Find Nearby Plumbers In Cicero, Illinois

Parks Plumbing & Sewer has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise crew professionalism, punctuality, and technical skill — particularly on flood control installations and sewer work. However, the review corpus contains a meaningful number of serious negative experiences including abandoned or incomplete jobs, billing disputes, no-shows, warranty failures, and technician conduct issues that materially drag down all four dimensions. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers cite fair or competitive pricing, but several describe feeling overcharged, encountering hidden fees, or receiving inflated estimates. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple credible accounts of work left unfinished after payment, failed follow-through on callbacks, and systems that did not perform as promised after significant investment. Experience scores are buoyed by many skilled technician mentions but tempered by documented cases of apprentice errors, misdiagnosis, and poor workmanship.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 4 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the sewer main replacement review and the 'Terrible customer service' review each appear twice with identical text on 2025-05-10 and 2025-05-07). These duplicates were counted once each for scoring purposes and flagged as potentially artificial.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 25+ reviews contain no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules. Their volume inflates the apparent rating average without substantive support.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive negative reviews span from 2010 through 2023, with some serious complaints (incomplete jobs, warranty failures, system failures after large expenditures) appearing as recently as 2023-2024. Positive reviews dominate the 2024-2025 window but the blank/no-text reviews in that period reduce confidence in the recent trend.
• PATTERN CONCERN: The high volume of blank 5-star reviews with no text, combined with several near-identical detailed positive reviews, suggests possible review padding. Confidence in the upper end of scores has been reduced accordingly.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS NOTED: Multiple reviewers report spending $8,000–$25,000 on flood control systems that failed to prevent flooding, with Parks attributing failures to external causes rather than their system. At least three reviews describe jobs left incomplete after full payment was collected. One review describes a technician arriving intoxicated. These are weighted heavily in project completion and experience scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (141 total) with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score statistically robust; however, the presence of duplicate reviews, 25+ blank reviews, and a pattern of serious unresolved complaints means the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence indicator — Parks performs well on routine service calls but carries meaningful risk on large-scale projects and warranty follow-through.

Permidt Engineering has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise their responsiveness, punctuality, and professional demeanor — these positives are well-evidenced across dozens of reviews spanning many years. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and competitive, with multiple reviewers noting they came in under competitor quotes. However, there are several credible, detailed negative reviews that significantly temper the scores: two separate customers describe the same pattern of incomplete pipe work (failure to flush pipes) resulting in persistent low water pressure with no accountability taken, one customer describes a job that left a severed sprinkler line with the owner refusing responsibility, and another describes a technician who charged for a visit without diagnosing or fixing anything. A theft allegation from 2017 is noted but is older and unverified. Project completion is the most penalized dimension because the negative reviews disproportionately describe jobs that were not resolved correctly and follow-up service that was dismissive or inadequate. The overall picture is a company that performs well in the majority of cases but has meaningful, specific failure patterns that cannot be ignored.

• Four blank reviews with only a star rating (no text) were excluded from dimension scoring — three 5-star and one 1-star. These provide no usable evidence.
• Two separate reviewers (May 2025 and April 2025) describe nearly identical complaints: low kitchen faucet pressure, pipes replaced without flushing, and unresolved outcome. This pattern suggests a recurring workmanship issue, not isolated incidents.
• A 2017 review alleges theft of keys by a technician. This is a serious allegation but is unverified, older than 7 years, and not corroborated by other reviews — flagged but not heavily weighted.
• A 2021 review describes a technician who visited, did nothing, and still charged full price — a project completion failure with no accountability.
• A 2023 review describes Permidt cutting a sprinkler pipe during a sewer job and the owner refusing responsibility for reconnection — another project completion and accountability concern.
• A 2022 review describes internal miscommunication where the owner countermanded a technician's instructions mid-job, causing customer frustration and lack of follow-through.
• Recency note: The most recent negative reviews (2025) are among the most detailed and specific, suggesting the workmanship issues are current, not historical. This increases their weight in scoring.
• Many 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Excellent service always', 'Great service!', 'Always dependable quick service done right') with no specifics. While not conclusively fake, these add limited evidentiary value and were scored conservatively.
• A 2018 review describes a hidden cost situation where a follow-up repair was charged separately shortly after a major installation, suggesting potential lack of pricing transparency in some cases.

This WW Score is based on 65 reviews spanning over a decade with sufficient volume for HIGH overall confidence; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given a clear and recurring pattern of project completion failures in recent reviews that suggests the issues are ongoing rather than historical anomalies.

A&M Plumbing receives strong praise across many recent reviews for punctuality, communication, and courteous service, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting on-time arrivals, proactive updates, and above-and-beyond behavior. However, professionalism scores are meaningfully dragged down by two older but detailed reviews describing a contractor (Matt) who gave quotes and then completely failed to show up or communicate, as well as one review citing poor communication during a job. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: there are multiple serious, specific complaints about faulty installations — including leaking dishwashers, sinks, and toilets installed incorrectly, a flooded rec room caused by an improperly secured discharge hose, and an alleged attempt to upsell unnecessary repairs — all of which represent significant workmanship failures. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by those who mention it, with several reviewers calling costs fair or reasonable, though one review describes a high-pressure upsell attempt that undermines this. The experience dimension reflects a split picture: many reviewers praise skill and attention to detail, but the documented installation failures indicate inconsistent technical execution across jobs and possibly across different technicians.

• Three reviews dated 2015–2015 contain only the word 'unknown' with no review text and 5-star ratings — these are not usable for scoring and may represent placeholder or fake entries.
• Two reviews dated 2022-09-30 contain only the word 'Excellent' with identical dates and identical text — possible duplicate or fake reviews; excluded from substantive scoring.
• The review set spans from 2008 to 2024, meaning many reviews are significantly older than 12 months. Reviews from 2013–2018 reference different named technicians (Ty, Matt, Alin) suggesting personnel or ownership changes over time, which limits the reliability of older reviews as indicators of current performance.
• The two most damaging no-show reviews (2015 and 2016) reference a 'Matt' who may no longer be associated with the business. However, they cannot be dismissed without confirmation and are included in scoring with appropriate weight reduction due to age.
• The 2020 review describing multiple simultaneous installation failures (dishwasher, sink, toilet) is highly specific and credible, and significantly impacts the project completion score.
• The 2008 review about the flooded rec room is over 15 years old and has been given minimal weight in scoring due to extreme age, but is noted as a documented workmanship failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence in terms of data volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given the wide date range of reviews, evidence of personnel changes over time, and several specific and credible complaints about installation failures that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong pattern of positive recent feedback.

Axellent Sewer Service shows a strong positive track record across many reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, honest pricing, and technical competence. However, several serious negative reviews significantly temper the overall score — including one account of bathrooms left in a hazardous sewage-contaminated state with no follow-up, repeated no-shows across multiple appointments, and at least two instances of a job being considered incomplete or abandoned without communication. Pricing is a genuine strength, with multiple reviewers specifically noting fair rates and one reviewer saving substantially compared to a competitor's quote. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to credible, detailed accounts of unfinished work and failed callbacks, which cannot be dismissed as outliers given their specificity and recurrence.

• Multiple serious negative reviews describe abandoned work, no-shows, and failure to follow up — these are detailed and credible and weigh heavily against project completion and professionalism scores.
• One review (2021-11-15) describes bathrooms left in a sewage-contaminated state with a newborn present and no return visit or communication — this is a significant safety and service failure.
• One review (2021-08-08) describes three missed appointments and a contractor who gathered information by phone while on-site rather than entering the building — a clear professionalism concern.
• One review (2019-09-22) describes a half-dozen unanswered follow-up requests over 3 months for a minor fix — suggesting a pattern of post-payment disengagement.
• One review (2018-05-31) describes the contractor texting to cancel an appointment the day of and telling the customer to find someone else — indicating selective job acceptance and poor communication.
• Several positive reviews are older than 3 years (some dating to 2014, 2017, 2018), and the most recent reviews (2021–2022) include a disproportionate share of negative experiences — this recency pattern is a concern and suggests possible service quality decline.
• Most 5-star reviews are genuine and specific, reducing fake review concern, but the clustering of detailed negative reviews in 2019–2021 warrants attention as a trend rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on 20 reviews with strong dimension coverage and is considered moderately reliable, but should be interpreted cautiously given a notable cluster of serious, detailed negative reviews in recent years that suggest inconsistent service delivery.

Bob consistently receives strong praise across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and explicitly mentioned quality — punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous attitude appear in nearly every review. Pricing is described as reasonable or fair in four reviews, supporting a solid but not exceptional price-friendly score. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished on time, efficiently, and to a high standard, including one longer multi-month project completed with consistent daily effort. Experience and workmanship quality are explicitly praised in several reviews, with specific mentions of carpentry skill, attention to detail, and quality outcomes. The primary caveat is that all reviews are more than 10 years old, which significantly limits the reliability of this score for assessing current performance.

• ALL 9 REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 10 YEARS (range: 2010–2014). This score reflects historical performance only and should not be treated as indicative of current quality or availability.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews contain specific details and varied language that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings across a decade warrant mild caution.
• One review (2010) explicitly notes the reviewer hired Bob because he was the husband of her best friend, introducing a potential personal bias that may inflate that review's positivity.
• Review volume is low (9 total). Confidence in the WW Score is limited by both the small sample size and the age of all reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to consistent and specific reviewer feedback across dimensions, but should be treated with significant caution given that all reviews are over 10 years old and no recent performance data is available.

First Chance Plumbers demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, courtesy, and cleanliness. Project completion is solid with jobs finished properly and customers satisfied with results. Pricing appears reasonable based on limited mentions. However, one critical review from 2019 alleges unlicensed work and code violations, which directly contradicts the positive reviews and raises serious legal/safety concerns. The review dataset is small (5 total, 4 usable) and heavily skewed toward 5-star ratings with limited specificity on technical expertise, limiting confidence in the overall score.

• CRITICAL: One review (2019-11-10) alleges no state plumbing license and code violations—a serious legal/safety issue that contradicts all other positive reviews. This requires immediate verification and significantly undermines trust.
• All reviews are from 2019 or earlier (oldest data is 3+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess current performance or whether licensing issues were resolved.
• Very small sample size (5 reviews total). Score reliability is limited with this volume.
• Four of five reviews are 5-star with generic praise language ('highly recommend,' 'great work'). Limited specific technical detail provided, making it difficult to independently verify quality claims.
• One review contains a typo ('profe6and') suggesting possible rushed or low-quality submission, though content is substantive.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and completion metrics appear solid based on available reviews, the unresolved licensing/code violation allegation from 2019 is a critical red flag that cannot be ignored, and the complete absence of recent reviews (all data is 3+ years old) means current operational status is unknown. Verification of licensing status and code compliance is essential before engaging this contractor.