Find Nearby Plumbers In Hammond, Indiana

Reichelt Plumbing scores well on professionalism and experience, with dozens of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians — particularly Mario, Chris, and Vince — who communicate clearly and arrive on time. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs finished same-day or next-day, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, callbacks not honored, or jobs left worse than before. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the most frequently criticized dimension across the review set: multiple reviewers across many years describe feeling overcharged, blindsided by flat-rate fees, or billed excessively for short jobs with inexpensive parts. A small number of serious negative reviews describe outright poor workmanship and disputed billing, which further tempers the score.

• 47 reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', or blank text with a 5-star rating — these provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their volume inflates the apparent star rating and may reflect imported placeholder records or data entry artifacts rather than genuine customer feedback.
• Several recent 5-star reviews (2025) are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Great help great work.', 'did a good job.', 'Excellent work and care as always!') with no specifics. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild fake-review caution for the most recent batch.
• Two reviews dated 2018-09-05 appear to be near-duplicate submissions of the same complaint about a gas line service call — likely the same customer posting twice. Only one instance was counted in scoring.
• Two reviews dated 2018-02-26 and 2018-02-27 also appear to be near-duplicate submissions of the same sewer line complaint. Only one instance was counted in scoring.
• Pricing complaints span the full date range of the review set (2011–2025), suggesting this is a persistent structural issue rather than an isolated incident.
• The majority of reviews with substantive text are older than 12 months (pre-June 2024). Recent reviews with usable detail are present but thinner, so recency-weighted confidence in current performance is moderate.

The WW Score of 74.2 is based on a large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution given the high volume of content-free placeholder reviews, a persistent pattern of pricing complaints spanning over a decade, and several credible accounts of incomplete or substandard work.

Access Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising professionalism, punctuality, and friendly technicians across many years of service. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including an abandoned job with live electrical wires left exposed, a technician who left black sludge water and loose connections, a customer hung up on by office staff, a suspected fraudulent water heater installation with a blacked-out serial number, broken pipes and a technician fleeing the scene, and a faucet bait-and-switch with subsequent refusal to return calls — significantly tempers the overall score. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, but several reviewers noted feeling overcharged or surprised by additional fees after the initial quote. Project completion is a notable concern, with multiple reviews describing incomplete work, return visits required, or jobs left in worse condition than found. The experience dimension shows genuine skill in complex jobs like slab leaks and re-piping, but is undermined by incidents of clear technical incompetence.

• Multiple reviews with no text content beyond 'unknown' (3 reviews dated 2015) provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Several very short generic reviews ('they were wonderful', 'these guys were just perfect', 'good advice', 'Went well!', 'Fantastic job!', 'Great folks to work with!') contain no specific detail and contribute minimal signal; they were counted toward overall sentiment but not toward specific dimension scores.
• The review corpus spans approximately 11 years (2013–2024). A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years. The most recent negative reviews (October 2024, October 2023) suggest quality and customer service issues may be ongoing or worsening, not historical anomalies.
• At least 6 clearly negative reviews describe serious failures: abandoned work with safety hazards (live wire, uncapped water line), office staff hanging up on a customer, a suspected fraudulent or stolen water heater with a blacked-out serial number, a technician who broke pipes and fled, a faucet bait-and-switch with no follow-up, and a sewer job that required a second charge to complete what should have been included.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, though the volume of short, undetailed 5-star reviews is notable. These are not scored as fake but are treated as low-information data points.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (107 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in volume terms, but the presence of serious, specific, and recent negative incidents — including safety failures, billing disputes, and poor customer service — means the score should be interpreted cautiously; the contractor performs well in routine jobs but has documented patterns of failure in more complex or disputed situations.

Young Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical competence, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and skilled workmanship. However, the company is significantly undermined by widespread pricing concerns—numerous reviews explicitly cite overcharging, inflated quotes, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is generally solid with timely service delivery, though some customers report incomplete work or follow-up issues. The stark disconnect between positive service quality and negative pricing feedback creates a polarized reputation that substantially depresses the overall WW Score.

• PRICING PATTERN: 68 mentions of pricing issues reveal a systemic problem. Complaints include: $1,860 for minor pipe tightening, $600 for dishwasher installation (competitor charged $250), $425/hour labor rates, $485 for a $20 valve, $545 for <1.5 hours work, and consistent reports of 'price gouging' and 'rip-off' language. This is the single largest driver of negative reviews.
• SENIOR CITIZEN TARGETING: Multiple reviews (at least 5) explicitly allege the company exploits elderly/fixed-income customers by quoting inflated prices, failing to honor senior discounts, or being deliberately non-transparent about costs.
• QUOTE FEE CONTROVERSY: Repeated complaints about $40–$99 'diagnostic' or 'quote' fees that are only waived if customer accepts service same-day, creating pressure to accept overpriced quotes.
• INCOMPLETE/POOR WORK PATTERN: Several reviews report work left unfinished, problems recurring within days/weeks, or technicians missing items on the original scope (e.g., gas line work only partially completed, drain clog recurring after 1 week, shower valve still leaking after repair).
• RECEPTIONIST/COMMUNICATION ISSUES: At least 3 reviews cite rude receptionists, failure to return calls, or unprofessional phone interactions.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in customer experience—some praise specific technicians (Tony, Tom, Eric, Sebastian, Tanner) while others report poor work from different staff, suggesting inconsistent training or quality control.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK—MODERATE: Approximately 30–40 reviews from June 2025 (future date) and May 2025 are suspiciously clustered, use similar phrasing ('great job,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend'), lack specifics, and are all 5-star. This temporal anomaly and repetitive language pattern suggests possible review manipulation. Confidence in recent 5-star reviews should be treated as LIMITED.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (past 6 months) are predominantly 5-star with generic praise, while older reviews (2019–2023) contain more detailed, credible criticism. This inversion is atypical and raises authenticity concerns.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable at the HIGH confidence level due to large sample size (227 reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions. However, the score masks a critical flaw: Young Plumbing excels at service delivery and professionalism but systematically overcharges customers. The recent cluster of 5-star reviews with suspicious uniformity suggests possible review inflation, which may artificially elevate the professionalism and completion scores. Customers should weight pricing concerns heavily—this company is best suited for those prioritizing speed and quality over cost, or those with emergency situations where price is secondary. For budget-conscious customers, competitive quotes are strongly recommended.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

This aggregated review set spans multiple companies operating under similar or related names (Action Plumbing, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, and individual plumbers like Jeff Satterthwaite), which significantly complicates scoring and reduces reliability. The majority of reviews are positive and praise professionalism, punctuality, and communication, but a substantial minority of negative reviews describe serious failures including fire damage, abandoned work, misdiagnosis, property damage, dishonest billing practices, and chronic non-responsiveness — particularly in the context of American Home Shield warranty work. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers found costs fair or competitive, while others reported inflated fees, hidden charges, and deceptive billing. Project completion is a notable weakness, with multiple reviews citing incomplete jobs, failed callbacks, and work that required correction by other plumbers. Experience scores are dragged down by documented cases of poor workmanship, incorrect diagnoses, and code violations, despite many reviews praising skilled technicians by name.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span multiple distinct businesses (Action Plumbing in multiple states/cities, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, Jeff Satterthwaite Plumbing, and others). Scores reflect an aggregated pool that may not represent any single contractor accurately. Consumer should verify which specific entity they are evaluating.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: A significant number of reviews contain no text (rating only), particularly clustered around dates like 2024-06-09, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, and 2015. These blank 5-star reviews inflate the average rating and are treated as non-usable data. Additionally, some reviews use nearly identical phrasing across different dates, suggesting possible review padding.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least one review describes Action Plumbing causing a fire that left four families homeless (2024-09-06), with the owner allegedly unresponsive. Another describes a bathtub installation so defective it required full drywall and tile replacement. A third describes a whole-house re-pipe job where lines were not flushed, causing debris damage throughout the home. These are severe outliers that materially affect trustworthiness.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about Jake damaging a home during water heater installation (rating 1.0) appears verbatim on two separate dates (2024-06-09 and 2023-10-10). This duplication was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• AHS WARRANTY PATTERN: A recurring pattern of negative reviews involves American Home Shield (AHS) warranty assignments, where the contractor is accused of misdiagnosis, inflated modification fees, non-responsiveness, and claim denial manipulation. This pattern appears across multiple years and locations, suggesting a systemic issue with warranty work specifically.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2001 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) show a mixed but somewhat improved pattern for Astro Plumbing specifically, while Action Plumbing reviews remain mixed across the full date range.
• GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSION: Reviews reference locations including Las Vegas NV, Cleveland OH, Lawrence KS, Corpus Christi TX, Silsbee TX, Kaysville UT, Rhode Island, Indiana, and others. This strongly suggests these are reviews for multiple unrelated businesses sharing similar names, not a single contractor. The WW Score should be interpreted with extreme caution as a result.

This WW Score has LOW reliability for evaluating any single contractor because the review pool almost certainly aggregates multiple unrelated businesses operating under similar names across different states; consumers should independently verify the specific entity they intend to hire and seek reviews specific to that business's location and ownership before making a hiring decision.

Quality Plumbing receives strong praise across hundreds of reviews for responsiveness, friendly technicians, and professional demeanor, with many customers citing specific plumbers by name and describing courteous, efficient service. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spread across many years and locations — describe serious concerns including billing disputes (charging for travel time, rounding up hours, marking up parts significantly), failed diagnoses, abandoned or incomplete work, and rude office staff who hung up on customers. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers describe feeling overcharged, discovering parts were marked up 200-300%, or being billed for time the plumber was not on-site. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left unfinished, return visits that never materialized, or problems that were not resolved after multiple attempts. The experience dimension scores moderately well overall, as most technicians are described as knowledgeable and skilled, but a subset of reviews describe misdiagnoses, amateur-level work, and technicians who could not complete the job.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens dated exactly 2024-09-12, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2018-06-11, 2017-06-11) with very short, generic, undetailed text and all 5-star ratings. This pattern is consistent with bulk review submission and inflates the positive signal. These reviews were counted but treated with reduced evidentiary weight.
• MULTI-LOCATION AGGREGATION RISK — HIGH: Reviews reference locations across at least 8 distinct geographic markets including Seattle WA, Cape Coral/Fort Myers FL, Kansas City MO, Ventura County CA, Honolulu HI, Galveston TX, Denver CO, and Fresno CA. These are almost certainly different businesses operating under the same or similar name 'Quality Plumbing.' Scores reflect the aggregate pool and may not represent any single business accurately.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 30 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive, detailed reviews are from 2020 to 2025, which carry the most weight. Reviews from 2005-2015 are present but represent a smaller share and may reflect different ownership or staffing.
• BILLING COMPLAINTS — RECURRING PATTERN: At least 15 independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe billing practices including charging for drive time, rounding up labor hours, excessive parts markups, and charging for assessments where no work was performed. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, promises to return that were never honored, and supervisors who never called back after complaints. This meaningfully depresses the project completion score.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE FOR A RESTAURANT (Mexican food/tamales) — clearly misattributed and excluded from scoring.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE A POLITICAL COMPLAINT about signage outside the business — excluded from scoring as it does not address service quality.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a predictor for any single 'Quality Plumbing' location is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple unrelated businesses across the United States have been aggregated together, and that a notable share of 5-star reviews show patterns consistent with fake or bulk submissions.