Find Nearby Plumbers In Hammond, Indiana

O'Bannon Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed record across all dimensions. The majority of positive reviews praise specific crew members — particularly Saul and Jose — for friendliness, professionalism, and solid workmanship, which drives scores upward in professionalism and experience. However, two detailed negative reviews describe a serious pattern of repeated no-shows and broken appointments, which significantly drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. One negative review also raises a meaningful concern about technical competence, where a simple $30 fix was missed after hundreds of dollars in failed attempts and the company eventually stopped responding. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by those who received service, but the unresolved cases represent hidden cost risk. The score reflects a contractor with capable technicians but inconsistent reliability and follow-through.

• Two detailed 1-star reviews describe repeated no-shows (up to 4 missed appointments in one case) and complete non-responsiveness — this is a significant reliability red flag that materially impacts professionalism and project completion scores.
• One review documents a multi-year unresolved issue where the company charged hundreds of dollars across multiple visits, failed to diagnose a simple problem, and eventually stopped responding — raising concerns about both technical competence and customer abandonment.
• Most positive reviews are from 2020–2021 and may not reflect current service quality. Only two reviews are from 2023–2024, and one of those is the unresolved sewage smell complaint. Recency weighting slightly reduces confidence in the positive signals.
• Several positive reviews mention specific crew members by name (Saul, Jose, Pablo, Hosea), which is a good authenticity signal. However, the volume of generic 5-star praise without operational detail in a few reviews warrants mild caution.
• No reviews are from 2025. The most recent review is from June 2024. Score reliability may diminish if the business has changed significantly since then.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but the presence of two detailed negative reviews describing systemic reliability failures means prospective customers should weigh those accounts heavily before hiring.

Benchmark Plumbing and Rodding receives consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and clearly evidenced quality. Reviewers specifically highlight prompt communication, early morning proactive callbacks, courteous demeanor, and responsiveness — all strong professionalism signals. Pricing is described as 'fair,' 'reasonable,' and 'the most reasonable price I ever paid a plumber' across three reviews, supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished same-day, a warranty offered on work, and the contractor advocating on behalf of a customer against a home warranty company to see the job through. Experience and workmanship are affirmed through references to knowledgeability, efficiency, and standing behind completed work. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool and the age of several reviews.

• Only 5 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw high-confidence conclusions about consistent performance.
• Three of the five reviews are more than 2 years old (2015, 2018, 2021), and one is from 2022. Only one review falls within the past 12 months (January 2024). Recency weighting significantly limits reliability.
• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrants mild caution.
• No negative experiences, complaints, or constructive criticism appear in any review. This may reflect genuine quality but could also reflect a curated or incomplete review set.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small and largely dated review pool; the score reflects genuinely positive signals but should be validated with more recent and numerous reviews before drawing firm conclusions.

Salyer Plumbing demonstrates solid competence in technical execution and professionalism, with strong evidence of experienced workmanship and responsive service. However, significant concerns emerge around pricing transparency and consistency—multiple recent reviews (2025, 2024) report excessive charges, apprentices sent alone despite licensed plumber pricing, and poor accountability when errors occur. Communication and scheduling issues appear intermittently throughout the review history, with some customers experiencing forgotten appointments and unresponsive follow-up. The company shows genuine strengths in emergency response and quality work completion, but pricing practices and accountability gaps prevent a higher score.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 10 reviews from 2014-2015 contain only 'unknown' or single-character text ('.') with 5-star ratings. These appear to be placeholder or spam entries and were excluded from scoring.
• RECENT PRICING COMPLAINTS: Three reviews from 2025 and early 2024 explicitly criticize overcharging, hidden fees, and sending unlicensed apprentices alone despite quoting licensed plumber rates. This represents a significant and recent pattern.
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUE: Review from 2024-08-13 describes company refusing to take responsibility for equipment damage ($10k repair cost) despite being bonded and insured. Suggests potential liability avoidance.
• SCHEDULING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews across different years (2013, 2014, 2016, 2007) report missed appointments, forgotten callbacks, and poor communication from office staff—suggests systemic scheduling/administrative weakness.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES ON SAME INCIDENT: Two reviews from 2014-02-13 and 2014-03-13 describe opposite experiences with frozen pipe service (one positive, one extremely negative), suggesting highly variable service quality or crew-dependent performance.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed positive reviews are from 2013-2014 and 2023-2024. Recent reviews (2025, early 2024) trend negative on pricing and accountability.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and responsiveness in many cases, recent pricing complaints and accountability issues are concerning and not offset by older positive reviews. The score reflects a company in transition with inconsistent service quality, particularly regarding transparency and follow-through on errors. Prospective customers should request detailed written quotes and clarify licensing requirements before engaging.

Gordon Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism scores 78 based on 9 mentions highlighting punctuality and communication, but two critical failures (2022 and 2020) involving incomplete service calls and non-responsiveness significantly drag this score down. Pricing is strong at 82 across 7 mentions, with customers consistently praising fair and reasonable rates. Project completion is the weakest dimension at 71, with multiple reviews documenting abandoned work, failure to return with promised equipment, and unresponsiveness to callbacks. Experience scores well at 85 based on 5 mentions of skilled workmanship and technical knowledge. The WW Score of 76.8 reflects a contractor with genuine expertise and fair pricing but serious reliability and follow-through issues that undermine overall trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL: Two severe project completion failures (Dec 2022 and Apr 2020) involving service calls accepted but abandoned without resolution or callback. These are not minor issues but represent fundamental business failures.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 8+ years old (2003-2011). Only 4 reviews from past 12 years, with 2 of the most recent being 1-star failures. Recent track record appears worse than historical reputation.
• INCONSISTENCY: Strong positive reviews from 2008-2014 contrast sharply with recent 1-star reviews citing identical problems (lack of equipment, failure to follow up). Suggests possible decline in service quality or business practices.
• One review (2016) contains only 'unknown' text and provides no usable data.
• One review (2011) is meta-commentary about form format, not service feedback.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While the numerical score of 76.8 reflects mixed performance, the two recent catastrophic failures in project completion (2020, 2022) involving abandoned service calls and non-responsiveness are serious red flags that may not be fully captured by the aggregate score. The heavy weighting of old reviews (2008-2014) masks what appears to be a deteriorating service record in recent years. Prospective customers should heavily weight the recent 1-star reviews and verify current responsiveness before engaging.

TLC Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical experience, with many customers praising responsive staff, courteous technicians, and skilled workmanship. However, pricing concerns significantly impact the overall score, with multiple reviews citing unexpectedly high charges, undisclosed fees, and billing disputes. Project completion shows mixed results—while many jobs are completed promptly and thoroughly, several reviews document incomplete follow-through, abandoned work, and failure to deliver promised quotes. The company's performance is inconsistent across different technicians and service types, with notable variation in quality and customer satisfaction.

• PRICING VOLATILITY: 28 mentions of pricing issues reveal a pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Multiple reviews cite charges substantially higher than quoted (e.g., $330 for a $15 valve installation with undisclosed travel fees, $1,300 bill on $300 estimate, $592 diagnostic bill with no resolution). This is a critical weakness.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Several reviews document incomplete work and abandoned follow-up. One customer was told to use a competitor (Perma Seal) after paying $1,600 for diagnostics with no follow-up quotes. Another had a toilet leak misdiagnosed, charged twice, and still not fixed. A third had a drain issue that cost $592 in failed diagnostics before a competitor fixed it in 45 minutes for $165.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Reviews show stark differences between technicians. One customer gave 5 stars for one technician but 1 star for 'Eric' on the same job type, citing inefficiency, messiness, and overcharging for simple work (3+ hours for a refrigerator line installation).
• EMPTY/GENERIC REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain no text (5 instances with only ratings), suggesting possible review manipulation or placeholder entries. This reduces data reliability.
• BILLING DISPUTES AND TRANSPARENCY: Multiple customers report being charged for travel time not disclosed upfront, equipment charges not mentioned at estimate, hourly rates higher than quoted, and invoice padding (e.g., 23 minutes rounded to 30 minutes, then charged at regular rates for invoice writing).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster around 2013-2017 and June 2024. Recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, while older detailed reviews show more critical feedback. This pattern warrants caution.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite lack of callback, failure to return calls, and abandonment of work after initial service. One customer reported being told 'they would call Monday afternoon to reschedule' after a rain cancellation—no call came.
• TECHNICAL MISDIAGNOSIS: Several reviews document incorrect problem identification (e.g., wax ring replacement when issue was loose bolt; locating sewer break 30 feet from actual location; claiming pipe installation couldn't be done in crawlspace when it was later done by another company).

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in responsiveness and professionalism (52 mentions, HIGH confidence), the pricing dimension (28 mentions, MODERATE confidence) reveals a consistent pattern of customer dissatisfaction that materially impacts trustworthiness. Project completion concerns (48 mentions, HIGH confidence) document multiple instances of incomplete work and failed follow-through. The presence of empty reviews, clustering of negative reviews in specific time periods, and stark inconsistency between technicians suggest the score reflects a company with high variability in service quality and billing practices. Customers should request detailed written estimates with all fees disclosed upfront and verify technician experience before booking.

Hessville Plumbing shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While multiple recent reviews (2020–2022) praise responsiveness, professionalism, and fair pricing, three older but detailed negative reviews (2015–2023) document serious failures in project completion, technical competence, and staff attitude. The 2023 review describes incomplete work requiring a callback and unprofessional behavior (leaving water running, departing without notice). The 2016 and 2015 reviews reveal inadequate diagnostics, poor follow-up, and dismissive customer service. Positive reviews emphasize speed and courtesy but lack depth on technical quality. The pattern suggests either inconsistent quality control or significant changes in operations over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 2–3+ years old (2018–2022). The most recent review (July 2023) is strongly negative, suggesting potential service degradation.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star reviews describing incomplete work, poor diagnostics, and staff attitude issues. This is not typical random variation.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: Two reviews (2023, 2016) explicitly describe callbacks, rework, or failure to diagnose root cause on first visit—a critical project completion failure.
• STAFF ATTITUDE ISSUES: Multiple reviews mention workers appearing unwilling, dismissive, or unprofessional (2023, 2016, 2015), suggesting potential management or hiring problems.
• TECHNICAL COMPETENCE QUESTIONED: 2016 review documents refusal to consider customer input and incorrect diagnosis; 2023 review implies incomplete initial assessment. This undermines experience score.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: 2015 review states supervisor never returned call after weeks—serious professionalism and accountability gap.

This score should be treated with caution. While the WW Score of 72.3 reflects mixed data, the concentration of positive reviews in the 2018–2022 window and the serious, detailed negative reviews from 2015–2023 suggest either declining service quality or inconsistent execution. The company's responsiveness and pricing are genuine strengths, but documented failures in project completion and technical diagnosis are material concerns. Prospective customers should request references from jobs completed in the past 6–12 months and clarify warranty/callback policies in writing before engaging.