Find Nearby Plumbers In Hammond, Indiana

Norm's Plumbing presents a mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by one serious complaint of abandoned work and a pattern of inconsistency, though several reviewers praised courteous and efficient technicians. Pricing is the most contested dimension — multiple reviewers praised reasonable costs, but one reviewer explicitly called out a $140 labor charge for a 7-minute job as extremely expensive, which is a concrete and credible concern. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with one reviewer explicitly stating Norm took money, did partial work, and never returned — a serious abandonment allegation that heavily penalizes this category. Experience scores are more positive, with multiple reviewers noting efficient problem-solving and quality workmanship, though the abandoned project review undermines confidence in consistency.

• SERIOUS FLAG: One reviewer (1-star, 2021-03-01) explicitly alleges Norm took payment, performed partial work, and abandoned the project — this is a significant project completion failure and potential fraud indicator.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only 2 of 7 reviews are from the past 12 months (2022). Three reviews are from 2020, one from 2021, and one from 2018. The most recent reviews include the harshest pricing complaint, suggesting possible quality or value decline over time.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 7 total reviews. With such a small dataset, a single negative review has outsized impact on scores. All scores should be treated with caution.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The 2018 and 2020 reviews share generic praise language ('highly recommend', 'quality work', 'reasonable') with limited specific detail. While not conclusive, this warrants mild skepticism.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Reviewer explicitly documented $140 labor for a 7-minute job (4:29pm to 4:36pm), which is a concrete, verifiable complaint that conflicts with other reviewers calling pricing 'reasonable' — suggesting pricing may vary significantly by job or technician.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to a very small review sample (7 reviews), significant recency gaps (most reviews are 2–5 years old), at least one serious project abandonment allegation, and generic language in several positive reviews that reduces their evidentiary weight.

W&W Plumbing shows severe deficiencies across multiple dimensions. While two positive reviews praise professionalism and workmanship quality, three detailed negative reviews document critical failures in project completion (incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, abandoned work, no follow-up), pricing integrity (deposit fraud, unlicensed work, inflated labor charges), and responsiveness (no-shows despite commitments, no callback communication). The pattern of incomplete work (toilet overflow recurring 3 days later, sewer line requiring re-service within 24 hours) and financial misconduct (bounced checks, unlicensed operations, deposit retention) substantially outweighs positive feedback. The company appears to have operational and ethical issues that undermine customer trust.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2020-01-10 and 2018-08-06) document serious allegations of fraud, unlicensed work, and deposit theft. These are not minor complaints but legal/ethical violations.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (2020-10-05, 2018-08-06) describe incomplete work requiring customer to hire another contractor to finish the job. This suggests systemic quality control failure.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: Two negative reviews explicitly mention no-shows, no callbacks, and broken promises to return (told customer 'would be out tomorrow by 12:00 pm' — never appeared; another stated 'he left town' without notification).
• RECENCY NOTE: Positive reviews are from 2023 and 2019; negative reviews span 2020-2018. However, the 2023 review is recent but limited in detail. The pattern of complaints across multiple years suggests ongoing issues, not isolated incidents.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One review explicitly states the company is not licensed to operate in Calumet City and performed unpermitted work, which is a legal violation.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews), but the consistency of serious allegations across multiple negative reviews—including fraud, unlicensed work, incomplete repairs, and non-responsiveness—provides moderate confidence that W&W Plumbing has significant operational and ethical problems. The positive reviews lack sufficient detail to counterbalance documented failures.

This contractor has a deeply mixed and concerning review profile. Professionalism is heavily dragged down by multiple reports of no-call no-shows, lateness, failure to clean up, and a broken promise to issue a refund — with only two reviews praising punctuality and neat work. Pricing is a significant red flag, with two reviewers explicitly reporting being charged more than the quoted price, including one describing being charged more than double; only two reviews praised fair or reasonable pricing. Project completion is similarly split — some jobs were completed well and on time, but there are reports of abandoned appointments, unresolved callbacks, and failure to follow through on commitments. Experience scores moderately, with a couple of reviewers praising technical skill and problem-solving, but this is not enough to offset the serious operational failures documented elsewhere.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 2 of 6 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024 and 2022). Two reviews are from 2021, one from 2020, and one from 2015. The oldest review (2015) is nearly a decade old and may not reflect current service quality. More recent reviews skew negative.
• BROKEN REFUND PROMISE: The most recent review (2024) documents a company representative promising a $100 refund check that was never sent, suggesting potential dishonesty at the business level, not just individual plumber performance.
• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: Two separate reviewers (2024 and 2020) independently report being charged significantly more than the quoted price. This is a consistent and serious pattern.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: One reviewer (2021) reports a no-call no-show for a scheduled appointment, and another (2020) reports the plumber being late without notice. Reliability appears to be a recurring issue.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total. Scores should be treated with caution as a small number of reviews can disproportionately skew results in either direction.
• INCONSISTENCY OVER TIME: One reviewer explicitly noted the company did excellent work 4 years prior but then experienced a no-show, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time.

This WW Score has LIMITED overall reliability due to the small sample size of only 6 reviews spanning nearly a decade, significant recency gaps, and a pattern of serious negative experiences in the most recent reviews that suggests the contractor's current service quality may be worse than the averaged score implies.

South Park Plumbing shows significant weaknesses across all dimensions. Project completion is the most critical failure, with two of three reviews documenting incomplete work, failed callbacks, and unresolved issues spanning months. Pricing concerns emerge from one review citing $16,000 for bathroom/kitchen plumbing with poor workmanship. Professionalism is mixed—one review praises communication and patience, but two others describe poor diagnosis, lack of follow-through, and failure to honor commitments. Experience is undermined by documented incompetency in design and installation, with mistakes requiring contractor correction. The company's age (reviews from 2010–2017) and pattern of repeated failures suggest systemic operational issues.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All three reviews are 7+ years old (2010–2017). No recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been corrected.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Two of three reviews explicitly document failure to complete promised work or follow up on callbacks, suggesting systemic project management failure.
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURES: Multiple reviews mention incorrect diagnosis (tile/grout blamed when faucet was faulty), indicating lack of technical expertise.
• FINANCIAL IMPACT: One review documents $16,000 charge with poor quality requiring contractor to pay for rework; another implies extended service delays and eventual need to hire competitor.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited sample size (3 reviews) and age (all 7+ years old). However, the consistency of negative patterns across two independent reviews—particularly around project abandonment and poor follow-through—suggests genuine operational weaknesses, not isolated incidents. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.

Able & Willing Plumbing has a deeply mixed review record that skews heavily negative across all four scored dimensions. While a cluster of positive reviews praises punctuality, affordability, and professionalism, the volume and specificity of negative reviews — spanning work not done to code, price doubling mid-job, abandoned work, unreturned calls, and rude staff — significantly drag every dimension down. Multiple reviewers report that completed work failed shortly after, that permits were not obtained, and that the company refused to honor callbacks or stand behind their work. Pricing complaints are severe, including hidden charges, third-party billing under an unrecognized name, and dramatic on-site price escalations beyond written contracts. The pattern of negative reviews is consistent and detailed enough to carry substantial evidentiary weight against the positive reviews.

• SUSPECTED REVIEW CLUSTERING: Six 5-star reviews all share the exact same date of 2024-06-09 with no timestamps differentiated, which is a strong indicator of coordinated or inauthentic review submission.
• GENERIC PRAISE WITH NO SPECIFICS: Several of the 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Professional experience from start to finish!', 'Always excellent work. All A+ service.') lack any job-specific detail, which is consistent with fake or solicited reviews.
• ONE REVIEW HAD NO TEXT: The review dated 2024-06-09 with a 5-star rating contained no written content and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed negative reviews are from 2011–2018, but a significant 1-star review from September 2024 confirms that core issues — failed work, poor responsiveness, and refusal to guarantee services — persist to the present day.
• WORK NOT TO CODE: At least two independent reviewers (2014 and 2018) explicitly state that Able & Willing performed work that failed city inspections or did not meet code, and in one case a city inspector confirmed this finding.
• DEPOSIT AND BILLING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe financial misconduct including refusal to return deposits after halting jobs, charging under a third-party business name ('Legend BC Enterprises'), and threatening liens for disputed charges.
• PRICE ESCALATION AFTER CONTRACT: At least two reviewers describe the owner or company doubling or significantly raising prices after work had already begun, in one case in direct violation of a written contract.
• NO GUARANTEE ON WORK: Multiple reviewers across different years explicitly state the company does not guarantee its work, which is corroborated by refusals to return for failed repairs.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence given the large number of reviews with usable data across all dimensions, though the score should be interpreted cautiously due to a suspected cluster of inauthentic 5-star reviews on a single date, which artificially inflates the positive signal.

Willis demonstrates significant and consistent problems across multiple dimensions. While two older reviews (2016, 2019) mention technical knowledge and responsiveness, three recent reviews (2021-2022) document serious failures in project completion, with incomplete work, refusal to honor callbacks, and poor follow-through on warranty repairs. Professionalism is severely compromised by documented instances of hanging up on customers, lying about work orders, and aggressive behavior regarding pricing disputes. Pricing practices are deceptive, with undisclosed quote fees and quotes significantly higher than competitors. The pattern of incomplete work (garbage disposal installed backwards, water tank left leaking in basement) combined with refusal to correct errors represents a critical failure in core plumbing competency.

• CRITICAL: Multiple documented instances of refusing to complete or correct work after payment received (2021, 2022 reviews)
• CRITICAL: Documented aggressive and abusive customer communication including hanging up on customers and shouting (2016, 2022 reviews)
• CRITICAL: Serious quality control failures including backwards installation and kinked drain hoses causing secondary damage (2022 review)
• CRITICAL: Deceptive pricing practices with undisclosed quote fees and quotes double competitors' prices (2016 review)
• Recency concern: Most recent reviews (2021-2022) are significantly more negative than older reviews (2016, 2019), suggesting deterioration in service quality or business practices
• Pattern of incomplete work and abandoned projects across multiple reviews

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. While the sample size is small (5 reviews), the pattern of failures is consistent and well-documented across recent reviews, with specific details about incomplete work, refusal to honor callbacks, and aggressive customer interactions. The two positive older reviews are substantially outweighed by three recent detailed accounts of serious professional and technical failures.