Find Nearby Plumbers In Hammond, Indiana

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

Groendyke Plumbing shows significant polarization in customer feedback. Professionalism scores moderately well based on three reviews citing friendly service, good communication, and responsiveness, though one review alleges unprofessional conduct (no invoice, immediate check cashing). Pricing is a critical weakness, with three reviews explicitly criticizing high hourly rates ($325/hour, $100+/hour) against advertised affordability claims, creating trust concerns. Project completion is solid across three mentions, with jobs resolved quickly and issues properly diagnosed. Technical experience is supported by two reviews praising problem-solving and equipment knowledge. The stark 1-star vs. 5-star split and pricing complaints significantly drag the overall score.

• MAJOR PRICING CONCERN: Three of four reviews explicitly criticize pricing as high or overcharged, directly contradicting company's 'affordable' positioning. This is the primary driver of low WW Score.
• PROFESSIONALISM DISPUTE: One 1-star review alleges unprofessional conduct (no invoice, immediate check cashing, characterizes owner as 'Scam Artist'). This directly contradicts positive professionalism mentions in other reviews.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: Two positive reviews are from 2021 and 2023 (older data); two negative reviews are from 2024 and 2019. Most recent review (Oct 2024) is highly negative, suggesting potential service degradation.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews limits statistical reliability. Confidence scores are capped at MODERATE due to low mention counts across all dimensions.
• INVOICE/TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One review explicitly states no invoice or breakdown provided, raising transparency and documentation concerns.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews) and extreme polarization between 1-star and 5-star ratings. The consistent pricing complaints across multiple reviews are credible and concerning, but the recent negative review and older positive reviews suggest the company's service quality may have changed over time. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish current reliability.

Ryan Plumbing One exhibits severe inconsistency in service delivery. While positive reviews highlight technical competence, responsiveness, and fair pricing, multiple critical failures in professionalism and project completion significantly undermine overall trustworthiness. Three separate instances of no-shows, no-calls, and abandonment of work (6-month silence on incomplete project) directly contradict the positive feedback. The contractor demonstrates strong technical knowledge and occasionally excellent responsiveness, but reliability and follow-through are severely compromised. This pattern suggests operational or management issues that create unpredictable service quality.

• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show/no-call incidents (3 reviews) indicate systemic reliability problems, not isolated incidents
• CRITICAL: One review documents 6-month project abandonment with ignored communications—severe breach of professional standards
• Stark polarity in reviews (three 1-star vs. three 5-star) suggests inconsistent service delivery rather than fake reviews; appears to reflect genuine operational volatility
• Most recent negative review is from December 2023 (very recent), indicating problems persist despite earlier positive feedback
• Older positive reviews (2021) may not reflect current operational standards; recency favors negative trend

This score should be treated with caution due to high volatility in service delivery; the WW Score of 54.8 reflects genuine inconsistency rather than a stable average, and customers should expect unpredictable outcomes with this contractor.

This contractor shows highly polarized performance with severe red flags. One detailed negative review documents systematic failures including missed deadlines, incomplete work, unqualified crew, material cost overruns, and refusal to refund deposits—suggesting serious integrity and project management issues. Four positive reviews praise punctuality, communication, and responsiveness, but lack detail and predate the major complaint by 1-2 years. The stark contradiction between the comprehensive negative account and generic positive reviews, combined with the reviewer's explicit suspicion of fake reviews, warrants conservative scoring across all dimensions. The pricing dimension is particularly concerning given documented cost escalation tactics.

• CRITICAL: One detailed negative review alleges systematic fraud including deposit non-refund, incomplete work, unqualified crew misrepresented as 'professionals,' material cost overruns mid-project, and owner's admission of poor workmanship (cut boards too short). Reviewer explicitly states suspicion that positive reviews are from friends/relatives.
• POLARIZATION PATTERN: Extreme divergence between one comprehensive negative account (1-star, detailed specifics) and four generic positive reviews (5-star and 4-star, minimal detail). This pattern is consistent with fake review activity.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are from 2022-2023 (older); the detailed negative review is from September 2023, suggesting recent deterioration or exposure of prior issues.
• CREW QUALIFICATION ISSUE: Negative review explicitly states crew were 'just friends' misrepresented as professional team, raising questions about all work quality claims.
• FINANCIAL INTEGRITY: Documented pattern of mid-project cost escalation and refusal to refund deposits suggests predatory business practices.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme review polarization and credible allegations of fraudulent practices; the detailed negative review carries substantially more evidentiary weight than generic positive reviews, and the contractor's business practices appear to pose financial and quality risk.

Sikma exhibits highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning nearly a decade. Two reviews (2019, 2015) praise Randall's professionalism, speed, and technical skill with water heater and emergency work. However, two damaging reviews (2021, 2015) document serious project completion failures: incomplete work (unpainted kick plate holes after 2 years, unresponsive to callbacks), installation defects (bathtub installed incorrectly, damaged toilet), and water damage from faulty seals. The 2021 review is particularly concerning as it describes a safety hazard and abandonment of remediation work despite customer mitigation efforts. Responsiveness varies dramatically—same-day emergency response in one review versus complete non-responsiveness in another. Pricing appears fair when work is completed, but value collapses when jobs are left unfinished.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews document serious project completion failures and safety concerns (water damage, faulty seal explosion, installation defects). These are detailed and specific, not generic complaints.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent negative review is from 2021 (3 years old); positive reviews are from 2019 and 2015. Cannot assess current performance reliability.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between glowing reviews (Randall-specific) and damaging reviews suggests either inconsistent quality by different technicians or significant service degradation over time.
• RESPONSIVENESS RED FLAG: 2021 review documents complete non-responsiveness to multiple contact attempts over 2 years regarding incomplete work (kick plate replacement). This is a major professionalism and project completion failure.
• SAFETY CONCERN: 2021 review describes a seal that 'exploded' and nearly injured homeowner, plus resulting water damage to hardwood floors and basement. This suggests either defective materials or poor installation quality.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization in reviews and lack of recent positive data; the 2021 review's detailed documentation of abandonment and safety issues significantly undermines confidence in current service quality, and the absence of recent positive reviews makes it impossible to determine if issues have been resolved.

This contractor shows a stark pattern of inconsistency. Early positive reviews (2020) highlight responsiveness, knowledge, and fair pricing; however, a severe deterioration in project completion and follow-through emerges across multiple reviews from 2020–2023. Critical failures include abandoning jobs mid-completion, refusing refunds despite promises, non-responsiveness to callbacks, and poor workmanship. While professionalism and experience scores are moderate, the catastrophic project completion dimension (35/100 based on 8 mentions) heavily depresses the overall WW Score. The most recent reviews (2024) show improved emergency response for gas line work, but this does not offset the pattern of incomplete work and broken commitments documented in earlier projects.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document identical failure pattern—job abandonment, non-responsiveness, and broken refund promises across different projects (2020–2023). This is not isolated; it is systemic.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGED: Review from 2022 alleges theft of funds and refusal to return mistaken payment. Review from 2020 documents $2,000 paid with zero refund despite promise. Review from 2020 documents promised refund never received.
• WORKMANSHIP QUALITY ISSUES: Shower door sealant failure (2020), ceiling tiles cut incorrectly (2020), bathroom vanity/backsplash work described as 'poorly done' (2023).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most damaging reviews are 2–4 years old. Two recent 2024 reviews are positive but limited in scope (emergency gas line repair only). Insufficient data to confirm whether systemic issues have been resolved.
• CONTRACTOR NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference 'Darrell Patterson,' 'Doll House Umbrella Corp,' and 'Quincy.' Unclear if these are the same entity or different individuals. One review explicitly questions the legitimacy of the company name.
• PATTERN SUGGESTS SYSTEMIC ISSUE: Four separate reviews document non-responsiveness and job abandonment. This is not a one-time mistake but a recurring operational failure.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 10 reviews with reasonable mention counts, the data is heavily weighted toward 2–4 year old reviews documenting serious misconduct (abandonment, financial disputes, poor workmanship). Two recent 2024 reviews are positive but narrow in scope and insufficient to establish trend reversal. The WW Score of 52.3 reflects genuine risk: this contractor has a documented history of incomplete work and broken promises. Recommend requesting recent references and written guarantees before engagement.