Find Nearby Plumbers In Gary, Indiana

Weiler Plumbing shows mixed performance across all dimensions. Professionalism scores 76 based on 18 mentions, with strong praise for responsiveness and courtesy offset by serious complaints about rudeness, poor communication, and unprofessional behavior (including alleged harassment). Pricing scores 68 based on 11 mentions—while many customers praise fair rates and good value, multiple reviews cite unexpected overcharges, billing discrepancies, and price increases without warning. Project completion scores 68 based on 9 mentions, with critical failures including abandoned jobs (water line repair left unfinished for 4 weeks, property damage), missed appointments, and poor follow-up on multi-part projects. Experience scores highest at 82 based on 13 mentions, reflecting genuine technical skill and problem-solving ability when work is completed. The company demonstrates capability but suffers from inconsistent execution and customer service issues.

• SERIOUS PATTERN: Multiple reviews (at least 6) describe poor communication, missed appointments, and failure to call customers back. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: At least 2 reviews describe incomplete work—one water line repair left unfinished for 4 weeks with property damage (damaged skirting, unfilled hole). This is a critical red flag for project completion reliability.
• BILLING DISPUTES: At least 4 reviews cite unexpected charges, overages, or discrepancies between quoted and actual prices. One customer reported being charged for 1.5 hours of work when technician was on-site for 40 minutes.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe rude, dismissive, or unprofessional phone staff. One review alleges the owner (Dave Weiler) verbally harassed a customer and used abusive language.
• INCONSISTENCY: Strong positive reviews (many 5-star) coexist with severe negative reviews. This suggests highly variable service quality depending on which technician/crew is assigned or which office staff handles the call.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2021 and earlier (older than 3 years). Only 5 reviews are from 2024-2025. Recent reviews show continued issues (theft allegation, incomplete work, communication failures), suggesting problems persist.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 13 reviews contain only a rating with no text. These cannot be analyzed and reduce data quality.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence (experience dimension), it is undermined by systemic failures in communication, project completion, and billing transparency. The score is pulled down by multiple serious complaints about abandoned work and poor follow-up. Customers should be aware that while Weiler can deliver quality work, the risk of scheduling issues, incomplete projects, and billing surprises is significant. Recent reviews suggest these problems have not been resolved.

Kennedy Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with many customers praising their skill and follow-through on complex jobs. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with multiple explicit complaints about overcharging, unfair rates, and lack of transparency—some customers report charges 30-50% above competitors. Professionalism is mixed: while many reviews highlight friendly, courteous technicians and prompt scheduling, several negative reviews document rude behavior, poor communication (delayed callbacks), and apparent attempts to exploit vulnerable customers. The company shows inconsistency in service quality and customer treatment across different technicians.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviews (2023, 2022, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015) explicitly allege overcharging, unfair pricing, and lack of transparency. One customer reported being charged $485 for 15 minutes of work; another reported $300 for 10 minutes; another $195 for one hour on a small job. These are not isolated complaints.
• ETHICAL CONCERNS: Review from 2022 alleges deliberate substitution of higher-quality toilet seats with lower-quality ones and charging above estimate—suggests potential deliberate deception of elderly/disabled customer.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2016, 2014) document failure to return calls within 48 hours, resulting in lost business.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Wide variance in customer experience suggests inconsistency across different technicians or service occasions.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are older (2012-2018), but pricing complaints appear in recent reviews (2023, 2024). Most positive reviews are also older (2011-2021), with only 1 recent positive review (2024).
• POTENTIAL PATTERN: Negative reviews often mention owner/senior staff involvement in overcharging incidents, suggesting possible systemic pricing practices rather than isolated technician errors.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the sample size is adequate (23 reviews), the company shows stark polarization between positive and negative experiences, with pricing emerging as a consistent, credible weakness across multiple independent reviews spanning over a decade. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects genuine strengths in technical skill and project completion, but is significantly dragged down by documented pricing concerns and communication failures. Customers should expect competent work but should obtain multiple quotes and clarify pricing in writing before engaging this company.

Right Way Plumbing receives consistent positive feedback across professionalism, pricing transparency, and workmanship from multiple reviewers spanning several years. Pricing is a notable strength, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out fair, transparent, and competitive rates. However, one serious 1-star review alleges fraudulent business conduct, bankruptcy filings to avoid lawsuits, and incompetent work — this materially drags down scores across all dimensions and cannot be ignored. The positive reviews are largely credible with specific details, but the severe negative review introduces meaningful uncertainty. Recency is also a concern, as several positive reviews are 5–13 years old, with only two reviews from the past 12 months.

• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAG: One reviewer (2023-09-22) alleges the business operators filed bankruptcy to escape lawsuits, acted as 'con men,' and left customers with unfinished or improperly completed work. This is a significant red flag that warrants independent verification before hiring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Of 8 reviews, only 2 are from the past 12 months (2024 and 2023). Three reviews are from 2011–2012 and carry very low recency weight. The business's current quality and practices may differ substantially from older reviews.
• REVIEWER IDENTITY INCONSISTENCY: The negative review references 'Scott & Roger' as operators, while positive reviews consistently reference 'Mike' as the owner/operator. This may indicate a different business entity, a name change, or a misdirected review — but it cannot be dismissed without verification.
• VOLUME WARNING: Only 8 total reviews across what appears to be 13+ years of operation is a very low review volume. This limits statistical confidence in any dimension score.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Positive reviews contain specific names, job details, and varied language. No obvious fake review pattern identified among the positive reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review volume, significant age of most positive reviews, and one serious unresolved allegation of fraudulent conduct that has not been publicly rebutted — prospective customers should independently verify the business's current standing before engaging.

Hines Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is moderately strong with responsive, friendly service noted in positive reviews, though one customer criticized poor finish work and cleanup. Pricing is a significant weakness, with multiple complaints about high labor costs and lack of transparency—one customer paid $250 for under 40 minutes of warranty work. Project completion is inconsistent: some jobs were completed early and under budget, but others left work unfinished or required costly callbacks without proper resolution. Technical skill varies, with good installation work offset by failures to properly diagnose and fix recurring issues. The company's age (oldest reviews from 2016) and mixed recent feedback limit confidence in current performance.

• One review (2016-08-12) appears potentially self-written or company-generated: includes full company description, phone number, service list, and closes with 'Signed, Happy Customer'—highly suspicious formatting and generic praise without specific details.
• Significant pricing complaints in 2 of 7 reviews (29%), with customers reporting lack of transparency and perceived overcharging for warranty work and callbacks.
• Two 1-star reviews (2019, 2016) both involve warranty/callback issues where customer felt charged unfairly for work that did not resolve the problem.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years (5 of 7 from 2016-2020); only 2 reviews from 2022, limiting recency assessment.
• Bathroom remodel review (2022) explicitly states work was incomplete and cleanup poor, contradicting the 'exceptional quality' claim in another 2022 review.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited sample size (7 reviews), age of most data, suspected fake review, and conflicting accounts of quality. The pricing dimension is particularly unreliable given only 3 mentions. Current performance cannot be confidently assessed from this dataset.

All four reviews are positive and paint a consistent picture of a responsive, professional, and knowledgeable team. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with all four reviewers explicitly noting timeliness, communication, and courteous service. Experience is supported by three reviews referencing technical competence and problem-solving ability, including a customer who felt confident enough to sign up for ongoing yearly service. Project completion is reasonably supported, with reviewers describing jobs that were seen through to resolution and follow-through honored over multiple years. Pricing is the least-evidenced dimension, mentioned in only two reviews using general terms like 'affordable' and 'honest,' which warrants a conservative score.

• Only 4 reviews total — sample size is very small and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary only.
• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews do contain specific details (named technician, specific services, multi-year relationships), the uniformly perfect ratings with zero criticism warrants mild caution.
• Review dates span from May 2023 to May 2024. All reviews fall within approximately the past 24 months, with two within the past 12 months (as of mid-2024), which is a positive recency signal but the small volume limits reliability.
• No reviews mention any negative experiences, delays, pricing disputes, or callbacks — absence of complaints cannot be treated as evidence of perfection per scoring rules.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be considered low-reliability until a larger and more diverse review sample is available.

Carl and Son Plumbing presents a deeply divided review profile with strong positive experiences offset by serious, recurring negative ones. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple credible accounts of rude behavior, phone calls with slurred speech suggesting intoxication, technicians hanging up on customers, and outright refusal to take emergency jobs. Project completion is similarly mixed — while several customers praise quick turnaround and successful repairs, a notable cluster of reviews describes abandoned jobs, failure to follow through with warranty companies, ghosting customers for weeks, and leaving work incomplete or in worse condition than found. Pricing concerns are substantial, with multiple reviewers citing price increases after work began, charges for work not performed, and one account of alleged fraud involving billing for 100 feet of rodding in a 73-foot space. On the positive side, a loyal subset of long-term customers and home warranty referrals report excellent, fast, and knowledgeable service, suggesting inconsistency in crew quality rather than uniform failure.

• Multiple reviews describe the owner or a representative appearing to be intoxicated during phone calls — this is a serious professionalism and liability concern mentioned in at least two independent reviews.
• Several reviews allege fraudulent billing practices: charging for work not done, inflating scope after job completion, and attempting to collect payment months later after previously waiving fees.
• A pattern of warranty company-related abandonment is evident: multiple customers report Carl and Son accepting jobs through home warranty companies, collecting service fees, then failing to complete or follow up on the work.
• At least one review alleges theft of customer property (Rubbermaid riser, copper tubing) and deliberate damage to a new water heater during installation.
• Gas leak repair was allegedly done incorrectly and the same leaks were found by Nipsco upon re-inspection — a potential safety hazard indicating a serious workmanship failure.
• 7 reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• Review dates span from 2012 to 2023 with all dates showing as 2023-06-10 for many entries, suggesting possible date normalization or data import issues. The majority of substantive reviews appear to be from 2018–2023.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, but several positive reviews are generic and brief. The volume of detailed negative reviews with specific incidents lends them higher credibility weight.
• The split between highly positive and highly negative reviews is sharp, suggesting significant inconsistency in service quality, possibly dependent on which technician is dispatched or whether the job involves a home warranty company.

This WW Score is based on 50 reviews with usable qualitative data spanning multiple years and carries HIGH confidence in its directional accuracy — the score of approximately 52 reflects a contractor with genuine capability but serious, recurring issues in professionalism, billing integrity, and job completion that make them a high-risk choice for new customers.