Find Nearby Plumbers In Hammond, Indiana

This contractor has a strong base of satisfied customers who frequently praise friendliness, punctuality, and responsiveness, with many reviewers noting same-day or next-day service. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern — multiple detailed negative reviews across many years describe charges perceived as excessive, hidden fees (e.g., undisclosed crawlspace inspection fees, high flat-rate labor), and instances where customers felt pressured or taken advantage of, dragging the pricing score down substantially. Project completion is mixed: the majority of jobs appear to be finished satisfactorily, but there are credible, specific accounts of work left incomplete, problems recurring shortly after service, and in at least two cases plumbers being called back multiple times without resolution. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers praising knowledgeable technicians, but offset by several detailed accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and use of used parts on new equipment. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in responsiveness and customer-facing professionalism, but meaningful and consistent weaknesses in pricing transparency and job completion reliability.

• 15 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• Several reviews marked 'unknown' as text were also excluded from dimension scoring.
• Pricing complaints are numerous, specific, and span the full date range of reviews (2015–2025), indicating a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents. Multiple reviewers independently describe undisclosed fees, flat-rate charges perceived as far exceeding market rates, and refusal to negotiate.
• At least 4 reviews describe work that was not completed or that failed shortly after service, with the contractor being unresponsive or unwilling to return under warranty — a meaningful project completion risk signal.
• One review (2023-09-26, 0.5 stars) describes 4 failed trips for a single shower handle repair, a replaced water heater with a cheaper brand under warranty, and property damage left uncleaned — this is a serious multi-dimension failure.
• One review (2018-05-25) describes a plumber manipulating a urinal during inspection, causing it to leak over a weekend and resulting in approximately $5,000 in building damage, with the company refusing liability — a significant workmanship and accountability flag.
• One review (2024-04-28) alleges the contractor took a vanity left for installation and did not complete the agreed work — a potential integrity concern.
• One review (2020-12-23) alleges the plumber let the customer's dogs out of a secured area and left the gate open, then was rude when confronted — a professionalism and safety concern.
• The review pool spans from 2013 to 2025. Reviews older than 2 years (pre-June 2023) were given reduced weight in scoring. The majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) skew more positive, suggesting possible improvement over time, but pricing complaints persist into 2025.
• Some positive reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service', 'Fast friendly and efficient', 'Keep up the good work') with no specifics. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, the volume of low-detail 5-star reviews warrants mild caution. No strong coordinated fake review pattern was detected, but confidence in the upper end of positive scores is modestly reduced.
• The business appears to operate under multiple names across reviews (A-1 Plumbing, I Need A Plumber Now), which may indicate a rebranding or franchise structure. Reviewers reference different staff names and locations, suggesting this may be a composite of related but distinct business entities. Scores should be interpreted with this in mind.

This WW Score is based on a large review pool (163 reviews, 148 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the significant volume of detailed negative reviews around pricing and project completion, the multi-name business identity, and the presence of numerous content-free reviews that could not be scored.

Perfect Plumbing has a large and long review history showing genuinely strong technician-level professionalism — many reviewers praise individual techs (Eli, Bob, Cam, Joel, James) as friendly, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative. However, the record is significantly undermined by a persistent and recurring pattern of serious failures: multiple reviews across different years describe missed appointments, no-shows, unreturned calls, and jobs left unfinished for months. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling the service expensive or feeling overcharged, and at least two reviews describing what appear to be unnecessary upselling or outright misdiagnosis. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with credible accounts of abandoned work, failed inspections never remedied, and warranty disputes going back years. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) skew more positive, suggesting possible operational improvement, but older negative reviews document serious systemic issues that cannot be ignored.

• 40 of 125 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews cannot be scored and inflate the apparent review count without providing usable evidence. This pattern may indicate review padding.
• Several reviews use 'unknown' as the review text, which provides no usable data and may indicate imported or placeholder reviews.
• A cluster of reviews dated 2025-03-11 and 2025-05-10 appear to have been submitted in batches with identical dates, which may indicate coordinated review submission rather than organic customer feedback.
• Multiple serious negative reviews describe abandoned jobs, unfinished work lasting months, and an owner (Josh/Frank) who repeatedly failed to return calls or complete contracted work — these are credible, detailed, and span multiple years (2013, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2024).
• At least two reviews describe potential misdiagnosis or unnecessary upselling (sump pump repair quoted at $10,000 that cost $200 elsewhere; water heater reset misdiagnosed as needing full replacement at $895 labor).
• One review describes a deeply serious allegation: a job paid in full ($14,000) that was abandoned, leaving an elderly woman's yard in a dangerous state. This was reported to the BBB and Iowa Plumbers Board of Licensure.
• Review dates span from 2006 to 2025 — nearly 20 years. Older reviews (pre-2020) are given reduced weight per recency rules, but the negative patterns they document are consistent with more recent negative reviews, suggesting these are not isolated incidents.
• The name of the owner appears inconsistently across reviews as both 'Frank' and 'Josh', which may indicate this profile aggregates reviews for more than one business entity or location, reducing score reliability.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews with usable text, but the score itself should be treated with caution given the serious and recurring nature of the negative reviews, the large number of blank reviews that may artificially inflate ratings, and the possibility that this profile aggregates multiple business entities operating under the same name.

Mr. Rooter of Northwest Indiana earns strong marks for professionalism in the majority of reviews, with many customers praising punctuality, politeness, and clear communication. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including no-shows, abandoned jobs, poor troubleshooting, and rude behavior — prevents a high professionalism score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly called out overcharging, lack of transparency, high emergency fees, and labor costs wildly disproportionate to parts and time. Project completion is mixed — many jobs were finished well, but several reviews describe incomplete fixes, callbacks not honored promptly, and one technician walking off the job entirely. Experience scores moderately well, with several reviewers praising technical skill and problem-solving, offset by at least two clear instances of poor diagnosis or incomplete work.

• 7 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Two reviews (2020-05-06 and 2020-07-08) appear to be joke or troll reviews with no legitimate service feedback. These were excluded from scoring.
• One review (2016-06-15) is marked 'unknown' with a 1-star rating and no text — excluded from scoring.
• One review (2016-09-03) is marked 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no text — excluded from scoring.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2025 are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Great job. Many thanks!', 'Excellent service', 'Prompt and friendly / Excellent work!'). While not conclusively fake, they lack specifics and may reflect solicited reviews. Confidence is not reduced but noted.
• Review recency is broad — reviews span from 2013 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring, as service quality and staffing may have changed significantly.
• Negative reviews are substantive and specific, describing no-shows, overcharging, incomplete repairs, and unprofessional behavior. These are treated as credible and weighted accordingly.
• The 1-star review from 2021 describes a faulty water heater installation with no follow-up for 4 days — a serious project completion failure that was factored into scoring.
• The 1-star review from 2024 describes a $720 repair that did not resolve the sewage smell, with poor scheduling follow-through — a significant project completion and professionalism failure.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, with enough negative and specific reviews to provide a realistic picture of service quality; the score of 72.1 should be treated as a moderately reliable signal that this contractor performs well in many cases but carries meaningful risk around pricing transparency, job completion, and appointment reliability.

Repipe Specialists has a deeply split review profile: a strong majority of positive reviews praise punctuality, crew professionalism, and quality workmanship, but a meaningful cluster of detailed negative reviews describes serious failures including abandoned punch-list items, failed inspections, weeks-long delays beyond promised timelines, surprise upcharges not disclosed in contracts, and aggressive or dishonest sales tactics. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple credible accounts of manipulative salespeople, non-responsive staff, and a field manager who reportedly asked a customer to delete a negative review rather than resolve the issue. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with several reviewers explicitly describing jobs that ran weeks or months beyond the promised one-to-two-day window, incomplete work never returned to, and inspection failures. Pricing receives a below-average score due to recurring complaints about undisclosed upcharges, pressure tactics during estimates, and customers feeling overcharged relative to competitors. Experience scores moderately well because the majority of reviewers who comment on workmanship quality report satisfactory or excellent results, though inspection failures and poor wall patching in some cases temper this.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review dated 2022-06-10 and 2021-08-10 are word-for-word identical, and the review dated 2017-06-11 ('I wish I had done this sooner...') appears twice verbatim (also dated 2017-02-21). These duplicates were counted only once each in scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A notable cluster of 5-star reviews from 2024-06-09 share the same date and follow a similar generic praise pattern with minimal specifics. While some contain enough detail to appear genuine, the date clustering warrants caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2016–2025. Negative reviews are disproportionately concentrated in 2024–2025, suggesting a possible decline in service quality or subcontractor management in recent years. Recent reviews should be weighted more heavily.
• SUBCONTRACTOR MODEL WARNING: Multiple reviewers explicitly flag that Repipe Specialists subcontracts all physical work to third-party plumbing teams. This creates inconsistent customer experiences and accountability gaps, as confirmed by both positive and negative reviewers.
• SERIOUS COMPLETION FAILURES NOTED: At least 3 reviews describe jobs that were never fully completed, with the company becoming unresponsive after partial work. One reviewer lost a freezer full of food due to crew negligence. These are high-severity incidents that materially reduce the project completion score.
• SALES CONDUCT CONCERNS: At least 4 independent reviews describe the same pattern of high-pressure, manipulative, or dishonest sales behavior — including price drops during the pitch, refusal to accept 'no,' and one salesperson apparently attempting to bypass the company and pocket payment directly.
• WARRANTY CONCERN: One reviewer reports being told their fixture was not covered under the lifetime warranty with no documentation provided at time of installation. This suggests potential misrepresentation during the sales process.

This WW Score is based on 62 reviews spanning approximately 9 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence due to volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the bimodal distribution of experiences, confirmed duplicate reviews, a cluster of same-date 5-star reviews, and a clear pattern of serious service failures in the most recent 12–18 months that suggest deteriorating performance.

Benchmark Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising individual technicians like Joe, Jamie, Gabe, Jason, and Nick for professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious project completion failures including abandoned jobs, no-shows, unreturned calls, damage caused by technicians that was never remedied, and work that had to be redone by other companies. Pricing is generally described as reasonable or competitive, with only one reviewer noting it could have been more affordable. The experience dimension is mixed: while many reviewers praise skill and thoroughness, at least two reviews explicitly describe technicians who lacked the knowledge to complete the assigned job. The volume and specificity of negative reviews prevents this contractor from scoring in the high range despite the many genuine positive experiences.

• 3 reviews contain no text — only a star rating — and cannot contribute usable data to any dimension.
• Several positive reviews share the same date (2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10), which may indicate batch submissions or review solicitation campaigns. These reviews were still scored but treated with moderate caution.
• The first review explicitly states no work was ever performed, making it unsuitable for scoring any service dimension — it was excluded from dimension scoring.
• Multiple negative reviews describe a consistent pattern: technicians causing damage and then becoming unresponsive, and appointments being cancelled without notice. This is a systemic flag, not isolated incidents.
• Review recency note: The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2016–2019. More recent reviews (2020–2024) include a higher proportion of negative experiences, suggesting possible service quality decline over time. Recent-period scores were weighted more heavily per Rule 6.

This WW Score is based on 39 reviews with usable content spanning 2016–2024 and carries HIGH overall confidence due to review volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a clear pattern of project completion and responsiveness failures documented in multiple independent negative reviews across recent years.

Pittman Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied repeat customers who consistently praise responsiveness, same-day service, and fair pricing across many years of reviews. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — documents serious professionalism failures including no-call no-shows, missed appointments, unreturned calls, and failure to deliver promised written proposals. Pricing received mixed signals: many reviewers praised affordability and transparency, but at least two detailed reviews described price inflation, overcharging for apprentice labor time, and suspiciously high estimates. Project completion is similarly mixed — most jobs were finished well, but several reviews describe abandoned follow-through, unresolved proposals, and one instance of a job left incomplete with no resolution. Experience scores are generally positive, with specific praise for technical knowledge and quality workmanship, though one detailed review questioned a technician's competence regarding a tub drain assembly.

• 5 reviews contain no text at all (only a rating) and cannot contribute usable data to any dimension — these were excluded from scoring.
• Several reviews use very brief, generic praise ('Reliable does good work', 'They get the job done and done it right', 'Professionals; get job done!') with no specifics — these were counted only where a dimension could be reasonably inferred but treated conservatively.
• A notable recency concern: the most detailed negative reviews span 2018–2021, and the most recent reviews (2024) are predominantly positive and brief. This may reflect genuine improvement or selective recent reviewing — confidence is not reduced but the pattern is noted.
• The review dated 2018-04-08 is the most detailed negative review and describes multiple separate service failures across repeated engagements — this was weighted heavily in professionalism and project completion scoring.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, but the volume of blank or near-blank 5-star reviews (approximately 6–7 entries) is a mild concern and slightly suppresses overall confidence.
• Most reviews older than 2022 should be treated with reduced weight per recency rules; however, the negative reviews from 2018–2021 document systemic issues that may still be relevant if not demonstrably resolved.

This WW Score is based on 40 reviews spanning 15 years with sufficient mention volume across all four dimensions to produce HIGH confidence ratings, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a documented pattern of professionalism and follow-through failures across multiple independent reviewers that is only partially offset by the volume of positive feedback.