Find Nearby Plumbers In Hammond, Indiana

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated failures to return calls, no-shows, late arrivals, and a complete lack of follow-through on guaranteed work — with only one positive review describing responsive and effective service. Project completion is a critical weakness, with multiple reviewers describing unresolved jobs, a sewer line that re-clogged within a week with no callback honored despite a 6-month guarantee, and an 8-week unresolved engagement. Pricing concerns are explicit, with one reviewer alleging they were robbed and another noting payment was collected with no resolution delivered. Experience scores marginally higher due to one genuinely positive outcome, but is undercut by a reviewer explicitly calling the contractor 'inexperienced' and another needing to hire a different contractor to fix the same problem.

• 4 out of 5 reviews are 1-star, indicating a strong pattern of negative customer experiences.
• One review describes a guaranteed service (6-month sewer line warranty) that was never honored despite repeated contact attempts — this is a significant consumer protection concern.
• One review alleges money was taken from an elderly person with dementia with no resolution — a serious ethical and potentially legal flag.
• The single 5-star review (2023) is from a different reviewer name (Mr. Muhammad) and describes appliance repair rather than plumbing, which may indicate a different technician or service context than the negative reviews.
• Reviews span from 2018 to 2023; the most recent review (2023) is the only positive one, but the pattern of non-communication and non-completion is consistent across multiple years, suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews are varied in language, specific in detail, and include both positive and negative experiences.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning multiple years, but the consistency of serious complaints across professionalism, completion, and pricing gives the low score moderate reliability — the contractor should be approached with significant caution.

This contractor's review set is small (4 reviews) and deeply mixed, with two highly detailed 1-star reviews that describe serious failures across every dimension. The 1-star reviews document a 4-month sewer job with repeated no-shows and subpar workmanship, and a diagnostic failure that nearly resulted in $2,200 of unnecessary work — both of which heavily drag down professionalism, project completion, and experience scores. The two positive reviews (5-star and 4-star) do provide genuine counterweight, noting responsiveness, honesty, and good customer service, but they are older (2014 and 2018) and less detailed than the negative accounts. The net picture is a contractor with serious documented failures that outweigh the limited positive evidence available.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• The two positive reviews are significantly older (2014 and 2018) than the two negative reviews (2019), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. More recent reviews are weighted more heavily per scoring rules.
• The 1-star review from 2019-07-16 describes a pattern consistent with upselling or fraudulent diagnostic practices — recommending unnecessary $2,200 pipe replacement and soliciting the customer's homeowner's insurance policy. This is a serious red flag beyond mere incompetence.
• The 1-star review from 2019-09-26 describes a 4-month project timeline for a job completed by a competitor in under 4 days, along with repeated no-shows and subpar workmanship — indicating potential systemic operational failures.
• No reviews are available from 2020 or later. The recency gap means current performance cannot be assessed from this data set.

This WW Score is LOW RELIABILITY — it is based on only 4 reviews spanning a wide date range, with the most recent and most detailed reviews being strongly negative, and the positive reviews being 5–9 years old; prospective customers should seek additional current references before hiring.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Project completion is critically weak, with multiple reviews documenting incomplete work, abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, and work that left customers in worse condition than before service. Professionalism is severely compromised by documented instances of disrespectful behavior, yelling, threats, unannounced visits, no-shows, and unprofessional payment collection tactics. Pricing concerns emerge from customers feeling scammed and charged for failed work. While one review mentions 20+ years of experience, the actual workmanship quality is poor, with wrong pipe types installed, inadequate equipment used, and repeated failures to solve problems. The single 5-star review praising 'fantastic service' stands in stark contrast to seven 1-star reviews with detailed, specific complaints, raising authenticity concerns.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF COMPLAINTS: 7 of 8 reviews are 1-star with detailed, specific negative experiences spanning 2015-2018. This is not isolated dissatisfaction.
• SUSPICIOUS AUTHENTICITY: The single 5-star review (2017-04-27) is generic ('Fantastic service...Very professional and courteous') with no specific details, contrasting sharply with the highly detailed 1-star reviews. This may be a fake positive review.
• REPEATED FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviews document the same core issues—incomplete work, failed callbacks, work that worsened the problem, and unprofessional behavior. This suggests systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least 3 reviews explicitly document unfinished jobs and broken promises to return (storm door repair, sewer line follow-up, warranty service).
• AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR: Multiple reviews document yelling, threats, disrespectful language, and confrontational interactions with customers.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE 5+ YEARS OLD (2015-2018): No recent reviews available. Current operational status and whether issues have been corrected is unknown.

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 8 reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific complaints across all dimensions, with HIGH confidence in professionalism, pricing, and project completion scores. The contractor demonstrates systematic failure to deliver professional service, complete work, or treat customers respectfully. However, the complete absence of recent reviews (all from 2015-2018) means current performance cannot be assessed; the business may no longer be operating or may have undergone significant changes.

This contractor's reviews paint a consistently alarming picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is catastrophically low: multiple reviewers describe the owner as rude, verbally aggressive, dismissive, and unresponsive to callbacks — including hanging up on customers and sending hostile texts. Project completion is nearly as poor, with repeated accounts of abandoned work, unfinished jobs, parts failing within months, and a refusal to return to correct defective installations. Workmanship quality is explicitly criticized across multiple reviews, including improperly shimmed shower bases, missing structural studs, duct-tape repairs, and a leaking water filter installation. Pricing concerns appear in at least three reviews, with customers feeling overcharged for poor or incomplete work. The single positive review (5 stars, 2017) is heavily outweighed by seven 1-star reviews spanning 2014–2022 and provides insufficient counterbalance to the dominant pattern of failure.

• PATTERN WARNING: 7 out of 8 reviews are 1-star. The single 5-star review (2017) is vague, lacks specific detail, and is significantly older than the bulk of negative reviews — it should be treated with caution.
• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent reviews (2021–2022) continue to reflect the same negative patterns as older reviews, suggesting no improvement in business practices over time.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly questions whether this contractor holds valid plumbing and electrical licenses and advises others to verify before hiring.
• ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers describe the contractor refusing to return calls or complete work after payment — this is a consistent and serious red flag.
• WORKMANSHIP SAFETY CONCERN: At least two reviews describe structural deficiencies (missing studs behind shower wall, improperly secured shower base) that could pose safety risks to occupants.
• SCOPE CREEP / NON-PLUMBING WORK: One review involves driveway plowing, suggesting this contractor operates outside licensed plumbing work, which may indicate unlicensed general contracting activity.

This WW Score is based on 8 reviews with strong directional consistency across all dimensions and should be considered highly reliable as a negative indicator — this contractor demonstrates a well-documented pattern of poor workmanship, unprofessional conduct, and failure to complete or stand behind work.

Every single review is a 1-star complaint, painting a consistently negative picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by two documented no-shows with fabricated excuses, a failure to answer emergency calls, and a refusal to return calls or emails after a billing dispute. Pricing is a major red flag, with multiple reviewers citing quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors — in one case, a $3,000–$5,000 quote for work that a competitor completed for $279. Project completion is nearly non-existent in a positive sense: one job was partially completed with the root cause left unresolved, one contractor never showed up twice, and one company never responded at all to a service call. The limited experience signals available suggest poor diagnostic ability and incomplete workmanship rather than skilled trade execution.

• ALL 4 reviews are 1-star — this is a uniformly negative dataset with zero positive signals across any dimension.
• One review (2021-07-20) is older than 12 months and predates the most recent reviews by over 2 years; however, the pattern of poor behavior is consistent across all review dates including 2024, suggesting no improvement over time.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews are specific, varied in detail, and describe distinct incidents, lending credibility to the negative feedback.
• Pricing dimension shows a potential predatory pricing pattern: quotes ranged from 10x to 17x higher than competitor prices for identical work, which may warrant consumer protection concern.
• Company appears to have a documented pattern of no-shows, unanswered emergency lines, and non-responsiveness to refund requests — these are systemic operational failures, not isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, which limits statistical confidence, but the consistency and specificity of complaints across all dimensions — spanning 2021 to 2024 — make the low score a credible and reliable reflection of this contractor's performance.

This contractor exhibits severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. All four reviews are uniformly negative (1-star ratings) and describe systematic failures in professionalism including missed appointments, refusal to communicate, payment disputes, and hanging up on customers. Pricing practices are highly questionable, with reports of dramatic price increases ($75 quoted vs. $335 charged) and lack of transparency. Project completion is compromised by no-shows and missed appointments. One review mentions the job was technically completed but under highly suspicious circumstances. Critical red flags include potential business registration fraud and lack of legitimate business documentation.

• CRITICAL: All 4 reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly severe complaints — suggests systemic business failure rather than isolated incidents
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews report missed appointments (4 missed over 3 days, no-show on scheduled date) — indicates chronic reliability failure
• CRITICAL: Pricing fraud suspected — customer reports quote of $75 + unknown charge, final bill $335; another customer reports $2,300 charge for work previously done for $300
• CRITICAL: Potential business legitimacy issue — one review explicitly states no record in IL Secretary of State database and address appears fake
• CRITICAL: Customer service breakdown — office hung up on customer attempting to resolve dispute; refusal to connect with manager or owner
• CRITICAL: Payment coercion — demanded cash/check payment on day of service after collecting credit card information for appointment booking
• CRITICAL: All reviews are from 2020-2022 (2-4 years old) — no recent reviews available to assess if business practices have changed
• CRITICAL: No receipt provided for $335 cash payment — lack of documentation and accountability

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient data volume (4 reviews) and extreme age (all reviews 2-4 years old with no recent activity), but the uniformly catastrophic ratings and serious allegations of fraud, missed appointments, and business illegitimacy suggest this contractor should be avoided entirely — treat this assessment as a strong warning rather than a quantitative score.