Find Nearby Plumbers In Elgin, Illinois

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Two positive reviews from 2021 praise punctuality, technical knowledge, and cost efficiency, while a recent 2023 review reports serious service failures including misdiagnosis of a sump pump issue and refusal to provide follow-up service. Project completion is particularly concerning due to the unresolved alarm issue and lack of callback. The small sample size (3 reviews) and recency gap (two reviews are 2+ years old) limit confidence in this assessment. The negative review's specificity and recent date suggest potential deterioration in service quality.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are from 2021 (2+ years old); most recent review is negative (Feb 2023), suggesting possible service quality decline
• SERVICE FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: Recent review explicitly states company refuses to answer calls for warranty/service work, indicating serious project completion and professionalism issues
• TECHNICAL COMPETENCE QUESTIONED: Misdiagnosis of sump pump alarm suggests knowledge gaps despite positive reviews praising expertise
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews limits statistical reliability; all dimensions scored with LIMITED confidence

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size, significant recency gap between positive and negative reviews, and evidence of potential service quality deterioration. The recent negative review with specific service failures carries more weight than older positive reviews.

The review set is heavily polarized: four 5-star reviews praise professionalism, friendliness, and quality, while one highly detailed 1-star review documents serious failures across nearly every dimension. The negative review is exceptionally specific — covering late arrivals, poor workmanship on doors, trims, ceilings, and baseboards, a project that ran nearly double the estimated duration, an owner losing composure when issues were raised, and the crew failing to return for promised touch-ups. Because the negative review is so detailed and credible, it significantly drags down professionalism, project completion, and experience scores. The positive reviews, while numerous, are largely brief and generic, which limits their ability to fully counterbalance the documented failures. Pricing received the most consistent positive feedback across the reviews that mentioned it.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Three of the four positive reviews are very brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., no mention of specific workers, project scope, or any nuance). This pattern is consistent with low-effort or potentially inauthentic reviews.
• SEVERE NEGATIVE REVIEW: The 1-star review is highly detailed, specific, and credible. It documents unprofessional behavior by an owner, repeated lateness, poor workmanship across multiple surfaces, a project running 75-100% over the estimated timeline, and failure to honor a callback commitment. This review carries disproportionately high evidentiary weight.
• RECENCY NOTE: All five reviews fall within a narrow 30-day window (May–June 2023), which is unusual and may suggest a burst of solicited reviews. All reviews are also older than 12 months from a typical 2024–2025 evaluation date, so recency weighting is reduced.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: With only 5 reviews, a single negative review has an outsized impact. The WW Score should be treated as directional only and not definitive.

This WW Score has LIMITED overall reliability due to the small sample size of 5 reviews, the presence of several generic positive reviews that may not reflect authentic experiences, and the significant weight carried by one highly detailed negative review that documents failures across multiple dimensions.

All Suburban receives strong praise from many repeat customers for responsiveness, punctuality, and fair pricing, with multiple reviewers highlighting George and his crew by name as reliable and professional. However, a persistent and serious pattern of complaints about a rude receptionist/phone staff significantly drags down the professionalism score, with at least five independent reviewers explicitly describing hostile, dismissive, or even abusive phone interactions. Project completion is mixed: while many jobs were finished quickly and correctly, there are credible accounts of misdiagnosis, shoddy installation work (dangerous venting failure on a water heater), refusal to honor callbacks, and one instance of a missed appointment with no follow-through. Experience scores are similarly split, with several reviewers praising problem-solving speed and skill, while others documented clear technical failures including a missing toilet seal, an incorrect diagnosis costing $425, and a sewer clean-out that a subsequent plumber found in 30 seconds. The volume and specificity of negative reviews prevent this contractor from scoring in the upper tier despite a loyal base of satisfied customers.

• RECEPTIONIST/PHONE STAFF PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviews (2019-02-11, 2019-06-12, 2016-12-17, 2019-08-16, and the 2019-02-11 extreme incident) explicitly describe rude, hostile, or abusive phone interactions. The 2019-02-11 review alleges the staff member called back from a blocked number and screamed profanity at the customer — this is an extreme and specific allegation that materially impacts the professionalism score.
• TECHNICAL FAILURE — SAFETY RISK: The 2023-03-31 review describes a water heater venting installation that failed and exposed the household to hazardous gases. The company reportedly refused to take responsibility and offered implausible explanations. This is a serious workmanship and liability concern.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: The 2019-08-16 review documents a $425 unnecessary garbage disposal replacement when the actual issue was a loose nut. The 2012-06-28 review documents a missed toilet seal diagnosis that a subsequent plumber identified immediately. These suggest inconsistent diagnostic quality.
• RECENCY NOTE: Several positive reviews are from 2007–2013 and carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) include both a strong positive and a serious safety complaint, suggesting performance remains inconsistent rather than trending clearly in either direction.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, rating, and writing style. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No pattern of fake or coordinated reviews detected.

This WW Score is based on 29 reviews spanning 17 years with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable; however, the wide variance between glowing praise and serious safety or conduct complaints means the score reflects a genuinely inconsistent contractor rather than a stable performer, and prospective customers should weigh the specific negative incidents carefully before hiring.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review history, with enthusiastic praise in older reviews (2012–2019) contrasted sharply by a pattern of serious complaints in more recent reviews (2020–2024). Professionalism is significantly dragged down by multiple documented no-shows, broken promises by the owner, a crew leaving a home with water running unattended, and rude or unhelpful office interactions. Project completion suffers from several accounts of incomplete or incorrect work, abandoned jobs, and failure to honor quoted guarantees. Pricing received mixed signals — some reviewers praised fair or below-market rates, while others reported being charged more than quoted or billed for unauthorized work. Experience scores moderately, with several positive accounts of skilled technicians solving difficult problems, but offset by cases where the root cause of a problem was misdiagnosed across multiple visits.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2012–2019, while the majority of negative reviews are from 2020–2024. Recent performance appears to have declined significantly and should be weighted more heavily.
• OWNER ACCOUNTABILITY: Multiple reviews specifically name the owner (Rich Mitchell) in connection with broken promises, no-shows, and a check cashed 15 months after agreeing not to — suggesting systemic leadership issues rather than isolated crew problems.
• GUARANTEE MANIPULATION: One reviewer explicitly documents the company changing a one-year guarantee to 90 days after payment was collected, which is a serious ethical and consumer protection concern.
• UNAUTHORIZED WORK AND OVERBILLING: At least two reviews describe being charged for work they did not authorize or were quoted a lower price for, indicating a pattern of pricing integrity issues.
• REFERRAL PARTNER CONCERN: One reviewer flagged that the company's referred restoration partner engaged in predatory behavior — while not directly the contractor's fault, it reflects on vetting practices.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: Older 5-star reviews contain specific names, details, and varied language, reducing suspicion of fabrication. However, the volume of generic praise in 2012–2018 reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the volume of reviews, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the clear downward trend in recent years — prospective customers should treat post-2020 reviews as the most predictive of current service quality.

Angel Water presents a deeply polarized review profile: a subset of customers report excellent individual technicians (CJ, Zach, Tyler, Anthony, Kyle, Mike, Ryan) who are professional, knowledgeable, and courteous, while a large and consistent body of negative reviews describes aggressive upselling, misleading sales tactics, no-shows, poor scheduling, and unresolved system failures. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with numerous reviewers independently discovering that Angel Water's quotes were dramatically higher than competitors for equivalent or identical products, and parts markups described as exceeding 120% over retail. Project completion suffers significantly due to recurring patterns of promised follow-up that never materialized, systems installed that failed to deliver on sales promises, and technicians who recommended unnecessary replacements rather than repairs. Experience scores are mixed: individual technicians frequently receive praise for technical skill, but the sales and diagnostic process is repeatedly described as dishonest and incompetent, with one reviewer's father — an environmental professional — directly contradicting a salesman's technical claims.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Multiple reviewers explicitly call out suspicious review patterns — one reviewer (2013) notes that many 5-star reviewers had only one review ever posted, all for Angel Water. This is a strong indicator of incentivized or fabricated positive reviews.
• GENERIC PRAISE WITH NO SPECIFICS: Several 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Awesome Company with awesome products for true healthy water', 'This company have the best service, best price and best knowledge', 'You can literally feel the good energy when you drive past this place') contain no verifiable detail, no technician names, no job descriptions, and read as promotional filler. These have been discounted in scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2024. The most recent reviews (2022–2024) skew negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Older 5-star reviews (2011–2017) may reflect a different operational period and have been weighted accordingly.
• PATTERN OF UPSELLING COMPLAINTS: At least 10 independent reviewers across multiple years describe the same pattern — salespeople recommending unnecessary new systems instead of repairing existing ones, and quoting prices far above market rate. This is a systemic behavioral flag, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 5 reviews describe confirmed appointments where no technician arrived and no proactive communication was made, indicating a systemic scheduling reliability problem.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Several negative reviews were partially updated after management (Chris Hanson, Andy) reached out, suggesting some responsiveness at the leadership level, but this does not offset the volume of unresolved complaints.
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2024-05-01) alleges a salesman made sexually inappropriate remarks and called at all hours. This is a serious conduct flag that cannot be verified from reviews alone but is noted for transparency.

This WW Score is based on 68 reviews spanning 13 years with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, but confidence is moderated by credible evidence of fake or incentivized positive reviews, a clear negative trend in recent years, and systemic complaints about pricing and sales ethics that are too consistent and specific across independent reviewers to dismiss.

McHenry Plumbing shows a deeply polarized performance profile. Two recent positive reviews (2017) praise technician Butch's expertise, friendliness, and fair pricing ($495 vs competitor's $1250), while two negative reviews (2022, 2019) cite complete failure in responsiveness and follow-up—specifically non-existent customer service, ignored callbacks, and lack of warranty support. The company demonstrates strong technical skill and competitive pricing when engaged, but severe deficiencies in professionalism and project follow-through that directly contradict their core service obligations. The recency gap is critical: positive reviews are 5+ years old, while the most recent review (2022) documents ongoing communication failures.

• CRITICAL RECENCY ISSUE: Positive reviews are from 2017 (5+ years old); negative reviews are from 2019 and 2022, suggesting deterioration in service quality over time.
• PATTERN OF NON-RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews explicitly cite failure to return calls and honor callbacks—a fundamental professionalism failure that directly contradicts the company's ability to complete projects.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE DELIVERY: Stark contrast between two 5-star reviews (both mentioning same technician 'Butch') and two 1-star reviews suggests either technician-dependent quality or significant operational breakdown in management/follow-up.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: 2022 review explicitly states 'They don't back up their work'—indicates failure to honor service guarantees, which is a project completion red flag.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews) and extreme polarization; however, the recency of negative reviews and documented pattern of communication failure suggest current reliability is significantly lower than historical 5-star ratings indicate. The company appears to have experienced operational degradation since 2017.