Find Nearby Plumbers In Cicero, Illinois

Sullivan's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical skill and workmanship (82.0), with multiple reviews praising their problem-solving ability and quality of repairs. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by serious communication failures—multiple customers report being ignored after leaving messages, missed appointments, and lack of follow-through on callbacks. Pricing is generally fair when work is completed (72.5), though one customer was surprised by a $20 credit card fee. Project completion suffers from inconsistent follow-through, particularly regarding promised callbacks and scheduled work. The company excels when actively engaged on-site but struggles with responsiveness and reliability in the pre-work and post-work phases.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 4 of 7 reviews are from 2014-2015 (8-9 years old). Only 3 reviews from 2017-2020. Recent data is limited.
• COMMUNICATION PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2014, 2015, 2015) report identical failure pattern—messages left, no callbacks, poor responsiveness. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• INCONSISTENCY: Same company praised for quick response (30 min in 2017 review) but criticized for 3-day non-response (2015 review). Suggests inconsistent service quality or staffing changes.
• HIDDEN CHARGES: One review mentions unexpected $20 credit card fee not disclosed at appointment—potential transparency issue.

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to limited recent data (only 3 reviews from past 5 years) and a clear pattern of communication/responsiveness failures that appear systemic rather than isolated. The technical competence is well-documented, but the company's reliability in scheduling and follow-through is questionable.

Chicago Pipe Authority demonstrates strong professionalism and technical knowledge in positive reviews, with consistent praise for communication, punctuality, and expertise. However, a severe 1-star review detailing property damage, unauthorized work, aggressive charging for damage caused, and poor follow-up responsiveness significantly undermines overall reliability. The negative review explicitly documents broken drain pipes, disconnected dishwasher drainage, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and what the customer characterizes as extortionate repair charges for damage the company caused. Pricing feedback is mixed: some customers report fair pricing and budget-conscious solutions, while another reports excessive charges ($185–$500+) for repairs of damage the company itself created. Project completion shows similar polarization: four reviews report successful same-day or timely work, but one documents incomplete resolution and abandonment of a customer callback.

• CRITICAL: One detailed 1-star review (2023-07-20) documents serious allegations of property damage (broken drain pipes, disconnected dishwasher), unauthorized work beyond scope, and aggressive charging for damage caused by the company. Customer reports non-responsiveness to callbacks and emails for approximately one week.
• PATTERN CONCERN: Four of five reviews are 5-star with very similar phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'walked me through'). While not definitively fake, the consistency combined with one extreme negative suggests possible review curation or that negative experiences may be underrepresented.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from July–October 2023 (8–10 months old). Only one review from May 2024. Limited recent data to assess whether issues have been resolved.
• RESPONSIVENESS RED FLAG: The 1-star review explicitly states the company became 'barely responsive' and did not return calls/emails for a week after the damage incident. This directly contradicts the professionalism claims in other reviews.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While the numerical score of 68.2 reflects the mix of strong positive and one severe negative review, the small sample size (5 reviews) and the polarized nature of feedback (four 5-stars vs. one 1-star with detailed damage allegations) mean this score is not yet stable. The serious allegations of property damage, unauthorized work, and non-responsiveness in the negative review are material concerns that cannot be ignored, and potential customers should review that detailed complaint independently before engaging this company.

Clearview Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across dimensions. Professionalism is the weakest area (58/100), with multiple complaints about poor communication, unresponsiveness, and unprofessional behavior, though some technicians (Ben, Joe, Franco) received individual praise. Pricing is severely problematic (35/100), with numerous reports of excessive charges, unexplained fees, unauthorized billing, and lack of transparency—this is the most damaging dimension. Project completion is moderate (72/100), with evidence of both successful emergency responses and abandoned follow-ups. Experience/workmanship is the strongest dimension (78/100), with consistent praise for technical skill and problem-solving when work is completed. The company demonstrates capability but suffers from operational and ethical concerns that undermine customer trust.

• CRITICAL: Multiple pricing fraud allegations including unauthorized duplicate charges (2017-2018 incident), unexplained billing increases mid-project, and charges vastly exceeding quoted estimates. One customer reported $16,868.68 invoice after prior unauthorized charges.
• CRITICAL: Severe communication failures—multiple reports of unreturned calls/voicemails, no-shows or late arrivals, and contradictory statements to customers.
• PATTERN: Bait-and-switch pricing—customers report being quoted one price then charged significantly more upon completion (e.g., $262 charged as $272; $500+ for single valve replacement; $1,200 for drain rod).
• INCONSISTENCY: Wide variance in service quality—some reviews praise specific technicians (Ben, Joe, Franco) while others report unprofessional behavior from same company, suggesting quality depends heavily on individual assigned.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews cluster in 2024-2025 (recent months), suggesting ongoing issues rather than historical problems.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Three reviews (5.0 ratings on 2024-06-09, 2023-06-10, 2020-06-10) contain no text—cannot verify legitimacy; one 1.0 rating (2023-06-10) also empty.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews with minimal detail ('I'm a major fan,' 'They're great') alongside detailed negative reviews, though not enough to conclusively flag as fake.
• LEGAL RISK: One customer explicitly stated intent to report to BBB and pursue small claims court for unauthorized charges.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 25 reviews with adequate mention counts, the company exhibits serious ethical concerns around billing practices and communication that are not fully captured by dimensional scoring alone. The HIGH confidence in individual dimensions masks a fundamental trust problem: customers cannot reliably predict pricing or service quality. Recommend independent verification of pricing practices and written contracts before engagement.

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and tells a deeply mixed story: several reviews praise punctuality, courtesy, and communication, while others describe a rude and aggressive technician, dismissive scheduling responses, and a company that turned away work as not 'big enough.' Project completion is similarly split — one review explicitly describes a botched shower control repair that caused a ceiling leak costing over $1,000, and the company discarded the allegedly defective part rather than taking accountability, while other reviews praise follow-through and reliability. Pricing drew concern from at least two reviewers, with one flagging a $450 routine maintenance charge and a billing policy that starts the clock from the moment the technician leaves the shop — practices described as unusual and off-putting. Experience scores moderately, with positive mentions of quality workmanship and above-and-beyond installations offset by the serious workmanship failure in the shower/ceiling leak incident. The overall picture is a contractor with a capable and professional side that is undermined by inconsistent service quality, accountability issues, and pricing transparency problems.

• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only one review (January 2024) falls within the past 12 months. The score should be treated with caution as it may not reflect current service quality.
• The 2024 review is the only recent data point and is positive, but a single recent review is insufficient to override the pattern established by older reviews.
• A serious workmanship and accountability failure is documented in the 2013 review: a faulty repair caused significant property damage and the company discarded evidence rather than accepting responsibility.
• Scheduling responsiveness is a recurring concern across multiple reviews (2014, 2019), suggesting a possible systemic issue with customer prioritization.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in rating, detail, and tone, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability overall: professionalism and project completion have sufficient mention counts to support their scores, but the heavy skew of reviews toward 2011–2019 means the score may not accurately represent the contractor's current performance.

HMR Kramer Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning nearly two decades. While some customers praise fair pricing and honesty, multiple recent reviews (2022, 2021, 2019) document serious failures in professionalism (chronic lateness, poor communication, unresponsiveness to callbacks) and project completion (incomplete/incorrect installations, misdiagnosis of problems). The 2019 review is particularly damaging, detailing a failed repair that went unaddressed despite customer contact. Older positive reviews (2008, 2014, 2017) suggest past reliability, but the pattern of recent complaints indicates deterioration in service quality. Pricing feedback is mixed—some call it fair, others report overcharging relative to actual work performed.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2019-2022 (recent), while positive reviews are from 2008-2017 (old). This suggests service quality has declined significantly over time.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Multiple reviews explicitly cite chronic lateness (4+ hours late, repeated on return visits), failure to return calls, and poor attitude during work.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Three reviews document incomplete or incorrect work—garbage disposer installed at angle and not fully attached, kitchen faucet leak misdiagnosed and not fixed, requiring customer to hire another plumber.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Charged $250 for work another plumber completed for $125; charged $175 for 15-20 minutes of work; customer perception of overcharging relative to actual problem-solving.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: Explicit mention of service office not returning customer call after incomplete repair—critical service failure.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust due to the stark divergence between older positive reviews and recent negative ones, suggesting either service degradation or inconsistent quality. The recent complaints are detailed and specific (not generic), which increases their credibility. The WW Score of 58.3 reflects serious concerns about professionalism and project completion that outweigh pricing and experience strengths.

Red Hot Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile: a cluster of enthusiastic 5-star reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and completed work sits alongside a serious set of 1-star reviews documenting no-shows, ghosting, misdiagnosis, incomplete work, permit violations, and an explicit offer to commit insurance fraud. The positive reviews are largely from 2022 and early-to-mid 2023, while the most damaging reviews are concentrated in late 2023 and 2024, suggesting a meaningful decline in service quality over time. Project completion is the most heavily penalized dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing abandoned jobs, work not done to code, and failure to honor commitments. The insurance fraud allegation raised independently by two separate reviewers in the same time period is an extremely serious flag that significantly undermines trust in this contractor.

• SERIOUS FLAG: Two independent reviewers (Sept 2024) both describe the owner 'Brandon' offering to write an inflated estimate so 'we both could make some money' — this is an explicit offer to commit insurance fraud and represents a major integrity concern.
• PERMIT VIOLATION FLAG: At least one reviewer confirmed via their alderman's office that no permit was pulled for a sewer line job in Chicago, and the work was reportedly not up to City of Chicago code (PVC used where prohibited).
• GHOSTING PATTERN: Multiple reviewers across different time periods (2023, 2024) describe being completely ghosted after scheduling — no-shows with no communication from both technicians and the owner Brandon personally.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW FLAG: Reviews dated 2024-07-28 and 2024-07-30 appear to be nearly identical in content from what may be the same reviewer submitted twice, or two separate people with nearly identical experiences. Treated as two separate mentions but flagged for awareness.
• RECENCY DECLINE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2022 and early 2023. The majority of negative reviews are from late 2023 and 2024. This suggests a significant and recent decline in service quality that should weigh heavily on current hiring decisions.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews use vague, generic praise with limited specifics (e.g., 'amazing job,' 'honest and quick'). While not conclusive, combined with the sharp positive/negative split and recency pattern, some positive reviews may not reflect current business practices.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least two negative reviewers explicitly describe being given incorrect diagnoses that led to unnecessary or incomplete work, raising concerns about technical competence in complex jobs.
• SECOND YELP PROFILE: Multiple reviewers reference a second Yelp profile for this business, which may be used to dilute or obscure negative reviews — a known reputation management tactic.

This WW Score is based on 28 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be interpreted with serious caution due to credible allegations of insurance fraud, permit violations, a clear pattern of ghosting and non-completion, and a sharp negative trend in the most recent reviews from 2023–2024.