Find Nearby Plumbers In Gary, Indiana

Brandon's business shows a stark polarization in customer experience. Positive reviews (4 five-star ratings from 2021) praise his responsiveness, fair pricing, professionalism, and technical competence on garage door and hot water heater work. However, negative reviews (4 one-star ratings, including 3 from 2021 and 1 from 2023) reveal critical failures in project completion and follow-through: multiple instances of ghosting customers after incomplete work, failure to honor callbacks, and inadequate workmanship on plumbing jobs. The most recent review (2023) indicates the pattern of abandonment persists. Project completion emerges as the weakest dimension, with consistent reports of unfinished work and broken promises. While pricing appears fair when work is completed, the value proposition collapses when jobs are abandoned or require rework.

• CRITICAL: Severe polarization suggests two distinct service patterns or possible business model changes. Four 5-star reviews cluster in Jan-Apr 2021; four 1-star reviews span Mar 2021-Oct 2023, indicating persistent issues.
• GHOSTING PATTERN: Three reviews explicitly mention being ghosted or avoided after payment (2023, 2021, 2021). This is a red flag for reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review (Oct 2023) shows same ghosting behavior as 2021 reviews, suggesting no improvement over time.
• QUALITY VARIANCE: Positive reviews focus on garage doors and hot water heater installation; negative reviews focus on plumbing repairs and complex remodels. May indicate inconsistent expertise or team composition.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews document abandoned projects (water heater installation with 4-day no hot water, shower repair still leaking, painting job unfinished, bathroom remodel delays). This is the dominant failure pattern.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW RISK: The four 5-star reviews use unusually enthusiastic language ('first class all the way,' 'Wow is all I can say,' 'cannot wait to hire') with minimal specific technical detail, while 1-star reviews are highly detailed and specific. However, the 5-star reviews do contain some specific details (garage door springs, emergency fee waived, same-day service), so this is not conclusive fake review evidence—more likely reflects genuine satisfaction bias in positive reviewers.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 8 reviews with adequate mention counts, the extreme polarization (4 five-star vs. 4 one-star with no middle ground) and the persistence of critical failures (ghosting, incomplete work) through 2023 suggest Brandon's service is unreliable and high-risk. The score of 52.3 reflects this volatility, but customers should be aware that negative outcomes appear to involve project abandonment and broken promises—the most damaging contractor failures. The 2023 review indicates no improvement in follow-through behavior.

CJ Erickson Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism receives partial credit from two positive reviews praising clean, professional crews and honest dealings, but is significantly dragged down by a detailed account of a technician exploiting a customer in a vulnerable situation and failing to resolve the underlying problem. Pricing is the weakest dimension: two separate 1-star reviews explicitly describe charges as outrageously high and up to three times competitor rates, while only one review mentions pricing favorably, resulting in a low score. Project completion is similarly mixed, with one review noting a job that failed to fix the root cause of a flooding issue, though other reviews describe completed work satisfactorily. Experience scores modestly positive given praise for technical knowledge and code awareness, but is tempered by the failure to properly diagnose and resolve a recurring sewage blockage.

• Review volume is very low (5 reviews total), severely limiting statistical reliability of any score.
• The two most critical negative reviews share the exact same date (2013-05-28), which may indicate they were submitted together or by a coordinated effort; however, they describe distinct incidents with specific details, so they are treated as legitimate.
• All reviews are older than 1 year — the most recent review is from December 2019, and the majority are from 2011–2013. No recent reviews are available, making it impossible to assess current service quality.
• The positive reviews tend to be somewhat generic in praise (e.g., 'great work, honest, helpful') with limited operational specifics, while the negative reviews contain detailed, credible accounts of specific incidents. This asymmetry slightly reduces confidence in the positive scores.
• Given the age of all reviews (oldest dating to 2011, newest to 2019), this score should be treated as a historical snapshot only and not reflective of current business practices.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample (5 reviews), all of which are between 5 and 13 years old, providing no meaningful insight into the contractor's current quality or practices.

The reviews paint a predominantly negative picture of this contractor across nearly all dimensions. Two of the three reviews are strongly negative, citing missed appointments, poor communication, no receipts provided, incomplete or failed repairs, and a general lack of professionalism. The sole positive review (4 stars) does credit the plumber for being knowledgeable, nice, and honoring a callback at no charge, which prevents the scores from bottoming out entirely. Pricing was flagged as too expensive in one review, and another reviewer haggled down a price only to receive substandard work, suggesting poor value rather than fair pricing. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with two reviews explicitly stating the work was not finished correctly or at all.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.
• Two of the three reviews are from 2017 and 2019, making them over 5 years old. The most recent review is from 2015. ALL reviews are older than 1 year and none fall within the past 12 months — recency weighting significantly reduces reliability.
• The positive review (2015) is the oldest of the three, meaning the most recent data available is negative.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and mixed ratings, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are more than 5 years old, making it a LOW-reliability indicator of current contractor performance — prospective customers should seek more recent and numerous reviews before making a hiring decision.

All three reviews are strongly negative, painting a consistent picture of a contractor who fails across every measured dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated no-call no-shows, failure to return phone calls, and late or absent arrivals. Project completion is the most critically scored dimension, as multiple reviewers explicitly state that contracted work was never finished, deposits were taken without work being delivered, and plumbing issues remained unresolved after multiple visits. Pricing concerns center on taking deposits and not completing work, which one reviewer escalated to legal and regulatory threats. Workmanship quality is also called into question, with reviewers noting that repairs failed immediately and that the contractor appeared to lack the technical knowledge to complete the jobs.

• All three reviews are 1-star ratings with serious, specific complaints — this is consistent and credible negative signal, not a fake review pattern.
• The most recent review is dated 2019-03-02, meaning all reviews are more than 5 years old. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• Two reviews explicitly mention abandoned work after deposit collection, which is a significant financial and legal risk indicator for prospective customers.
• One review mentions missing copper materials, raising a potential theft concern.
• Only 3 reviews total — the WW Score should be treated as directionally informative but not statistically robust due to the small sample size.

While the sample size is small (3 reviews) and all data is over 5 years old, the consistency and specificity of the negative feedback across all dimensions makes this score directionally reliable as a warning signal, though it cannot fully represent current contractor performance.

Only 2 reviews contain substantive, usable data (the first review is blank). Both reviews are highly positive and mention all four dimensions explicitly: professionalism (punctuality, friendliness, efficiency), fair pricing with cost-saving solutions, complete project delivery, and skilled technical work. However, both reviews are significantly dated (2009 and 2014), falling well outside the past 12 months, which limits confidence in current performance. The sample size of 2 reviews is below the minimum threshold of 3 for reliable WW Score calculation.

• Only 2 usable reviews — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are extremely dated (2009 and 2014) — no recent data available to assess current performance
• First review contains no text content — cannot be analyzed
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language; no critical feedback or specifics on potential weaknesses

This assessment should not be relied upon for decision-making. The sample size is too small, reviews are too old, and there is insufficient recent evidence of current service quality.

Both reviews speak positively about professionalism, noting punctuality, courtesy, and attentiveness to the customer. Project completion is supported by both reviews, with one specifically highlighting that Craig stepped in after another company failed to deliver. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where the customer noted the bill did not cause sticker shock, suggesting fair but not exceptional pricing. Experience is touched on in one review where Craig resolved a situation another company could not, implying solid problem-solving ability. However, with only two reviews total, none of these scores carry meaningful statistical weight and should be treated with significant caution.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• One review (2019-09-16) is over 5 years old and carries significantly reduced recency weight.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, which is expected given the small sample but limits balanced assessment.
• Reviews are short and somewhat generic in praise; specificity is limited, reducing confidence in dimension scoring.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, one of which is over 5 years old, making any conclusions highly unreliable and insufficient to form a trustworthy assessment of this contractor.