Find Nearby Plumbers In Kenosha, Wisconsin

Central Plumbing shows a generally positive track record across professionalism, pricing, and workmanship, with multiple reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and fair pricing. However, professionalism and project completion scores are meaningfully dragged down by one detailed 2-star review describing a pattern of unreturned calls, missed follow-throughs on quotes, and unreliability — a credible and specific complaint that cannot be dismissed. Experience scores are solid, with reviewers consistently noting quality work once the technician arrived, though one reviewer expressed uncertainty about a younger technician's confidence and competence. Pricing is consistently described as fair rather than cheap, which is a positive signal for value transparency. The significant recency concern — the vast majority of reviews are from 2009 to 2017, with nothing in the past several years — substantially limits how much this score should be trusted as a reflection of current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: All 12 reviews are dated between 2009 and 2017. The most recent review is from January 2017, meaning there is no data from the past 7+ years. This score may not reflect current business quality or practices.
• One review (2011-06-20, 2 stars) contains a detailed, credible account of repeated follow-up failures and unreturned communications, which meaningfully lowers project completion and professionalism scores.
• One review (2011-07-14, 4 stars) raises a concern about a technician appearing inexperienced and nervous, reducing confidence in consistent experience quality.
• One review is marked 'unknown' with no usable content and was excluded from scoring.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in rating, detail level, and writing style, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable volume of detailed reviews, but should be treated with significant caution given that all reviews are over 7 years old and no recent data exists to confirm whether current performance matches historical patterns.

Halloran & Yauch demonstrates strong professionalism with punctual arrivals, friendly technicians, and responsive communication in most cases. Technical expertise and workmanship quality are consistently praised across multiple reviews. However, significant concerns emerge around project completion—one major residential project was delayed over a month with poor communication, and administrative follow-through on city compliance tasks was neglected. Pricing presents a critical weakness, with at least one customer charged $94.25 for a $3 battery replacement, raising transparency concerns. The WW Score of 74.8 reflects solid technical capability undermined by execution and cost management issues.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Customer charged $94.25 for $3 battery replacement with broken longevity promise (2-year failure vs. promised 5-year lifespan). Suggests potential overcharging or lack of transparent pricing.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: Major residential irrigation project delayed over 1 month with minimal communication. Customer explicitly stated they were misled about timeline and competing priorities (commercial jobs, winterization) were not disclosed upfront.
• ADMINISTRATIVE FAILURE: Customer reports two consecutive years of neglected follow-through on city backflow device inspections, resulting in city letters and customer having to manage compliance themselves.
• RECENCY BIAS: Two of seven reviews are from 2018 and 2022 (older than 12 months). Most recent positive reviews (2024, 2023) lack detail on pricing or project completion. Older detailed review (2022) contains serious complaints.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between field technician quality (consistently praised) and administrative/project management (repeatedly criticized). Suggests systemic operational issues beyond technician performance.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported, critical gaps exist in project completion reliability and pricing transparency. The company excels at technical work but struggles with project management, communication, and cost fairness—issues that directly impact customer satisfaction despite good field-level service.

David's Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and generally fair pricing, but is significantly hampered by inconsistent professionalism and serious project completion issues. While many customers praise responsiveness, quality workmanship, and reasonable rates, a substantial minority report missed appointments, poor communication, no-shows, and unresponsiveness to callbacks. The company demonstrates capability on completed jobs but reliability in scheduling and follow-through is a critical weakness that undermines overall trustworthiness.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (at least 6) explicitly report missed appointments, no-shows, or failure to return calls/emails. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• BEHAVIORAL CONCERN: One review (2021-04-17) describes owner as 'very angry angry man' with 'mental issue' and 'unstable' behavior. Another (2024-04-18) reports owner made jokes about pricing instead of providing serious estimates.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One detailed negative review (2022-08-29) reports defective water heater installation with rust/leaks within 3 months and owner's evasive behavior when confronted.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Negative reviews span from 2011 to 2024, with recent complaints (June 2024) about missed same-day appointments and poor communication. This suggests ongoing systemic problems, not historical issues.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CLUSTERING: Many 5-star reviews lack specific detail (e.g., 'Great experience', 'Did a great job'), though several detailed positive reviews provide credible specifics about responsiveness and pricing.
• SAMPLE COMPOSITION: 43 five-star reviews vs. 10 one-star reviews creates a 4.3:1 ratio, but the one-star reviews contain detailed, specific complaints while some five-star reviews are generic. This suggests real operational problems masked by volume of satisfied customers.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and fair pricing when jobs are completed, the high frequency of documented scheduling failures, communication breakdowns, and no-shows across multiple years indicates a serious and persistent operational weakness that directly contradicts the positive ratings. The WW Score of 74.2 reflects this contradiction: strong on experience and pricing, but significantly weakened by professionalism and completion reliability issues that affect customer trust.

Wally Blanton Plumbing shows significant internal inconsistency across reviews. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple complaints about owner Wally's rude behavior, poor communication, and alleged deceptive practices (changing work descriptions, overcharging), though field technicians often receive praise for courtesy and skill. Pricing is a major concern with four detailed complaints about unexpected charges, hidden costs, and significant overages ($800 for a faucet, $1,750 vs. $2,441 quoted, $3,300 undisclosed charges). Project completion is generally solid with most jobs finished, though one hydro-jet failure caused basement flooding with denied liability. Technical experience and workmanship are consistently praised when jobs are completed. The company demonstrates strong responsiveness and quick dispatch but struggles with transparency and owner conduct.

• CRITICAL: Multiple detailed complaints (4 reviews) about deceptive billing practices—work descriptions allegedly changed after initial discussion, quotes not honored, significant undisclosed charges. This pattern suggests systemic pricing integrity issues.
• CRITICAL: Owner Wally repeatedly described as rude, yelling, accusatory, and unwilling to listen to customers. Three separate reviews document hostile owner interactions.
• MODERATE: One catastrophic service failure (hydro-jet procedure caused basement flooding) with company denying liability and case going to Small Claims Court.
• MODERATE: Inconsistent quality control—same company name but vastly different experiences. Some reviews praise specific technicians (Wally, Steve, Connor, Anthony, Josh, Derek) while others report poor workmanship and lack of follow-up.
• MODERATE: One review from 2006 is 18 years old and should be weighted minimally; most actionable data is from 2021 onward.
• LIMITED: One review (bathroom floor work) appears to be about general contracting, not plumbing, which may indicate service scope confusion or misclassification.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 23 reviews with HIGH confidence in individual dimensions, the company exhibits a stark bifurcation: field technicians are often professional and skilled, but owner conduct and billing practices are repeatedly flagged as problematic. The WW Score of 72.8 masks serious trust and transparency issues that would warrant additional due diligence before hiring. Recent reviews (2024) show both exceptional praise and severe complaints, suggesting either inconsistent service delivery or potential selection bias in review sources.

Water Tight Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and generally professional crew behavior, but is significantly hampered by serious reliability and scheduling failures. Multiple reviews document no-shows, missed appointments without advance notice, and failure to follow through on committed work—issues that directly undermine customer trust despite positive feedback on workmanship quality. Pricing concerns also emerge, with at least one customer reporting significant overcharging in an urgent situation. The company's inconsistency is the primary driver of the moderate overall score: excellent work when they show up, but unreliable arrival and follow-through.

• RECENCY BIAS: 7 of 15 reviews are older than 3 years (2020 or earlier). Recent reviews (2023-2024) show critical failures in scheduling and reliability, suggesting potential service degradation over time.
• CRITICAL PATTERN: Three separate reviews (2023, 2022, 2019) document no-shows or failure to complete scheduled work. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING CONCERN: Review from 2019-09-09 explicitly states customer was overcharged by $400 compared to family member for same service, with 2-hour delay and no emergency call notification.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVE: Older reviews (2011-2014) praise reliability and long-term loyalty; recent reviews (2019-2023) document serious failures. This suggests service quality has declined significantly.
• OWNER DECISION OVERRIDE: 2019-12-31 review indicates owner overrode technician's decision to complete agreed-upon work, instead pushing expensive alternative ($3,500 sewer line replacement). Customer had 20-year relationship but terminated it over this incident.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While technical competence appears genuine (HIGH confidence on experience), the company's reliability in scheduling, follow-through, and pricing transparency is severely compromised by multiple documented failures in recent years. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects this contradiction: good work quality undermined by poor business practices. Customers should expect quality workmanship but should not rely on punctuality or appointment adherence.

Brilliant Plumbers has a mixed but generally positive track record across the reviewed period. Professionalism is the most discussed dimension and is dragged down significantly by two credible 1-star reviews from the same date (April 23, 2024) describing rudeness, tardiness, and discriminatory behavior — these are serious concerns that cannot be dismissed. Pricing is similarly impacted by two explicit complaints about bait-and-switch pricing, which offset the positive mentions of fair and affordable costs from other reviewers. Project completion and experience scores are stronger, with multiple reviewers confirming timely arrivals, completed work, follow-up calls, and warranty offerings. The two negative reviews are recent (2024) and represent the most current signal available, which per recency rules carries elevated weight.

• Two 1-star reviews posted on the exact same date (2024-04-23) within approximately 2 hours of each other — possible coordinated negative reviews, but both contain specific, distinct, credible details (pricing dispute, rudeness, disability-related behavior) so they are treated as genuine.
• The negative reviews are the most recent in the dataset (April and July 2024), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Most positive reviews are from 2021–2023.
• One 5-star review (2021-07-12) is notably generic and enthusiastic with limited specifics ('the BEST', 'can't say enough') — minor fake review concern, but not flagged as definitive.
• Review volume is low (10 total), which limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores despite HIGH confidence labels based on mention counts.
• Recency warning: 7 of 10 reviews are older than 12 months from the most recent review date. The two most recent reviews (2024) are both negative, which is a meaningful signal.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the mention counts are sufficient for confidence labeling, but the small total review pool, the recency skew toward negative experiences, and the serious nature of the 2024 complaints mean prospective customers should weigh the recent 1-star reviews heavily before hiring.