Find Nearby Plumbers In Tinley Park, Illinois

This plumber shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2012–2020. While some clients praise responsiveness and knowledge, multiple reviews document serious professionalism failures including aggressive behavior, refusal to honor quoted work, and incomplete repairs. Pricing concerns are severe: one review documents a $900 charge for one hour of work with no itemized parts breakdown, and another reports a $1000 charge for incomplete valve work. Project completion is mixed—some jobs were finished but with quality issues (toilet leaked after repair, wax debris left behind). The oldest positive reviews (2012–2013) contrast sharply with the most recent negative review (2020), suggesting possible deterioration in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 8–11 years old (2012–2013). The most recent review (2020) is highly negative and documents egregious overcharging and poor workmanship.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Review from 2020 documents $900 charge for 1 hour of work with no itemized parts breakdown. Pump available online for $400; float replacement under $20. This suggests significant markup or overcharging.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: 2013 review documents plumber becoming 'very nasty' and 'yelling' when customer questioned his work. Refused to correct mistake without additional $180 charge.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: 2012 review documents plumber refusing to complete quoted work (refrigerator water line) and charging $1000 for incomplete valve replacement that failed within 2 days.
• QUALITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews mention defective work requiring callbacks (toilet leak, wax debris, valve failure).
• SAMPLE COMPOSITION: One review is essentially blank (single period, 4-star rating from 2016—likely data error or placeholder). This reduces usable data quality.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme temporal inconsistency (positive reviews 8–11 years old vs. recent negative review) and small sample size. The 2020 review provides detailed, specific allegations of overcharging and poor workmanship that contradict earlier praise. The WW Score reflects this conflict but leans toward the more recent and detailed negative evidence. Current customers should seek recent independent references before engaging this contractor.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across a small and largely outdated review set. Professionalism takes a significant hit from a 2019 review describing a no-show plumber, zero follow-through from management, and a broken callback promise — serious failures that weigh heavily given they are the most recent data point. Project completion is similarly damaged by a 2016 review explicitly stating the job was left incomplete on two separate occasions. On the positive side, older reviews praise fair pricing, fast response, and good workmanship, particularly for sewer rodding services where the company appears to specialize. However, the recency of the negative reviews relative to the positive ones — most praise comes from 2012–2017 — means the favorable signals carry reduced weight and the overall picture is concerning.

• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review (2019) is negative and describes serious professionalism failures. The majority of positive reviews are from 2012–2017, making them 6–12+ years old and of limited relevance to current performance.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 6 reviews total. This is a very thin data set and the WW Score should be treated with significant caution.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the job was left incomplete on two separate occasions, which is a serious project completion red flag.
• MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY FLAG: The 2019 reviewer reports that a callback was promised by management and never delivered, suggesting a systemic issue beyond a single technician.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail level, rating, and date — no obvious signs of fabricated reviews.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to only 6 reviews, a wide date range spanning over a decade, and the most recent review being a serious negative — consumers should seek more current references before hiring.

The review set is small (4 reviews) and spans a wide date range (2013–2023), limiting reliability significantly. Professionalism is mixed: two positive reviews praise punctuality and communication, but one review documents a serious upsell attempt by management that contradicted what the technician told the customer, and another describes a $475 charge for two hours of work that resolved nothing. Pricing is a notable concern, with two of four reviews explicitly criticizing value or fairness, and only two older reviews offering positive remarks on rates. Project completion is also problematic, as one reviewer explicitly states nothing was actually repaired, and another was refused a quote for the requested scope of work. Experience scores modestly positive given two reviews praising skill and knowledge, but the failed AC diagnosis and the upsell pressure undercut confidence in consistent technical quality.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and not representative of consistent performance.
• Three of the four reviews are more than 4 years old (2013, 2017, 2019); only one review is within the past 12 months (2023). Recency weighting significantly limits confidence in current performance.
• The 2023 review documents a potential bait-and-switch or upsell tactic by management (Bob), which directly contradicts the on-site technician's (Steve's) assessment. This is a serious red flag for business integrity.
• The 2017 review describes a $475 charge for two hours of work where no repair was actually performed — a significant value and completion concern.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the two positive reviews (2013, 2019) are generic in structure and lack granular detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, three of which are over 4 years old, making it a LOW-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

This contractor's reviews paint a predominantly negative picture, with three of four reviews describing serious failures in reliability and customer service. Professionalism is heavily penalized by repeated appointment cancellations — sometimes an hour before arrival — and an unauthorized credit card charge that required seven calls to begin resolving. Project completion is similarly damaged by multiple instances of abandoned or never-fulfilled service appointments, with one reviewer noting a nearly two-week setback. The sole positive review describes a competent electrician replacing smoke detectors, which provides limited evidence of technical skill but is insufficient to offset the pattern of operational failures. Pricing receives a very low score due to the reported unauthorized charge, which represents a serious breach of billing transparency.

• Three of four reviews describe appointment cancellations or billing misconduct — this is a strong pattern of operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• One reviewer explicitly notes a decline in service quality following a business acquisition, suggesting systemic issues may be recent and ongoing.
• The single positive review is generic in detail and stands in stark contrast to the three negative reviews; it should be weighted cautiously.
• With only 4 total reviews, the dataset is very small and scores carry limited statistical reliability.
• The unauthorized credit card charge described in the 1-star review is a serious consumer protection concern and may warrant flagging beyond a simple score reduction.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be treated as a preliminary signal only — the small sample size limits confidence, but the consistent pattern of negative experiences across three independent reviewers lends credibility to the low score.

Only a single review is available, dated April 2011 — over a decade old — making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer praises timely service and efficiency (supporting professionalism and project completion), reasonable pricing, and a repair-first philosophy that suggests practical technical competence. However, with just one review and no specific detail about workmanship quality, problem-solving, or communication, all scores are conservatively set. No reliable WW Score can be calculated from a single data point.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated April 2011, which is over 13 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should not be used to assess current service quality.
• All four dimensions are scored from a single mention each — all confidence levels are LIMITED and scores should be treated as highly speculative.

This score report is not reliable for decision-making purposes, as it is based on a single review that is over 13 years old and lacks the volume or recency needed to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

This single review paints a strongly positive picture across all four dimensions. The reviewer explicitly praises Nick's professionalism, punctuality, cleanup habits, and communication via text and same-day quoting. Pricing is described as honest and fair, and the project scope was substantial — toilet, pedestal sink, re-piping, faucet, shower, and a hidden leak repair — all completed to the customer's satisfaction. Workmanship quality is implied through the breadth and complexity of the job completed successfully. However, with only one review, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, and all dimension scores carry very low confidence.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and should be treated as anecdotal, not representative.
• Review is dated 2018 — over 6 years old. No recent reviews provided to assess current performance.
• No fake review patterns detected in this single review — language is specific, detailed, and credible.

This score report is based on a single review from 2018 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality or current performance.