Find Nearby Plumbers In Rockford, Illinois

The review set is small (5 reviews) and spans nearly a decade, making trend analysis difficult. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by two 1-star reviews citing failure to return phone calls and no upfront communication about pricing or process. Pricing is a clear weak point, with two separate reviewers explicitly describing overcharging, hidden charges, and billing disputes — offset only partially by one positive mention of fair pricing. Project completion is mixed: one reviewer noted abandoned materials left in a crawl space and unexpected extra charges after a quoted job, while one positive review praised same-day resolution. Experience scores modestly due to limited explicit commentary, with one positive review noting effective problem-solving and one negative implying poor workmanship follow-through.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and not statistically reliable.
• Reviews span from 2014 to 2022 — the two most recent reviews (2022) are both 1-star, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. More recent reviews should be weighted more heavily.
• The two 5-star reviews (2017 and 2020) are relatively generic in praise and lack granular detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight. No fake review pattern confirmed, but noted.
• Recency concern: The most recent reviews (Sept–Oct 2022) are both negative. The positive reviews are 2–5+ years old. This recency skew is a meaningful warning signal.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 5 reviews, a wide date range spanning 8 years, and a clear negative trend in the most recent reviews — prospective customers should seek additional recent references before hiring.

The three reviews present a deeply mixed picture of this contractor. The most recent review (June 2023) describes a serious failure in professionalism: a scheduled appointment was handed off to a third-party company without any notification, causing the customer's husband to take an unpaid day off work for nothing. The two older reviews (2020 and 2021) are more positive, citing punctuality, friendliness, and successful job completion. However, the recency weighting rules require that the 2023 negative review carry the most influence, and it describes a fundamental breakdown in communication and follow-through. With only three reviews total and a significant negative incident as the most recent data point, confidence in any positive scoring is low.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated with caution.
• The two positive reviews (2020 and 2021) are over 2 years old and predate the most recent negative experience; they may not reflect current service quality.
• The 2023 review reveals a subcontracting arrangement with a company called TNT that was not disclosed to the customer — this is a transparency and professionalism concern that may affect other customers.
• No pricing data was mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• The positive reviews are brief and lack specific detail, which limits their evidentiary weight.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 3 years and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers should seek additional sources before making a hiring decision.

The overwhelming majority of recent reviews (5 out of 7, all from 2023–2024) describe severe failures across nearly every dimension, including no-shows, extreme lateness, hostile and inappropriate text messages after cancellations, and a request for money via Cash App before work began. The one completed job (2024) resulted in mismatched parts, multiple pipe colors, wrong materials, and a 1-day job stretching to 5 days — indicating poor workmanship and poor project execution. The two positive reviews are from 2019 and 2020 and reference a different named individual (Steve, Pat Anderson), raising questions about whether they describe the same operator being reviewed in the negative posts. Pricing appears deceptively low as a hook, with follow-through and quality being deeply problematic.

• RECENCY WARNING: The two positive reviews are from 2019 and 2020 — over 4 years old. All 5 negative reviews are from 2023–2024, suggesting a significant and recent decline in service quality.
• POSSIBLE DIFFERENT OPERATOR: Positive reviews reference 'Steve' and 'Pat Anderson and his team,' while negative reviews reference 'Don' and 'Don Anderson.' These may describe different individuals operating under the same or similar business name, making the positive reviews potentially irrelevant to the current operator.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews indicate a low-ball quote is used to secure the job, followed by non-completion, no-shows, or poor quality work — suggesting a bait-and-switch dynamic.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer reports the contractor requested $20 via Cash App before arriving, citing a forgotten wallet. This is a red flag for consumer fraud.
• HARASSMENT FLAG: Multiple reviewers independently report receiving inappropriate or hostile text messages after canceling or complaining. This is a serious professionalism and safety concern.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION (POSITIVE REVIEWS): The two 5-star reviews are generic in praise, reference different named individuals than the negative reviews, and are significantly older. They may not reflect the current business or operator and should be weighted minimally.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the small review pool, a stark split between very old positive reviews and very recent negative ones, possible operator identity discrepancies, and multiple serious misconduct flags — the score of 18.9 should be treated as a strong warning signal rather than a precise measurement.

Analysis of three reviews reveals extreme polarization: one 5-star review from 2013 praising professionalism, pricing, and cleanliness, versus two 1-star reviews (2016, 2019) documenting severe failures across all dimensions. The 2019 review details systematic defects including code violations, theft, dishonesty, poor workmanship, and repeated failed callbacks (15+ visits). The 2016 review documents complete non-responsiveness and abandonment. The single positive review is over 10 years old and lacks specificity about complex plumbing work. The overwhelming weight of recent evidence indicates serious and persistent performance failures.

• CRITICAL: Extreme review polarization suggests either dramatic business decline or potential review manipulation. The single 5-star review (2013) is 6+ years older than the damaging 1-star reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2016, 2019) are 5-7 years old. Current business status unknown.
• PATTERN OF SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: 2019 review documents alleged theft, code violations, dishonesty, and systematic poor workmanship with 15+ failed callback attempts—these are not minor complaints.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: 2016 review documents complete non-responsiveness and abandonment of customer with water shut off.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. WW Score calculation cannot be performed reliably with fewer than 3 reviews, though all 3 are present. However, the extreme polarization and age disparity make any aggregate score meaningless.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to extreme polarization between one outdated positive review and two recent detailed negative reviews documenting serious failures. The business should not be trusted based on available evidence; the recent reviews describe systematic defects, non-responsiveness, and alleged misconduct that represent material risk to customers.

This contractor shows severe and consistent problems across multiple dimensions. Two detailed negative reviews from 2020 document incomplete work, poor quality (improper plumbing installations, failed sealing), non-responsiveness to callbacks, and failure to honor refunds. One highly positive review from the same period praises punctuality and friendliness but does not address work quality or completion of promised services. The extreme polarity and small sample size (3 reviews, all from 2020) make reliable scoring impossible. Critical red flags include abandoned work, unresponsive communication, and unfinished projects that required professional remediation.

• CRITICAL: Extreme review polarity (two 1-star, one 5-star) with no middle-ground reviews suggests potential credibility issues or significant inconsistency in service delivery
• All reviews are from June-August 2020 (4+ years old); no recent reviews available to assess current performance or whether issues have been corrected
• Two independent reviews document identical failure patterns: incomplete work, poor communication, non-responsiveness to callbacks, and quality issues requiring professional rework
• Positive review lacks specificity about actual work completion and quality; focuses on punctuality and demeanor rather than job outcomes
• Insufficient review volume (n=3) to establish reliable scoring; recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making hiring decision
• Documented instances of non-payment of promised refunds and failure to honor service commitments raise serious trust concerns

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 usable reviews with consistent data). The extreme polarity, age of all reviews (4+ years), and documented pattern of serious service failures in two independent accounts suggest this contractor carries significant risk; however, the single positive review and lack of recent data prevent definitive assessment. Do not hire based on this analysis alone—seek current references and licensed verification.

Both reviews describe a prompt response to a sewer backup emergency, with employees described as knowledgeable and courteous, supporting modest scores in professionalism and experience. The technician demonstrated practical problem-solving by locating the sewer access under snow without customer guidance, indicating competent field experience. Project completion is implied by the positive outcome and referral, though no explicit confirmation of full job completion or follow-up is stated. Pricing is entirely unmentioned across both reviews, leaving that dimension with no data. Scores are kept conservative due to the very limited review count and the duplicate review flag below.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Both reviews are word-for-word identical in text and rating, differing only by date (2014-01-10 and 2014-01-14). This is a strong indicator of a duplicated or fake submission and significantly reduces reliability.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews were provided. Per scoring rules, a minimum of 3 reviews is required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 10 YEARS: Both reviews are dated January 2014. This data is severely outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• NO PRICING DATA: No review mentions cost, quotes, or value for money, so the pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes due to only two reviews being available, both of which appear to be exact duplicates and are over 10 years old.