Find Nearby Plumbers In Hammond, Indiana

Racine receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism — reviewers highlight prompt callbacks, after-hours availability, punctuality, and courteous communication. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished correctly and on time, and one repeat customer citing successful work across multiple trades over many years. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews, with one reviewer calling his rates the best and another confirming he charges exactly what he quoted, though the limited mentions keep confidence low on this dimension. Experience is supported by references to 20+ years in the trade and successful resolution of varied plumbing and electrical problems. The overall score is tempered significantly by the very small review pool and the age of most reviews, three of the four being between 3 and 12 years old.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable and should be treated as directional only.
• Three of four reviews are older than 3 years, with two reviews dating back to 2012 and 2016. Recent performance cannot be confirmed from this data set.
• One review (2021) is the only data point from the past 3 years, meaning current service quality is largely unverified.
• No negative or mixed feedback present across any review — while this may reflect genuine quality, the small sample size makes it impossible to rule out selection bias or incomplete review history.
• No strong fake review indicators detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and different scenarios, which adds credibility.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, the majority of which are significantly outdated, and should be treated as a low-confidence directional signal rather than a reliable measure of current contractor performance.

The service-related reviews paint a generally positive picture of Ray as a responsive, reasonably priced plumber with 15+ years of loyal customers and a willingness to respond to emergencies late at night. Pricing transparency is a genuine strength, with one reviewer specifically noting he was not charged when no work was performed. However, professionalism receives a significant penalty due to a detailed 1-star review from August 2023 describing the owner engaging in an aggressive, racially charged confrontation with a member of the public while driving a company vehicle — conduct that directly reflects on the business's character and professionalism. Project completion scores are moderate-to-good based on limited data, with jobs described as completed same-day or quickly, though the sample size is very small. The overall score is tempered by the recency and seriousness of the conduct complaint, which is the most recent review on record.

• SERIOUS CONDUCT FLAG: The most recent review (August 2023) describes the owner engaging in an aggressive, potentially racially motivated confrontation with a member of the public while operating a company vehicle. A police report was filed. This is not a service complaint but directly reflects on the owner's character and professionalism and has been factored into the professionalism score.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All service-related reviews are from 2015–2019, making them 4–9 years old. There are no recent service reviews to confirm current quality or consistency. The only review from 2023 is the conduct complaint.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 total reviews, with only 5 containing usable data. Scores across all dimensions should be treated with caution due to the very limited evidence base.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: The service reviews vary in detail and tone and do not appear to be fabricated, though the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions.

This WW Score has LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample, all service reviews being 4–9 years old, and a serious recent conduct complaint that introduces meaningful reputational risk not captured by the service reviews alone.

NB Plumbing generally receives positive feedback for punctuality, responsiveness, and professional demeanor, with multiple reviewers noting timely arrivals and quick scheduling. Pricing is described as reasonable across several reviews, though no detailed cost breakdowns are provided. Project completion is largely positive, with jobs described as finished efficiently and correctly — however, one 1-star review from 2017 explicitly describes an incorrect diagnosis that resulted in water damage and required a second plumber to fix, which meaningfully drags down both the project completion and experience scores. The experience dimension reflects a mixed picture: Derek is praised for solving problems other contractors could not, but the misdiagnosis incident introduces a credible concern about diagnostic accuracy. Overall confidence in this score is limited due to the small review pool and the age of most reviews.

• Only 6 total reviews — sample size is too small to draw high-confidence conclusions about consistent performance.
• 5 of 6 reviews are from 2017–2019, making them 5–8 years old. Only 1 review is from the past 3 years (2021). Recency is a significant concern.
• One explicit negative review (1-star, 2017) describes a misdiagnosis leading to water damage and a second plumber being required — this is a serious quality flag and was weighted accordingly.
• No reviews mention hidden charges or billing disputes, but pricing data is limited to vague terms like 'reasonable' — no specifics provided.
• No strong fake review indicators detected, though the positive reviews are somewhat generic in praise. No identical phrasing patterns flagged.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — it is based on only 6 reviews, the majority of which are over 5 years old, and includes one substantive negative experience that raises legitimate concerns about diagnostic accuracy.

Military Veteran Plumbing has a mostly positive review profile, with multiple reviewers praising prompt responsiveness, personable attitude, clean work areas, and fair pricing. However, a significant 1-star review from 2022 describes a $6,000 job that failed village inspection and required a second plumber to correct — a serious project completion and workmanship failure that materially drags down scores in those dimensions. Pricing scores are mixed: three reviewers explicitly praised affordability and value, but the 1-star reviewer paid $6,000 for work that had to be redone, representing a major value failure. With only 5 total reviews spanning 2019 to 2024, the dataset is too small to draw firm conclusions, and the single negative review carries disproportionate weight.

• Very small review sample (5 reviews total) — scores should be treated with caution and are not statistically reliable.
• One review dates back to 2019 (over 5 years old) and carries reduced relevance to current performance.
• The 1-star review (April 2022) describes a serious failure: $6,000 charged, work failed to meet standards requiring a second plumber to correct — this is a significant project completion and experience red flag.
• Three of the four positive reviews are somewhat generic in praise with limited specific detail, which slightly raises concern about review authenticity, though not conclusively.
• Review recency is uneven: two reviews are from 2023–2024, two from 2022 and earlier, reducing confidence in current performance trends.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews with one serious negative outlier, making it LOW reliability — prospective customers should seek additional references or more recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Able Sewerage has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, fair pricing, and pleasant workers — several reviewers note multi-year or even 15-year relationships with the company. However, the review set contains multiple serious negative experiences that meaningfully drag down every dimension: two reviews describe misdiagnosis of plumbing problems that led to unnecessary and costly repair recommendations, one describes repeated no-show appointments with no communication, and one describes a disputed service charge and an unprofessional owner response. Professionalism is mixed — while many reviewers praise attitude and communication, at least three reviews cite poor communication, missed appointments, or dismissive responses. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with credible accounts of jobs left unresolved, incorrect diagnoses, and work described as a 'bandaid' without disclosure to the customer. Pricing scores moderately well overall, but is undercut by two reviews where customers paid competitors significantly less for the same or better work.

• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Good quality service. Timely response. Professional attitude.') with little specific detail — mild fake review risk, though not conclusive.
• Two reviews (2020 and 2022) describe near-identical patterns: Able misdiagnosed a sewer issue, recommended expensive excavation or pipe replacement costing thousands, and a second company resolved the problem quickly and cheaply. This pattern is a significant credibility concern for the experience dimension.
• One negative reviewer (2021) references an 'unprofessional response' from owner Chris, suggesting a public dispute — this is a reputational flag for professionalism.
• Recency note: Only 5 of 19 reviews are from 2022 or later. The majority of reviews (14) are from 2021 or earlier, with several dating back to 2013–2017. The score should be treated with caution as current performance may differ from historical patterns.
• One review (2016) explicitly describes two cancelled appointments with no notification and blames being given misleading information about scope of work — this is a direct project completion and communication failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to review volume, but the score itself should be treated with moderate trust given the age of most reviews, a recurring pattern of misdiagnosis complaints, and documented communication failures that suggest inconsistent service quality.

Meyer's Companies receives strong praise from a large number of customers for individual technicians — particularly Dave, Richard, Anthony, Rocco, and Gavin — who are repeatedly described as professional, punctual, courteous, and knowledgeable, driving the professionalism and experience scores upward. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews spanning multiple years raises serious concerns across all dimensions: pricing transparency issues (hidden costs, disputed charges, VIP discount confusion), project completion failures (abandoned rough-in job with no follow-up, flooded floors from disconnected drain hose, incomplete pipe replacement, gas valve left off after repair), and poor communication at the scheduling and management level. The project completion score is notably suppressed by several detailed, credible accounts of incomplete or botched work and failure to follow through on callbacks. Experience scores are mixed — while many technicians are praised, others are described as unqualified for the job sent, and at least one review describes workmanship quality as severely substandard. Overall, the company appears to perform well on routine maintenance visits but has a documented pattern of failures on larger installation and repair projects.

• HIGH VOLUME OF GENERIC 5-STAR REVIEWS: A significant number of 5-star reviews are very brief (e.g., 'Dave was great,' 'Dave did an excellent job,' 'Great service!! Dave was amazing!') with little to no specific detail. This pattern — especially the concentration of reviews praising 'Dave' with near-identical structure — raises a mild concern about review authenticity or solicitation, though it does not conclusively indicate fabrication.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2024–2025, while most detailed negative reviews are from 2014–2020. This may reflect genuine improvement over time, but the 2024–2025 period still contains significant negative reviews (flooded floor/incomplete AC install, abandoned rough-in job), so improvement should not be assumed to be complete.
• SERIOUS PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES DOCUMENTED: Multiple reviews describe incomplete work (kitchen/laundry pipes excluded without disclosure), abandoned scheduled jobs with no follow-up call (rough-in bathroom), flooded floors from disconnected drain hose, gas valve left in off position after repair, and a faulty furnace sold with repeated service charges before the defect was acknowledged.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS: At least four reviews explicitly describe hidden costs, undisclosed charges, disputed VIP discounts, and pricing that changed between estimate and final bill. One review describes being charged $269.65 for 15 minutes of work with no upfront pricing disclosure.
• POOR COMMUNICATION AT MANAGEMENT/DISPATCH LEVEL: Multiple reviews cite failure to return calls, rescheduling on the day of appointment, no receipt provided, and supervisors not following up on complaints — suggesting systemic issues beyond individual technician performance.
• ONE REVIEW DESCRIBES FRAUDULENT INSPECTION CLAIM: A 2014 review alleges Meyer's provided a receipt claiming an A/C unit was inspected and functioning correctly when it was not, which is a serious allegation of dishonest reporting.
• BLANK REVIEW EXCLUDED: One review contained a 5-star rating with no text and was excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score is based on 63 reviews spanning approximately 11 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence due to volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the documented pattern of serious project completion and pricing transparency failures that persist even into recent reviews, suggesting these are not fully resolved historical issues.