Find Nearby Plumbers In Lafayette, Indiana

Schomers Plumbing shows a mixed performance profile with significant inconsistency across service quality and customer experience. While technical competence and workmanship are generally praised when jobs are completed (score: 75), the company struggles substantially with professionalism (68) and pricing transparency (52). Project completion reliability is concerning (65), with multiple reports of scheduling delays, incomplete follow-through, and communication failures. The most damaging pattern involves billing disputes—customers repeatedly report being charged double quoted prices, charged for incomplete work, or billed for unnecessary labor. Recent reviews (2025) show both exceptional service and severe failures, suggesting operational inconsistency rather than systemic improvement.

• PRICING INTEGRITY ISSUE: 16 mentions of pricing problems including double-billing, overcharging, hidden charges, and billing disputes. This is the most consistent negative pattern across the dataset.
• SCHEDULING & COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Multiple reports of promised same-day service not delivered, long delays (7-14 days), poor follow-up, and lack of transparency about availability. At least 6 reviews explicitly cite scheduling failures.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising specific technicians (Jason, Kyle, Cappy, Eric) and 1-star reviews describing rude, unprofessional behavior. Suggests quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned.
• UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS: At least 3 reviews mention written complaints or disputes that were never addressed or resolved, indicating poor complaint handling.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple empty reviews with 5-star ratings (at least 10 instances) and several generic 1-2 word reviews ('Great', 'well', 'Great.service') suggest possible review manipulation. However, detailed negative reviews appear authentic with specific incident descriptions.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 3+ years old (pre-2022). Recent reviews (2025) show both 5-star and 1-star extremes, suggesting current operational volatility.
• LONG-TERM CUSTOMER DEFECTION: Multiple reviews from customers with 15+ year history explicitly stating they are leaving due to recent decline in quality and service (2019-2020 reviews).

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted cautiously: the company demonstrates technical capability but has serious, well-documented issues with pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and customer communication. The score is dragged down primarily by consistent pricing complaints and project completion delays rather than technical incompetence. Customers should expect variable service quality depending on technician assignment and should obtain detailed written estimates and verify billing before payment.

Peterman Brothers presents a deeply polarized review profile. Individual technicians are frequently praised for professionalism, friendliness, punctuality, and clear communication, which elevates the professionalism score considerably. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension: dozens of negative reviews describe charges that reviewers characterize as grossly excessive, non-transparent, and in several cases predatory — with specific examples including $1,499 labor for 90 minutes of work, $350 for a $10 capacitor, $696 for a cartridge replacement, and repeated attempts to sell full system replacements when minor repairs were all that was needed. Project completion is severely undermined by a large volume of reviews describing abandoned work, systems left non-functional after installation or service, failed callbacks, and multi-week waits for urgent repairs — including cases where brand-new installed systems failed within hours or days. Technical experience scores moderately: while many techs are described as knowledgeable, a significant number of negative reviews describe misdiagnoses, incorrect installations, wiring errors, and work that created new problems, pulling the score down substantially.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear verbatim or near-verbatim across different dates (e.g., the Collin main-line leak review, the 'Good and can't wait for Fridays' review, the Thairon and Evan review, the Kory Gilbert review, the Tyler AC review, the Drew review, the Aleck I. review, the Joshua review, the Andrew RO review, the 'On time. Efficient.' review, the 'Very professional and friendly' review, the Calob review, and the John Biggs review all appear duplicated across June 6-8 and June 5-8 date clusters). This strongly suggests review manipulation or a system error inflating positive review counts. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A large cluster of 5-star reviews from June 5-8, 2025 are near-identical duplicates of reviews from the same period, with no variation in text. This is a strong indicator of review padding or a submission system error.
• MEMBERSHIP PROGRAM COMPLAINTS: A recurring and specific complaint across many independent reviews involves the 'Protection Club' or membership program — customers report being charged monthly fees, receiving no priority service, being unable to schedule appointments for months, and being refused refunds. This is a systemic business practice issue, not isolated incidents.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and locations describe being quoted prices 3-10x higher than competitors for identical work, with second opinions consistently revealing far cheaper solutions. Several reviewers explicitly describe technicians recommending full system replacements when minor repairs costing under $200 were all that was needed.
• ELDERLY CUSTOMER VULNERABILITY: Multiple reviews specifically describe elderly or disabled customers being sold unnecessary equipment or overcharged, with at least two reviewers explicitly stating they believe their elderly relatives were taken advantage of.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe brand-new installed systems failing within hours or days of installation, incorrect wiring, gas line breaches during excavation, and systems requiring 5-17 follow-up visits to function correctly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May-June 2025) are predominantly 5-star and many are duplicates. The negative reviews span 2021-2025 and are highly detailed and specific, lending them greater credibility. The positive review cluster should be treated with caution given the duplication pattern.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15-20 reviews contained no text and only a star rating (all 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of duplicate positive reviews that artificially inflate the positive signal — the detailed, specific, and independently corroborated negative reviews across pricing, project completion, and experience dimensions are likely more representative of actual customer outcomes than the volume of brief or duplicated 5-star reviews suggests.

This review set is deeply problematic because it appears to contain reviews for two entirely different service providers — a Dr. Wilkins (a physician) and a contractor/handyman named Bryan/Chad operating in Indiana. The majority of positive reviews (roughly 13) pertain to Dr. Wilkins and are entirely irrelevant to a contractor scoring context. The contractor-specific reviews are predominantly negative, with multiple reviewers citing unpaid labor, abandoned jobs, missed appointments, failure to return calls, double-charging, and a small claims court judgment against the contractor. The one or two positive contractor reviews are older than five years and lack meaningful detail. Professionalism and project completion scores are severely dragged down by credible, detailed negative accounts of misconduct, including rude behavior, poor hygiene, and non-completion of paid work.

• CRITICAL DATA CONTAMINATION: The majority of reviews in this set appear to be for a medical doctor (Dr. Wilkins), not a contractor or plumber. These reviews have been excluded from contractor-specific dimension scoring but inflate the raw review count. This score should not be trusted without a clean, contractor-only review dataset.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAGS: Multiple contractor-specific reviews allege paid work was never completed, a small claims court judgment was won against the contractor (case number 79D04-1506-SC-02299, Tippecanoe County), and an ex-employee alleges wage theft, tool theft, double-charging customers, and deliberate corner-cutting.
• IDENTITY CONCERN: The contractor appears to operate under at least two names (Bryan and Chad) and multiple websites, which may be an attempt to obscure identity or negative history from customers.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All negative contractor reviews date from 2013 to 2021. The only positive contractor reviews are from 2014, 2017, and 2018 — all more than five years old. There is no recent evidence of improved contractor performance.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR IRRELEVANT POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews have no text at all, and the Dr. Wilkins reviews appear to have been submitted to the wrong business profile, artificially inflating the star rating of this contractor listing.
• One reviewer explicitly calls out another negative reviewer as a habitual complainer, which may indicate an attempt to discredit legitimate criticism rather than address it substantively.

This WW Score has very low real-world reliability for evaluating the contractor in question — the dataset is contaminated with irrelevant medical reviews, the contractor-specific evidence is predominantly negative and includes serious legal and ethical allegations, and no recent positive contractor reviews exist to suggest improvement.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by documented verbal abuse, disrespect toward customers, and unprofessional conduct including hanging up on callers. Pricing practices show evidence of overcharging, billing for work not performed, and lack of transparency in invoices. Project completion is undermined by incomplete work, poor workmanship (crooked faucet installation), and failure to deliver promised services (boiler cleaning not performed). Technical experience is questionable given unnecessary wall damage, failed HVAC repairs requiring professional remediation, and inadequate diagnostic procedures. The single moderately positive review (3-star, 2015) is substantially outweighed by three 1-star reviews documenting serious misconduct.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document verbal abuse and unprofessional language by business owner Dan Isbell, including name-calling and hanging up on customers
• CRITICAL: Evidence of billing fraud — customers charged for work explicitly not performed (boiler cleaning, HVAC repairs)
• CRITICAL: Quality control failure — professional competitors hired after this contractor found zero completed work and extensive defects
• Pattern of overcharging and lack of invoice transparency across multiple reviews
• Suspicious behavior noted by customer (employee wandering house, attempting to be alone)
• Most reviews are 6-9 years old (2015-2016); only one recent review from 2021 also highly negative
• Inconsistency: One 3-star review (2015) provides minimal detail and contrasts sharply with detailed negative reviews; however, insufficient evidence to classify as fake

This WW Score of 28.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. The score is based on consistent, detailed, and specific evidence of serious professional misconduct, fraud, and poor workmanship across multiple independent reviews. The contractor should not be recommended for any work.

Both reviews speak positively about Derek Allen's work quality and pricing, with one review providing meaningful specifics about punctuality, transparent billing, and clear communication. The 2016 review is the more detailed and credible of the two, describing multiple completed plumbing jobs with on-time arrival and billing as discussed. The 2009 review is brief and generic, offering little beyond a favorable price comparison. With only two reviews spanning over a decade, no reliable trend or pattern can be established, and all dimension scores must be treated with very low confidence.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The 2009 review is highly generic with no specific details about the work performed, contractor name, or job type — it contributes minimal usable signal.
• Both reviews are older than 1 year; the most recent review is from 2016, meaning there is no data from the past 8+ years. Current performance cannot be assessed.
• Review gap of 7 years between the two reviews suggests very sparse review history, which may indicate low volume of documented work or an incomplete review profile.

This score profile is not reliable for decision-making — only 2 reviews exist, both are over 8 years old, and the data is far too sparse to draw meaningful conclusions about current service quality.

This single review is highly detailed and covers all four scoring dimensions explicitly, which is a positive signal for data quality. Professionalism scores very high due to rapid responsiveness, courteous communication, thorough walkthrough, and cleanup. Pricing is rated excellent given the reviewer described the quote as more than fair and competitive, with no hidden charges or surprise costs. Project completion is near-perfect as the job was finished on time despite significant weather setbacks, with no extra charges for Sunday work, and a warranty was communicated. Experience scores strongly based on the flawless system operation, proper backflow testing, city filing, and sprinkler calibration. However, all scores must be treated with very low confidence as they rest on a single review.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis; no dimension should be treated as validated.
• The reviewer explicitly noted that all prior reviews for this contractor were five stars, which may warrant scrutiny of the broader review pool if more reviews are added in the future.
• The review is unusually detailed and positive across every dimension with no criticisms whatsoever — while this may reflect a genuinely excellent experience, it should be noted as a pattern to watch if similar reviews appear in bulk.
• Recency note: This review is dated 2024-06-19, which is within the past 12 months and therefore carries full recency weight.

This WW Score report is based on a single review and should not be used to draw reliable conclusions about AG Irrigation's overall performance; a minimum of 3 reviews is required for a calculable WW Score.