Find Nearby Plumbers In Kenosha, Wisconsin

The contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with punctuality and responsiveness highlighted across multiple reviews, including emergency service at 4am. Workmanship quality is noted as outstanding in the reviews that mention it. However, project completion shows significant concern: one review explicitly states incomplete service and abandonment during a gas leak emergency, which directly contradicts the positive completion claims in other reviews. Pricing is mentioned only once as fair, providing limited data. The recency of reviews is problematic—three of four reviews are from 2019–2023, with the most critical negative review from 2020 indicating systemic service issues.

• CRITICAL: One review (2020-07-10) reports incomplete service, failure to follow through on scheduled work, and poor communication during a health/safety emergency (gas leak). This directly contradicts the positive completion narrative in other reviews and suggests inconsistent service quality or potential systemic issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are older than 3 years (2019–2020). Only one review is from 2023. Limited recent data reduces confidence in current service quality.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Scores are based on very limited mention counts (1–3 per dimension), which inherently limits reliability.
• PRICING DATA INSUFFICIENT: Only 1 mention of pricing across all reviews. Score of 75 is based on a single positive comment and should be treated with caution.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), limited recency, and critically, one explicit report of incomplete service and abandonment during an emergency. The presence of a 1-star review reporting failure to complete work and poor communication significantly undermines confidence in the overall score, despite positive ratings in other reviews. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish current service reliability.

City Sewer demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality and courteous staff across multiple reviews, earning an 82.5 score. Experience and technical skill are well-documented with 8 mentions averaging 85.0, reflecting competent problem-solving and expertise. However, project completion shows concerning gaps: one customer waited three weeks with no appointment after partial payment, another experienced a pipe break during service, and a third waited weeks for callback scheduling after an estimate. Pricing is fair but slightly above competitors in some cases. The company excels in emergency response but struggles with follow-through on non-emergency work and callbacks.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 16 of 25 reviews are older than 10 years (pre-2015). Only 1 review from past 12 months (2021-04-29), which is highly negative. Recent data is severely limited.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Multiple explicit failures documented—unpaid sewer line work with no appointment (2021), pipe damage during service (2018), and delayed callback/scheduling (2013, 2014). These are not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2014-05-31, 2015-01-13, 2015-12-03, and 2016-08-30 contain only generic ratings with minimal or no text ('unknown', '.', 'It went well'). These lack specificity and may inflate ratings artificially.
• RESPONSIVENESS INCONSISTENCY: Strong emergency response (3am Saturday, within 2 hours) contrasts sharply with poor non-emergency follow-up (weeks to schedule, no callback on estimates). This suggests operational inconsistency.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCED: The single recent review (2021) is 1-star and describes unresolved work with payment issues. This contradicts the predominantly 5-star historical pattern and suggests possible service degradation or data quality issues.

This score should be treated with caution. While historical reviews (2010–2014) show strong performance, the dataset is heavily skewed toward old data, contains suspicious generic reviews, and the only recent review (2021) is severely negative, suggesting either service decline or that dissatisfied customers are now the primary reviewers. The WW Score of 79.8 reflects historical strength but may not represent current performance.

Herman Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism across multiple positive reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, knowledge, and politeness. However, the company faces significant credibility challenges: two highly negative 1-star reviews from 2020 and 2022 describe serious issues including unauthorized work, unreasonable pricing, rude staff, and illegal water shutoff practices. A 2013 review indicates the business may be retired/closed. The positive reviews are predominantly from 2014–2018, raising recency concerns. The mixed evidence and conflicting narratives substantially reduce confidence in the overall score.

• CRITICAL: Two severe 1-star reviews (2020, 2022) allege illegal conduct (unauthorized water shutoff), unauthorized work, rude staff, and threats—these are serious allegations that contradict the positive narrative
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most positive reviews are from 2014–2018 (6+ years old). The most recent negative reviews (2020, 2022) suggest potential service degradation or business instability
• BUSINESS STATUS UNCLEAR: A 2013 review states 'Herman Plumbing is out of Business (Retired)' yet reviews continue through 2022, creating confusion about operational status
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews describe 'reasonable' pricing and charging only for work done; negative reviews describe 'unreasonable' prices and unauthorized charges—suggests either service variability or potential billing disputes
• SAMPLE BIAS: Only 8 reviews total; 2 are unusable (1 off-topic address complaint, 1 retirement notice). Analysis based on 6 reviews is a small sample with high volatility

This score should be treated with caution. While technical skill appears strong, serious allegations of illegal conduct and unethical billing in recent reviews (2020–2022) directly contradict older positive testimonials, and the small sample size (6 usable reviews) with significant recency gaps limits confidence in the overall assessment.

DJ demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally fair pricing, supported by consistent positive feedback on workmanship quality and competitive rates. However, significant reliability issues severely impact the overall score: multiple no-shows and cancellations (4 explicit mentions across reviews from 2023, 2017, and 2015) create serious concerns about professionalism and project completion. While older reviews (2013–2016) are predominantly positive, the pattern of scheduling failures persists across different time periods, suggesting a systemic issue. The contractor's skill level remains high, but unreliability undermines customer trust and value delivery.

• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show incidents documented across different years (2023, 2017, 2015) — this is a recurring pattern, not an isolated event. Review from 2023-02-23 describes two cancellations within two weeks with poor communication.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2013–2016 (8+ years old). The most recent detailed negative review (2023-02-23) is very recent and describes severe service failures.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings (4 instances: 2016-07-16, 2016-02-03, 2015-09-23, 2014-10-15, 2014-10-08). These provide no actionable data and suggest possible review manipulation or incomplete data entry.
• INCONSISTENT PERFORMANCE: Strong contrast between older positive reviews and recent negative experience suggests either deterioration in service quality or inconsistent reliability over time.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: No-show reviews explicitly mention lack of explanation or poor communication (e.g., 'didn't tell me why' in 2023 review).

This score should be treated with caution. While technical skill appears solid (HIGH confidence), the documented pattern of no-shows and cancellations across multiple years is a serious red flag that directly contradicts the positive ratings. The prevalence of undated/generic reviews and the age of most positive feedback (8+ years) further reduce confidence. Potential customers should prioritize the recent 2023 experience and 2017 no-show as more predictive of current service reliability than older reviews.

Walsh Plumbing demonstrates solid technical competence and generally reliable project completion, with multiple long-term customers praising expertise and work quality. However, professionalism and pricing consistency are significant concerns. Two recent negative reviews (2022, 2020) document poor communication, unresponsiveness, and failure to honor callbacks, while a 2011 review alleges substantial overcharging on labor despite a verbal quote. Positive reviews emphasize promptness, skill, and honesty, but the pattern of service failures and pricing disputes creates material risk. The company's strength lies in technical execution when engaged, but customer service and transparency require improvement.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 5+ years old (2011-2018). Recent reviews (2020, 2022) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality decline.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Two separate reviews document failure to return calls/respond to messages after initial contact, indicating systemic communication breakdown.
• PRICING DISPUTE: 2011 review alleges significant overcharge ($525 vs. $300 quoted) on straightforward labor. 2022 review mentions 'too payment' (likely typo for 'too much payment'). Pattern suggests pricing transparency issues.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: 2020 review explicitly states 'shotty job' on shower repair with no refund issued despite follow-up attempts.
• INCONSISTENT NAMING: Reviews reference both 'Kevin' and 'Leo' as owners/primary technicians—unclear if same person or different staff members, which complicates assessment.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: 2015 review states 'See previous comment' with no substantive content—appears to be placeholder or duplicate.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant temporal bias (most positive reviews are 7+ years old) and documented service failures in recent years; the MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence between historical long-term customer loyalty and recent communication/quality breakdowns.

KBI demonstrates strong technical knowledge and responsiveness, with multiple reviews praising quick arrival times and knowledgeable staff. However, professionalism and project completion scores are significantly dragged down by serious quality control issues: one review documents unprepared technicians, poor workmanship (incorrect toilet installation requiring $600 in repairs), and unprofessional behavior including tracking mud and owner confrontation. Pricing is generally viewed favorably when work is completed correctly. The company shows inconsistency—excellent service in some cases, but critical failures in others that suggest reliability concerns.

• CRITICAL: One detailed 2019 review documents severe workmanship failure—incorrect toilet installation with missing wax seal and wrong plate material, resulting in $600 in corrective repairs by another company. This is not a minor complaint.
• CRITICAL: One 2021 review documents multiple professionalism failures: technicians arrived unprepared (no equipment), tracked mud throughout house, could not read faucet instructions despite 13 years in business, lost equipment requiring store trip, and owner had 'meltdown' when customer expected promised work to be completed.
• MODERATE: One 2022 review mentions company blocked customer on Facebook after negative review, suggesting poor customer service recovery practices.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 2-5 years old (2019, 2021, 2022). Recent reviews (2023, 2022 positive) are more favorable, but pattern of serious failures is documented and concerning.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing reviews praising professionalism and detailed reviews documenting unprofessional behavior and poor workmanship. This suggests either inconsistent service quality or different technicians with vastly different standards.

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews are positive and pricing is generally fair, documented evidence of serious workmanship failures (incorrect toilet installation, unprepared technicians, poor communication) creates significant reliability concerns. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence: strong technical knowledge and responsiveness offset by critical quality control and professionalism failures that resulted in customer financial loss.