Find Nearby Plumbers In Hammond, Indiana

Big Wrench Plumbing & Sewer has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and shows a clear split: many reviewers praise individual technicians like Mark, Jason, and Byron as punctual, courteous, and communicative, while a significant cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — document no-call no-shows, condescending owner interactions, and failure to follow up. Project completion is a notable concern, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing abandoned multi-stage jobs, a plumber who failed to resolve the stated problem, and repeated no-shows for scheduled appointments. Pricing feedback is similarly divided: several customers found pricing fair or the best among competitors, while two detailed negative reviews describe charges they considered excessive or misleading. Experience scores moderately, with positive reviews citing skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship, but offset by at least two reviews describing faulty installations — including a leaking water line, a failed wax seal, and an inability to fix a sink handle — that caused additional property damage.

• 11 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These blank reviews (all rated 5 stars) cannot be used for dimensional scoring and inflate the apparent star average without providing verifiable evidence of quality.
• Two negative reviews (dated 2024-06-09 and 2023-11-27) appear to be near-identical duplicates describing the same water heater replacement experience. Only one instance was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting.
• No-call no-show complaints appear in at least 4 separate reviews across different years (2017, 2020, 2020, 2023), suggesting a recurring systemic reliability issue rather than isolated incidents.
• The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive and feature named technicians, which may reflect genuine improvement — or selective posting. The pattern warrants caution rather than full optimism.
• Several older reviews (2016–2019) are uniformly positive but lack specific detail, which slightly raises generic praise concerns for that era of reviews. However, they are not flagged as definitively fake due to some specificity present.
• Recency note: A meaningful number of negative reviews are from 2020–2023, while 2025 reviews trend positive. Score reflects the full historical record; recent improvement is possible but not yet confirmed by sufficient volume.

This WW Score is based on 40 reviews with usable content across a multi-year period and carries HIGH confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should weigh the recurring no-show and incomplete-job complaints seriously, as these represent a consistent pattern rather than outliers.

King Heating shows significant inconsistency across service dimensions. While professionalism scores moderately at 72.5 based on 58 mentions—with many technicians praised for friendliness and responsiveness—the company is severely undermined by pricing concerns (38.0 score, 47 mentions), with numerous customers reporting excessive charges, misleading diagnostics, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion (68.0, 42 mentions) reveals chronic scheduling failures, missed appointments, and poor follow-through on promised services. Experience ratings (65.0, 51 mentions) are mixed: skilled technicians coexist with reports of dishonest diagnostics, unnecessary repairs, and failure to identify actual problems. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects a company with capable individual technicians but serious systemic issues in pricing transparency, appointment reliability, and diagnostic integrity.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Extremely high frequency of complaints (47 mentions) about overpricing, unnecessary repairs, and misleading diagnostics. Multiple customers report being quoted $4,000–$7,000 for repairs that cost $200–$500 elsewhere. This is the single largest driver of negative reviews.
• DIAGNOSTIC DISHONESTY: Recurring pattern of technicians recommending expensive replacements (furnaces, AC units) when only minor repairs were needed. Multiple independent second opinions confirmed King's diagnoses were false. Examples: cracked heat exchangers that didn't exist, seized motors that weren't seized, failed A-coils that only needed cleaning.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY CRISIS: 42 mentions of scheduling failures including no-shows, missed time windows, technicians arriving early/late without notice, and failure to call customers. Several customers waited 6–8 hours with no communication.
• UPSELLING AND PRESSURE TACTICS: Documented pattern of technicians using scare tactics (carbon monoxide threats, safety warnings) to pressure customers into expensive replacements. One customer reported being given senior/military discounts without qualification.
• SERVICE CALL FEE ABUSE: Multiple complaints about $99–$100 diagnostic fees charged even when no service is performed or diagnosis is incorrect. Customers report being charged for estimates on routine work.
• WARRANTY/CONTRACT ISSUES: Several customers report being sold service plans (Royal Treatment Plan) with unclear terms, non-refundable prepayments, and credits that disappear. One customer reported money was "stolen" when promised credits were not honored.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Consistent complaints about office staff not returning calls, poor coordination between sales and service, and lack of follow-up after initial contact.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: While some reviews praise individual technicians (Giuseppe, Dennis, Dale, Chris, Jordan, Todd, Tony), the same company receives 1-star reviews for the same service types, suggesting quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Two nearly identical 5-star reviews from Hammond, Indiana (2023-12-26, both praising Chris) with nearly identical phrasing suggest possible review manipulation. However, most negative reviews are detailed and specific, reducing overall fake review concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews span 2015–2024. Recent reviews (2024) show continued pricing and scheduling complaints, indicating problems persist despite company longevity.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be trusted as a reliable warning indicator. The score is based on 127 detailed reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions. The company demonstrates genuine technical capability (many positive individual technician reviews) but is severely compromised by systematic pricing fraud, diagnostic dishonesty, and scheduling failures. Customers should approach with extreme caution and obtain independent second opinions before authorizing any major repairs or replacements.

Summers Plumbing Heating & Cooling receives a WW Score of 62.3, reflecting a company with significant strengths in professionalism and technical expertise, but serious concerns around pricing and project completion reliability. Technicians are consistently praised for friendliness, knowledge, and courteous behavior (75.2 professionalism score). However, the company is heavily criticized for aggressive pricing practices, with numerous customers reporting markups of 200-400% on parts and labor, and widespread complaints about high-pressure sales tactics. Project completion issues are substantial, with many reviews documenting incomplete work, multiple service calls needed for the same problem, and scheduling cancellations that inconvenience customers. The company's reputation is further damaged by allegations of dishonest diagnostics designed to sell unnecessary replacements.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Extensive evidence of systematic overcharging. Multiple reviews document parts marked up 300-400% (e.g., $2 capacitor charged at $98-$268; $15 fill valve charged at $261; $10 part charged at $190). This pattern appears deliberate and company-wide, not isolated incidents.
• DISHONEST DIAGNOSTICS: Numerous credible reports of technicians recommending unnecessary replacements (furnaces, AC units, water heaters) that were later found to be functioning properly by second opinions. Pattern suggests sales-driven diagnostics rather than honest assessment.
• AGGRESSIVE SALES TACTICS: Multiple reviews describe high-pressure sales, bait-and-switch offers (free service calls with hidden fees), and manipulation of elderly customers. One review documented a technician deliberately disabling a furnace during inspection to justify replacement sales.
• POOR PROJECT COMPLETION: Significant number of reviews (198 mentions) document incomplete work, requiring multiple service calls for same issue, or work that failed within weeks. Some customers report 5-15 service calls for problems that should have been resolved in one visit.
• SCHEDULING UNRELIABILITY: Chronic pattern of last-minute cancellations, missed appointments, and failure to honor scheduled service windows. Customers report taking time off work only to be cancelled hours before appointment.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Approximately 80-100 reviews contain minimal detail, generic praise with no specifics, or single-word/punctuation-only responses (e.g., '.' or '...'). These appear to be placeholder or artificially generated reviews. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews with specific dollar amounts and dates suggests the negative reviews are authentic.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews document failure of management to return calls, honor warranties, or address complaints. Pattern suggests systemic customer service failure at administrative level.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Several reviews document company refusing to honor stated warranties or charging diagnostic fees that contradict warranty terms.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2013-2025, with significant concentration in 2024-2025. Recent reviews show same patterns as older reviews, indicating no improvement over time.

This WW Score should be treated with HIGH confidence due to the large sample size (1,000 reviews) and consistency of patterns across multiple dimensions and time periods. However, the score masks a deeply problematic company: while individual technicians are often professional and skilled, the company's business model appears built on aggressive upselling, dishonest diagnostics, and systematic overcharging. The 62.3 score reflects this contradiction—good execution on service delivery undermined by poor pricing practices and completion reliability. Customers should expect professional service but should obtain multiple quotes, verify diagnoses independently, and be prepared for significantly higher costs than competitors charge for identical work.

Yes Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians (particularly Dan) consistently praised for punctuality, friendliness, and problem-solving ability. However, the company is severely hampered by widespread pricing complaints spanning over a decade. Customers repeatedly report being charged 3-4x market rates, with numerous examples of $1,500-$2,400 quotes for jobs completed elsewhere for $200-$500. The $79 service fee combined with aggressive upselling tactics and a pre-determined 'pricing book' creates a pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Project completion is generally solid when work is authorized, but pricing practices dominate the overall experience negatively.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing complaints across entire review history (2009-2024). Pattern is consistent, specific, and corroborated by multiple independent customers citing identical pricing disparities.
• Multiple reviews cite identical or near-identical pricing scenarios (e.g., $1,500-$1,600 quotes for jobs done elsewhere for $300-$500), suggesting this is standard business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• Positive reviews cluster heavily in 2023-2024 and contain several empty/blank review texts (5 instances of 5-star ratings with no text), which may indicate review manipulation or fake reviews.
• Negative reviews are older (2009-2022) and highly detailed with specific dollar amounts and comparisons, suggesting authentic customer experiences. Positive reviews lack this specificity.
• Company appears to use aggressive sales tactics (mandatory credit card before service, $79 non-refundable diagnostic fee, pressure to join monthly 'club' for discounts) that customers perceive as predatory.
• Multiple customers report being charged for work they refused to authorize, suggesting high-pressure sales environment.
• Recency bias: Most recent reviews (past 12 months) are predominantly positive 5-stars, while detailed negative reviews are 5-15 years old. This temporal shift warrants caution.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to apparent review manipulation (blank 5-star reviews, temporal clustering of positive reviews) and a stark disconnect between recent positive ratings and a 15-year pattern of detailed pricing complaints. The professionalism and experience scores are reliable (HIGH confidence), but the overall score is heavily depressed by legitimate, corroborated pricing concerns that appear systemic rather than anecdotal. Customers seeking this company should prioritize obtaining detailed written quotes from competitors before committing.

4 Brothers Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is heavily dragged down by multiple serious failures: no-shows without calls, a technician who hung up on a customer, and a worker who shut off water mid-shower without notice — these are severe incidents that offset the genuine praise for friendliness and responsiveness found in older reviews. Project completion is similarly split: several reviewers praised fast turnaround and follow-through, but there are documented cases of abandoned work (the tub reglazing job with four failed attempts and a final no-show), missed appointments with zero communication, and a job left incomplete. Pricing received both praise for fair value and a serious allegation of deliberate misrepresentation — a customer was charged $800 for a water heater that cost $469 at Home Depot, with no acknowledgment or refund offered by the company. Experience scores moderately, with clear competence in core plumbing tasks like leak repair, sewer scoping, and installations, but badly undermined by the tub reglazing debacle where the crew demonstrably lacked the skills they claimed to have. The most recent reviews (2022–2023) skew negative, which is a meaningful signal about current service quality.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2022 and 2023) are both negative (1-star and 1-star/2-star), while the majority of positive reviews are from 2018–2019. This suggests a possible decline in service quality over time and those older positive reviews should be weighted less.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review (2020) describes a technician shutting off a customer's water without notice mid-shower, failing to show up for the scheduled appointment window, and then hanging up on the customer when contacted. This is a significant professionalism and reliability red flag.
• PRICING INTEGRITY FLAG: One reviewer (2021) alleges the company charged $800 for a water heater that retailed for $469, with the serial number verified at Home Depot. The company reportedly refused to acknowledge the discrepancy or offer a refund. This is a potential deceptive pricing practice.
• COMPETENCY MISREPRESENTATION FLAG: One detailed review (2023) documents that the company claimed to offer tub reglazing services but demonstrably lacked the skills, used the customer's own painting supplies, produced unacceptable results across three attempts, and then failed to appear for a promised fourth visit. This suggests the company may upsell services outside their actual competency.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: Several older 5-star reviews (2018–2019) are notably generic in praise with limited specific detail. While not conclusive, the pattern of effusive language without job-specific detail in some of these reviews warrants mild caution. No score reduction applied but noted for transparency.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable in coverage, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the sharp negative trend in the most recent reviews and the presence of multiple serious misconduct and integrity allegations that are not offset by the volume of older positive feedback.

Maglish exhibits significant inconsistency across service dimensions. While technical expertise and workmanship quality are generally praised (78/100), the company struggles severely with professionalism (58/100) and pricing transparency (45/100). Major recurring issues include poor follow-up communication, no-shows without callbacks, lack of transparency about service fees and pricing, and customer perception of overcharging. Project completion is moderately strong (68/100) when work is undertaken, but many customers report being ghosted or abandoned during the quoting phase. The company's responsiveness and attitude vary dramatically between positive and negative experiences.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2019, 2021, 2021, 2021, 2016) cite excessive charges for simple work—$275 for 15-min toilet seal, $500 for 20-min AC work, $625 for 4 labor hours, $180 for pipe tightening. This is not isolated complaint but systemic pattern across 5+ years.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention being ghosted, not called back, or abandoned during quoting phase (2024, 2021, 2019, 2021). This suggests operational breakdown in follow-up systems.
• TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Multiple customers report not being informed of $75 service fee upfront (2022, 2021). One customer states plumber claimed 'customer's responsibility to know policies.'
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2019-2022 period. Only 2 recent reviews (2024, 2023). The 2024 review is negative (no follow-up on estimate). The 2023 review is also negative (defective parts, high labor charge, no response to complaint letter).
• POSITIVE REVIEWS OLDER: The most glowing reviews (5-star) are from 2022, 2021, 2021, 2019, 2019, 2016. Recent reviews trend negative.
• INCONSISTENCY: Same company receives both 5-star 'amazing team' and 1-star 'thieves' ratings. This suggests either highly variable service quality or different service lines performing differently.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While based on 20 reviews with substantial data across all dimensions, the company exhibits extreme polarization (many 1-star and 5-star ratings with few middle scores), systemic pricing complaints spanning multiple years, and recent negative trend. The score reflects genuine operational inconsistencies rather than measurement error. Customers should expect variable service quality and should obtain detailed written quotes and fee disclosures before engaging this company.