Find Nearby Plumbers In Elgin, Illinois

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by chronic no-shows, failure to answer calls, hanging up on customers, and poor communication (13 mentions). Project completion is severely damaged by abandoned jobs, incomplete work, unresolved callbacks, and court judgments for non-performance (12 mentions). Pricing concerns include bait-and-switch tactics, unexpected price increases after quotes, and warranty disputes (5 mentions). While some older reviews (2011-2014) praise his work quality and responsiveness, the overwhelming majority of recent reviews (2015-2021) document poor workmanship, leaks, incomplete installations, and complete breakdown in customer service. The contractor appears to have deteriorated significantly or these represent systemic operational failures.

• CRITICAL: Extreme recency bias — 11 of 18 reviews are from 2015-2021 with predominantly 1-star ratings; only 4 positive reviews from 2011-2014. This suggests either business decline or systemic issues that worsened over time.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document legal action — court judgment mentioned (2015), attorney involvement for unpaid deposits (2015), and insurance claim denial (2021). This indicates serious legal/financial risk.
• CRITICAL: Pattern of non-responsiveness — at least 6 reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls, texts, or answer phone. This is a systemic operational failure.
• CRITICAL: Warranty breach pattern — multiple reviews document guaranteed work that was not honored, with owner refusing to honor warranty claims and charging for callbacks.
• CRITICAL: No-show pattern — at least 5 reviews document no-shows or extreme tardiness (10+ hours late), with poor communication about delays.
• CRITICAL: Quality control issues — multiple reviews document leaks, incomplete work, poor soldering, crooked pipes, and work that failed inspection.
• CRITICAL: Pricing integrity concerns — bait-and-switch pricing documented in at least 3 reviews, with quotes increasing significantly after initial agreement.
• NOTE: One review (2015-10-10) mentions employee may have been under the influence of substances (sobriety test at 11:30 AM), raising safety and liability concerns.
• NOTE: Positive reviews are all from 2011-2014 (8+ years old) and lack specificity; negative reviews are recent and highly detailed with specific dates and amounts.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 18 detailed reviews with consistent patterns of failure across all dimensions, particularly strong evidence of non-completion (12 mentions), unprofessionalism (13 mentions), and poor workmanship (8 mentions). The recent concentration of 1-star reviews with specific documentation of legal action, non-performance, and warranty breaches indicates serious systemic problems. This contractor presents substantial risk and should be avoided.

DMR Plumbing & Sewer demonstrates severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Pricing is the most critical failure point, with 15 reviews documenting systematic overcharging (often 2-4x market rates), bait-and-switch tactics, and hidden fees—this alone drives the overall score down substantially. Project completion is compromised by incomplete work (missing toilet rings, improper installations not to code, unresolved issues requiring callbacks), failed guarantees, and poor follow-through. Professionalism is undermined by rudeness, unprofessional behavior during diagnostics, poor cleanup, late arrivals, and one documented instance of threatening a customer in a parking lot over a negative review. While some reviews acknowledge responsive arrival times and friendly demeanor in isolated cases, the overwhelming pattern shows a company that exploits customer desperation, lacks accountability, and delivers inconsistent quality. The WW Score of 32.8 reflects a contractor that poses significant financial and service risk.

• CRITICAL: Systematic overpricing pattern documented across 15 of 17 reviews. Charges consistently 2-4x market rates for identical work performed by competitors.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document work not performed to code, incomplete installations (missing toilet rings, unglued pipes), and failed guarantees despite claimed 35+ years experience and one-year warranty claims.
• CRITICAL: Documented aggressive customer intimidation—one review reports owner confronted customer in public parking lot threatening legal action over negative review.
• CRITICAL: Bait-and-switch pricing documented in multiple reviews: quotes given over phone differ dramatically from final bills presented on-site.
• Pattern of defensive behavior when questioned: owners blamed customers for dissatisfaction, refused refunds, demanded receipts to deny warranty claims.
• Quality control failure: One review documents plumber deliberately soaking insulation to fabricate leak diagnosis ($1,800 quote for non-existent problem).
• Inconsistent service: Some reviews praise responsiveness and friendliness; others document rudeness, refusal to work weekends, and dismissive phone staff. Suggests highly variable service quality.
• All reviews are 6+ years old (2013-2021). Most recent reviews (2021) show same patterns as oldest reviews, indicating no improvement over time.
• No fake review indicators detected. Negative reviews are detailed, specific, and internally consistent. Positive reviews (3 total) are brief but plausible.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 17 detailed reviews with consistent, specific evidence across all dimensions. The overwhelming consensus documents systematic overpricing, incomplete/improper work, and unprofessional conduct. This contractor presents substantial financial and quality risk and should be avoided.

USA Plumbing demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by repeated no-shows, failure to return calls, rude and dismissive customer interactions, and poor follow-up. Pricing concerns are substantial, with multiple reports of overcharging, lack of transparency, non-credited service fees, and disputed charges. Project completion is severely hampered by abandoned work, multiple failed appointment attempts, and refusal to honor warranty obligations. While technical execution appears adequate when work is completed, the overwhelming pattern of broken commitments, poor communication, and customer disrespect makes this contractor unreliable and untrustworthy.

• CRITICAL: One positive 5-star review (2017) stands in stark contrast to nine overwhelmingly negative reviews spanning 2014-2019. This single positive review uses generic praise ('No One Compares to Terry') with minimal specifics and appears inconsistent with the pattern of documented failures.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Multiple reviews document repeated no-shows for scheduled appointments, failure to return phone calls, and broken promises to follow up. This is not isolated—it appears systemic.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT: Multiple reports of double-charging, non-credited service fees, inflated bills presented without estimates, and refusal to honor warranty credits suggest potential billing fraud or severe financial mismanagement.
• HEALTH & SAFETY INCIDENT: One review documents a serious incident involving raw sewage exposure with documented property damage and health hazards. Company admitted fault initially but refused to remediate after 15 days and 10+ contact attempts.
• POSSIBLE IDENTITY/FRAUD CONCERN: First review suggests the company may be diverting calls from Black Diamond Plumbing, raising questions about business legitimacy.
• RECENCY: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2014-2019), with only one from 2019. However, the pattern is consistent across the entire time period, suggesting chronic operational problems rather than recent improvement.

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 10 detailed reviews with consistent, explicit evidence of failures across all dimensions. The overwhelming negative consensus, documented incidents, and pattern of broken commitments across multiple years provide strong confidence that this contractor poses significant risk to customers.

AVD Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with 9 out of 10 reviews rating the company 1 star. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of rude communication, missed appointments, no-shows, and in one case the owner retaliating against a customer by canceling their warranty claim. Project completion is catastrophically poor — multiple reviewers describe technicians arriving without tools or equipment, performing no actual work, collecting service fees, and then never returning or following through. Pricing and value perceptions are deeply negative, with multiple customers explicitly describing the company as fraudulent for cashing checks or collecting deductibles without performing any work. The sole positive review (5 stars, 2017) describes a single successful garbage disposal repair with punctual, professional service, but it is entirely outweighed by the volume and severity of negative accounts. Experience scores are also very low, with reviewers noting technicians failed to diagnose obvious problems, arrived without necessary equipment, and in one case caused a flood by not turning off the water before working on a valve.

• 9 out of 10 reviews are 1-star ratings, indicating a severe and consistent pattern of poor service rather than isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews describe a pattern of collecting service fees or deductibles without performing any work — this may constitute fraudulent business practice and is a serious consumer warning.
• One reviewer explicitly states they filed a fraud claim with their bank to reverse a charge after no work was performed.
• A reviewer alleges the owner (Augie) submitted false paperwork to a home warranty company claiming work was completed when it was not — a potential case of fraud against a third party.
• The single 5-star review is from 2017 and stands in stark contrast to all other reviews; while it appears genuine and specific, it cannot meaningfully offset the weight of 9 detailed negative accounts.
• Most reviews are dated between 2015 and 2018, meaning all reviews are older than 5 years. No recent reviews are available, so current business quality cannot be assessed. Recency confidence is LOW.
• No fake review patterns detected — negative reviews contain specific details, named individuals, and distinct scenarios, lending them high credibility.

This WW Score is based on 10 reviews with high internal consistency across all dimensions, all older than 5 years, and should be treated as a reliable historical signal of very poor performance, though the absence of recent reviews means current business quality remains unknown.

The review pool is extremely small and deeply mixed, making any score highly unreliable. The most detailed review describes a serious failure: a warranty dispute where the contractor refused to honor a one-year guarantee on a garbage disposal installation, staff were rude and unresponsive, and multiple team members including the plumber and management refused to return calls. This heavily drags down professionalism and project completion scores. One positive review praises response time, punctuality, and cleanliness of work, providing a small counterweight. The third review does not clearly implicate Abitua Plumbing in the described problem and was treated as low-usable data. Given only three reviews with stark contradictions, no WW Score can be calculated reliably.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 3 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules.
• The third review (sprinkler/water pressure issue) does not clearly attribute fault to Abitua Plumbing and may be misdirected; it was given minimal weight.
• The positive review (5-star) is brief, generic, and lacks specific detail about the job performed, raising minor concern about its evidentiary value.
• Review dates span 2019–2021, meaning all reviews are more than 3 years old. No recent data is available to assess current performance.
• A serious warranty non-compliance allegation is present: contractor allegedly refused to honor a one-year warranty and denied responsibility for water damage caused by their installation. This is a significant red flag.

This score profile should be treated as highly unreliable due to an extremely small and outdated review sample, stark contradictions between reviews, and the absence of pricing data entirely.

This contractor shows severe deficiencies across multiple dimensions based on limited but damaging evidence. Two 1-star reviews from 2017–2018 document critical failures in professionalism (missed appointment, dismissive communication, GPS navigation failure) and project completion (incomplete work, unnecessary return trips, refusal to take responsibility). A single 5-star review from 2014 praises work quality and pricing, but is too old and isolated to offset the recent negative pattern. The extreme recency gap (2014 vs. 2017–2018) and small sample size prevent reliable scoring. WW Score cannot be calculated due to insufficient data volume and conflicting signals.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews total — below minimum threshold for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most recent substantive reviews are 6–7 years old (2017–2018); single positive review is 10 years old (2014)
• PATTERN CONCERN: Two consecutive 1-star reviews document systemic issues (communication failure, parts management, customer service attitude) suggesting ongoing problems, not isolated incidents
• SAMPLE BIAS: Positive review lacks specificity ('no complaints') while negative reviews provide detailed evidence of failures
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Experience dimension based on only 1 mention; Pricing and Project Completion each based on 2 mentions only

This score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume (n=3), extreme age of the positive review (10 years), and a pattern of serious documented failures in the most recent reviews; any score derived would be statistically unreliable and potentially misleading.