specific praise with no technician names or job details, and its phrasing ('gone above and beyond the call of duty') mirrors common templated review language. Treat with caution.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAGGED: Multiple independent reviewers (2022, 2024) describe the owner Chris B. refusing to take calls, ghosting customers for extended periods, and having staff deliver dismissive responses. This is a systemic concern, not an isolated incident.
• REPEATED WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: At least 4 reviews independently describe leaking pipes or fixtures after Barker completed installation or repair work, indicating a pattern of substandard workmanship rather than isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL: Two separate reviews explicitly state Barker refused to warranty their own work, which is a significant consumer protection concern and materially impacts the project completion score.
• SCORE RELIABILITY NOTE: The positive reviews are disproportionately older (pre-2022) and less detailed, while the negative reviews are recent and highly specific. This asymmetry reduces confidence in the positive signals.

This WW Score is based on 21 reviews with high mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated cautiously given the strong recency skew toward negative outcomes and multiple flags for systemic workmanship and communication failures.