Find Nearby Plumbers In Hammond, Indiana

Rooter-Man Austin has a strong and well-documented track record of professionalism, with dozens of reviews praising punctuality, communication, courteous technicians, and office staff responsiveness. Technical experience and workmanship are consistently highlighted across a wide range of job types including slab leaks, water heaters, septic systems, and drain clearing. Project completion scores well overall, with most jobs described as resolved same-day or within the promised timeframe, though a small number of reviews describe repeat visits needed to resolve issues and at least one case of an incomplete job. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers describe fair or reasonable pricing, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews explicitly cite overcharging, opaque pricing models, surprise fees, and quotes far above competitors, pulling this score down significantly. The volume and specificity of reviews across all dimensions supports high confidence in all four scores.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review from 'Chris took care of a bad situation very quickly...' (5-star, June 2025) appears twice on consecutive dates (2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06). The review from 'Jason was super attentive...' (5-star, June 2025) also appears twice on consecutive dates (2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05). These are likely duplicate submissions or platform artifacts and were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• UNDATED REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews have no date (None). These were included in scoring but given reduced weight as recency cannot be confirmed. Several appear to reference a 'Mike' who is not mentioned in any dated reviews, suggesting these may be from a different time period, location, or possibly a different contractor operating under the same brand.
• PRICING CONCERNS — MULTIPLE NEGATIVE REVIEWS: At least 7 reviews explicitly describe overcharging, hidden fees, surprise trip charges, or quotes significantly above market rate. Specific complaints include: $2,000+ labor for a one-hour pump install, $300 for a 20-minute repair with $5 parts, $80 show-up fee with no work performed, $9,000 quote for a small tankless water heater, and installation of an unnecessary discontinued device with ongoing costs. These are not isolated incidents and represent a consistent pattern.
• MISDIAGNOSIS AND INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 3 reviews describe incorrect diagnoses leading to wasted money or delays in resolving the actual problem. One review describes a pressure valve replacement that did not fix the underlying leak. Another describes a wrong diagnosis of a dishwasher crack when no crack existed. A third describes a technician unable to find a leak source.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with dates fall within the past 12 months (2024-2025), which supports the reliability of the current score. Reviews from 2012-2014 were given minimal weight. The undated 'Mike' reviews could not be assessed for recency.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: The bulk of reviews are specific, name individual technicians, and describe distinct job types, which reduces fake review risk. However, the undated 'Mike' cluster is notably generic and repetitive in structure, with phrases like 'professional and honest' and 'great service' repeated without specifics. These were scored conservatively.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the pricing score in particular should be weighted carefully by prospective customers, as documented overcharging complaints are specific, recurring, and credible enough to represent a genuine pattern rather than outliers.

Associated Sewer and Plumbing earns consistently positive marks across all four dimensions, with pricing being a particular strength — nearly every reviewer who mentioned cost described it as reasonable, fair, or less expensive than competitors. Professionalism scores well overall, supported by repeated mentions of punctuality, politeness, and communication, though one review noted a late arrival and another flagged poor scheduling as a recurring issue. Project completion is the most nuanced dimension: the majority of reviewers describe work that was finished thoroughly and correctly, but one 1-star review explicitly states the company did not stand behind their work when a job was done incorrectly, and another noted a misdiagnosis of a toilet issue, which meaningfully pulls this score down. Experience is well-supported, with multiple reviewers citing skilled problem-solving, quality workmanship, and technical competence across a range of plumbing and sewer jobs. The score is tempered by the recency issue — the majority of reviews are more than three years old, with only one review from the past 12 months.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (December 2021). The majority of reviews are from 2008–2019, with a heavy cluster from 2013–2015. This significantly limits confidence in how well the score reflects current performance.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no usable detail ('Very well.', 'Did great job', 'unknown', 'Went very smoothly.', 'The employees showed up and performed a great job.'). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no evidence for any specific dimension.
• NEGATIVE SIGNAL — PROJECT COMPLETION: One 1-star review (March 2018) explicitly states work was not done correctly and the company refused to stand behind it. This is a meaningful flag for project completion reliability.
• NEGATIVE SIGNAL — EXPERIENCE: One review noted a toilet was misdiagnosed as broken when it only needed bolts tightened, suggesting a potential lapse in diagnostic accuracy.
• NEGATIVE SIGNAL — PROFESSIONALISM: One review noted messy work practices, specifically failing to bring equipment to contain black water during a sewer rodding job and leaving a customer's container uncleaned.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating. Negative and mixed reviews are present. No strong indicators of coordinated fake reviews.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high structural reliability due to a sufficient volume of detailed reviews across all four dimensions, but should be treated with caution given that the overwhelming majority of reviews are more than three years old and the single most recent review, while positive, cannot alone confirm that current service quality matches historical performance.

Kevin Szabo Jr Plumbing demonstrates strong performance across professionalism and project completion, with all three reviews explicitly praising responsiveness, punctuality, and professional demeanor. The second review provides the most detailed evidence, highlighting proactive communication, quality workmanship, and thorough customer service. Experience is supported by two mentions of skill and knowledge. However, pricing is not addressed in any review, and the sample size of only 3 reviews limits overall confidence. All reviews are older than 2 years, which may not reflect current service levels.

• Small sample size (n=3) limits statistical reliability
• All reviews are from 2020-2022; no recent reviews within past 12 months available for recency assessment
• Pricing dimension completely absent from all reviews—cannot evaluate value for money or fairness of rates
• Second review contains notably more detail than others; first and third reviews are brief and somewhat generic in praise

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and age of reviews; while the available data is positive and specific, a minimum of 5-8 recent reviews would be needed to establish high confidence in this contractor's current performance.

Mike's Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, driven by an overwhelming volume of positive reviews praising punctuality, communication, friendly technicians, and quality workmanship across a wide range of jobs. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with dozens of reviewers specifically calling out on-time arrivals, courteous staff, clean work habits, and responsive office personnel. Pricing scores moderately well — the majority of reviewers describe fair, competitive, or below-estimate final costs, but a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite unexpectedly high charges, undisclosed labor rates, and a significant bait-and-switch pricing complaint that cannot be ignored. Project completion is strong overall, with most jobs described as fully resolved in a timely manner, though several reviews flag recurring issues, abandoned callbacks, and at least one instance of a new leak appearing within 24 hours of service. Experience scores well, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnosis, creative problem-solving, and technical knowledge, though a handful of negative reviews describe technicians who could not resolve the issue or required senior intervention.

• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-29 and 2024-11-08) are nearly word-for-word identical in content, both complaining about a $310/hour charge for a water heater troubleshooting visit that yielded no resolution. This may represent the same reviewer posting twice or a coordinated negative review effort — treat with moderate caution but the underlying complaint is plausible and consistent with other pricing concerns.
• Two reviews (dated 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-04) are exact duplicates of a detailed positive review about a kitchen sink replumb job. This is a strong indicator of a fake or duplicate review submission and reduces confidence in the most recent positive review cluster.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-09 and 2024-10-03) are near-identical positive reviews about the same sewer line incident involving Cody. This may be a duplicate submission by the same reviewer.
• Two reviews (dated 2022-09-07 and 2022-09-04) are near-identical positive reviews about a whole-house generator gas piping re-do. Likely duplicate submissions.
• Two reviews (dated 2008-07-11) are exact duplicates of a positive review. Likely a duplicate submission.
• Multiple reviews contain no text and only a star rating (5 stars). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• A significant number of negative reviews (1-star) cite responsiveness and communication failures — unreturned calls, ignored messages, missed appointments, and failure to follow up. This is a recurring operational weakness that is partially offset by the high volume of positive responsiveness mentions but should not be dismissed.
• The review corpus spans from approximately 2008 to 2025. Reviews older than 2022 carry reduced weight per recency rules. The business appears to have grown significantly over time, and some older negative reviews may reflect earlier operational issues that have since improved — but some communication and scheduling complaints persist into 2024-2025.
• At least one review (2018-10-02) alleges the company refused to provide insurance information after causing property damage, which is a serious professional and legal concern.
• One review (2016-04-21) describes extremely unprofessional conduct including property damage, denial of responsibility, and an abusive late-night phone call. This is an outlier but a serious one.

This WW Score is based on a very large review corpus (281 reviews) spanning over 15 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction and relative dimension ranking, but the score should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate/fake positive reviews, a recurring pattern of communication and scheduling failures in negative reviews, and several serious pricing transparency complaints that suggest inconsistent customer experiences depending on the job type and technician assigned.

Kevin Szabo Jr Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with punctual arrivals, courteous staff, and clear communication across 187 mentions. Technical experience is solid with 142 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. Project completion is generally reliable (156 mentions), though some callbacks and follow-up issues are noted. Pricing is the weakest dimension (68.0/100) with 52 explicit mentions—customers frequently report high costs, surprise charges, credit card fees (3%), and expensive estimates ($89-$92.50), though some praise fair pricing. The company shows inconsistency: many 5-star reviews contrast sharply with serious complaints about no-shows, unresponsiveness, signature forgery, and incomplete work requiring multiple visits.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews cite high labor costs ($450 for $150 disposal, $7,500 labor quote vs. $1,800 competitor, $600 for pilot light relight, $425 for 20-min drain work). Credit card surcharge (3%) and estimate fees ($89-$92.50) not always disclosed upfront.
• RESPONSIVENESS ISSUES: Several reviews report unreturned calls, missed appointments, and no-shows despite confirmed scheduling. One customer waited 5 days with no water; another left 2 messages 3 days apart with no callback.
• SERIOUS ETHICAL CONCERNS: One 1-star review alleges signature forgery on a check and dismissive owner response ('What's the big deal?'). Police report filed. Another review mentions gang/hate symbols on work vehicles.
• INCOMPLETE/REPEAT WORK: Multiple reviews describe problems requiring 2-4 return visits (clogged drain recurred next day, ejector pump issues recurring, water heater defects requiring 3 replacements, ceiling damage from initial work never repaired).
• ESTIMATE INCONSISTENCY: Estimates vary wildly ($2k vs. $12k for same job; $1,500 competitor vs. $9,000 Szabo for sump pit). Some customers report being pressured or quoted differently based on gender.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 40-50 reviews from 2023-06-10 and 2024-06-09 show identical or near-identical phrasing ('great job,' 'highly recommend,' minimal detail), some with blank text fields, suggesting possible bulk/automated posting. Reduces confidence slightly but HIGH confidence maintained due to volume of detailed, specific negative reviews that appear authentic.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Same company receives both 'best plumber ever' and 'worst experience' reviews, suggesting high variability in technician quality or service delivery.
• WATER DAMAGE/LIABILITY: One review describes installation error causing basement flooding; company promised repair but drywaller no-showed twice and company became unresponsive.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable but reflects a company with significant inconsistency: strong technical skills and professionalism in ~70% of engagements, but serious gaps in pricing transparency, responsiveness, and follow-through in ~15-20% of cases. The pricing dimension (68.0) is particularly concerning given explicit complaints about overcharging and hidden fees. Customers should obtain multiple quotes, confirm all fees in writing, and consider the company's mixed track record on callbacks and appointment reliability before committing.

Trojan Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with many customers praising punctuality, friendliness, and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by recurring issues with project completion and follow-through: multiple reviews document failures to provide quotes, return calls, or honor callbacks after initial service. Pricing is a notable weakness, with several customers reporting overcharges, bait-and-switch tactics, and quotes substantially higher than competitors. While individual technicians (Jason, Joe, Tony, Patrick) receive consistent praise, systemic office management and accountability problems undermine overall reliability.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2023-06-26, 2022-05-12, 2018-08-28) report quote discrepancies, hidden charges, and overpricing. One customer was quoted $250 more than original estimate; another reported $75 upcharge for work allegedly included in original quote. Pattern suggests inconsistent quoting practices.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE PATTERN: At least 4 reviews (2022-04-12, 2019-11-09, 2020-05-22, 2018-08-28) document complete failure to follow up on quotes, callbacks, or promised return visits. One customer waited 2+ months with no response; another waited 3 weeks for promised quote.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Multiple reviews (2022-05-12, 2018-06-21, 2017-12-01, 2017-07-02) document incomplete repairs requiring second visits or additional plumbers. One customer's faucet repair caused permanent damage to the fixture; another's cartridge installation created new pipe-banging problem.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most 5-star reviews are from 2014-2019 (older than 3 years). Recent reviews (2022-2023) are predominantly 1-2 stars, suggesting service quality decline or increased customer dissatisfaction over time.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 35 reviews contain nearly identical praise structures ('professional,' 'friendly,' 'knowledgeable,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail. However, negative reviews are highly detailed and specific, which is atypical of fake review patterns. This suggests authentic mixed feedback rather than fabricated reviews.
• INCONSISTENT STAFF PERFORMANCE: Reviews frequently praise specific technicians (Jason, Joe, Tony) but criticize others (Josh, Joe in different context). Suggests quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned rather than company-wide standards.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for professionalism and experience dimensions, but LOW confidence for pricing and project completion. The company excels at technical execution and initial customer interaction but fails consistently at administrative follow-through, quote accuracy, and accountability. Recent negative trend (2022-2023) suggests current reliability is lower than historical average. Recommend requesting written quotes, confirming all terms in writing, and establishing clear callback expectations before engaging services.