Find Nearby Plumbers In Skokie, Illinois

Reliance Plumbing scores well on professionalism and experience, with a large volume of reviewers praising technicians like Alex, Brian, and others for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally positive, with most jobs described as finished correctly and in a timely manner, though a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite multi-visit delays, incomplete work, and follow-through failures. The pricing dimension is the most damaging factor in this score: a substantial and consistent pattern of negative reviews across multiple years explicitly describes the $89 consultation fee as a barrier, and numerous reviewers report quotes that were two to five times higher than competitors for identical work, with some describing the experience as a 'rip-off' or 'scam.' The high volume of reviews provides strong statistical confidence, but the persistent pricing complaints across a wide date range meaningfully suppress the overall score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of reviews contain identical text posted on consecutive dates (June 7-8 and June 4-5, 2025). 'Alex (the owner) has an impeccable level of service...' and 'Responsive, reliable, on-time! A true easy button...' each appear twice within 48 hours. These are likely fake or bot-submitted reviews and have been flagged. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A high concentration of blank-text 5-star reviews (approximately 20+ reviews with no written content) inflates the star rating without providing usable data. These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews regarding pricing, project completion failures, and unprofessional conduct span from 2012 through 2024, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents. Pricing complaints are present in reviews as recent as December 2024, suggesting the issue has not been resolved.
• PRICING CONCERN — SYSTEMATIC: The $89 consultation/dispatch fee charged before any work is quoted is explicitly criticized in at least 8 separate reviews. Multiple reviewers report final quotes 2x to 5x higher than competitor bids for identical jobs (e.g., $900 vs $170 for a cap-and-cut job; $1,600 vs $600 for a water heater; $475 for a 45-minute flapper replacement). This is a structural pricing issue, not an outlier.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: At least 3 reviews describe work that was left incomplete, required multiple return visits beyond what was reasonable, or was performed incorrectly and left in worse condition than before service. One review describes a 5-visit sump pump job with chronic late arrivals and a disputed double-charge.
• OLDER REVIEWS: Approximately 25 reviews are dated prior to 2020. These have been given reduced weight in scoring. The business appears to have improved professionalism and experience scores in recent years, but pricing complaints persist across all time periods.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (135 total, 107 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews, a large number of content-free 5-star submissions, and a persistent, multi-year pattern of pricing complaints that suggests a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.

Delta Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship, with many customers praising knowledgeable service and efficient problem-solving. However, professionalism is inconsistent—while most interactions are positive, several reviews document poor communication (missed callbacks, no-shows), rudeness, and unprofessional behavior. Project completion shows significant concerns, with multiple reports of incomplete work, follow-up failures, and damage caused during service. Pricing is generally fair, though one customer reported a dramatic quote-to-bill discrepancy ($200 quoted vs. $700 charged). The company's performance has been uneven over its long history, with older reviews (2011–2015) more consistently positive than recent ones.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 8+ years old (2011–2015). Recent reviews (2018–2024) show more negative patterns including communication failures and incomplete work.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2018, 2010, 2009) explicitly mention unanswered voicemails and no-shows, suggesting systemic communication issues.
• SERIOUS INCIDENT: 2011 review documents alleged threatening behavior, unsafe work practices, and significant property damage during a bathroom remodel, with BBB complaint history noted.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One 2016 review reports major quote-to-bill discrepancy ($200→$700) and aggressive upselling tactics, contradicting claims of honest pricing.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2010, 2009) report promised callbacks and estimates that never materialized.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: 2010 review documents water heater damage caused during service with no timely follow-up repair.
• LICENSING QUESTION: 2011 review raises concern about unlicensed remodeling work; 2012 review claims plumber is unlicensed.
• MINIMAL DETAIL REVIEWS: Two reviews contain only punctuation marks or 'unknown' text, reducing data quality.

This score should be treated with caution. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence, the pattern of communication failures, incomplete follow-ups, and serious incidents in documented reviews—combined with a significant age skew toward older positive reviews—suggests current performance may be lower than the overall score indicates. The MODERATE confidence reflects conflicting evidence: strong workmanship claims versus documented professionalism and completion failures.

Patrick Cain receives strong praise in several reviews for responsiveness, transparency in pricing, and technical problem-solving on jobs like cartridge replacements, water heater installs, and drain clearing. However, the record is meaningfully dragged down by a 1-star review citing three unanswered calls and a dismissive callback, and a 2-star review describing a poorly installed toilet with no satisfactory follow-through to remedy the issue. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and transparent, though one reviewer noted $390 for roughly an hour of blockage work, which tempers the pricing score. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, as the toilet installation complaint specifically describes incomplete or defective work with inadequate resolution, which is a significant red flag for a contractor. Overall, the contractor shows genuine strengths but has documented failures in responsiveness and workmanship quality that cannot be ignored.

• One review (1-star, 2020) describes three unanswered calls and a dismissive response when contact was finally made — this is a direct professionalism and responsiveness failure.
• One review (2-star, 2020) describes a poorly installed toilet with no meaningful attempt to correct the work beyond a few texts — this is a project completion and accountability failure.
• Most negative reviews are from 2020; the more recent reviews (2021–2024) are generally positive, suggesting possible improvement over time, but the 2024 review is only 3 stars with a $390 charge for ~1 hour of work, which is a mild pricing concern.
• Review volume is low (7 total), which limits the statistical reliability of all dimension scores despite HIGH confidence labels based on mention counts.
• No strong fake review patterns detected; reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include negative experiences, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 7 reviews spanning four years, which limits reliability despite high mention counts per dimension — the score should be treated as a reasonable directional signal but not a definitive assessment.

Affordable Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across its review history. On the positive side, individual technicians — particularly Colby, Josh, Jeff, and Edwin — receive consistent and specific praise for technical skill, thoroughness, and friendly communication, and pricing is frequently cited as a genuine strength relative to competitors. However, the owner Rick Ramsey is the subject of multiple serious, detailed negative reviews spanning from 2014 through 2025, describing yelling, hanging up on customers, refusing refunds for incomplete work, filling a hole against explicit customer instruction, and failing to honor employee commitments — a persistent pattern that significantly drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. Project completion is further undermined by credible accounts of work left unfinished, callbacks not honored, incorrect diagnoses, and at least one instance of toilets installed improperly causing thousands in water damage. The pricing dimension scores moderately well because many reviewers genuinely praise affordability, though several negative reviewers note inflated diagnostic quotes and bait-and-switch pricing concerns.

• Two reviews dated 2014-11-04 are near-identical in full text and rating — one appears to be a duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews dated 2020-08-07 are near-identical in full text describing a dangerous driver incident — treated as one unique incident for scoring.
• Several reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', or no substantive text and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• A recurring pattern of owner Rick Ramsey responding aggressively to complaints appears across multiple independent, detailed reviews spanning 2015–2025, suggesting a systemic behavioral issue rather than isolated incidents.
• One negative reviewer (2019-10-02) alleges the technician 'appeared to be on drugs' — this is unverifiable but noted as a serious claim.
• One reviewer (2019-09-04) alleges work was paid for but not performed, and a refund was refused — a potential fraud/breach-of-contract concern.
• One reviewer (2019-04-22) alleges improperly installed toilets caused approximately $15,000 in property damage and the owner refused responsibility.
• One reviewer (2025-06-05) alleges the owner filled a hole in their driveway after being explicitly told not to, then sent a taunting text — corroborated by invoice documentation described in the review.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) continue to show both strong positive technician reviews and serious negative owner-conduct reviews, indicating the split pattern has not resolved over time.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Excellent.', 'Colby is Great. Five Star! Very knowledgeable!') with minimal specifics — minor fake review risk, though most positive reviews are sufficiently detailed to be credible.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH data confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously: the company's quality is highly dependent on which technician is assigned, and the owner's documented pattern of aggressive and unprofessional conduct toward dissatisfied customers represents a material risk that the numerical score alone does not fully capture.

Topline HVAC demonstrates strong professionalism with punctual service, courteous staff, and responsive communication in most engagements. However, significant concerns emerge around pricing practices, with multiple customers reporting overcharges, inflated quotes, and refusal to provide part numbers or itemized breakdowns. Project completion shows mixed results—while many jobs are finished promptly and thoroughly, several customers report incomplete work, multiple callbacks for the same issue, and installation defects requiring external contractors to remedy. Technical expertise is generally solid for routine repairs but inconsistent during complex installations, with some technicians lacking proper diagnostic rigor. The company's performance is highly variable depending on which technician is assigned.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews from 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2025-03-11, 2025-02-09, and multiple 2024-06-09 reviews show suspicious clustering with nearly identical phrasing ('outstanding,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional,' 'efficient'). Several 2024-06-09 reviews appear generic and lack specific details about actual work performed. This suggests potential review manipulation.
• PRICING CONCERNS: 18 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent pattern of overcharging, inflated diagnostics, refusal to provide itemized quotes or part numbers, and aggressive upselling. Multiple customers report finding the same work done elsewhere for 30-70% less cost.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY ISSUES: Multiple detailed complaints about botched HVAC installations requiring external contractors to fix problems including incorrect refrigerant charging, improper thermostat setup, humidifier placement errors, and damage to property (hardwood floors). One customer reported $10k in floor damage.
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Performance varies dramatically by technician. Some are praised as exceptional; others are described as rude, inexperienced, or incompetent. This suggests inadequate training or quality control.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reports of unanswered callbacks, broken promises to return calls, and poor follow-up despite service contracts. One customer reported three calls in four hours with no response.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews cluster in 2024-2025 (potentially manipulated), while detailed negative reviews span 2010-2022, suggesting long-standing systemic issues. Recent positive reviews lack specificity compared to older detailed complaints.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to strong evidence of review manipulation in recent months and a stark divergence between generic recent praise and detailed historical complaints. The score of 68.2 reflects the mixed data, but the underlying data quality is compromised; customers should independently verify pricing and seek multiple quotes before engaging this company.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 13+ years. Two older reviews (2007, 2009) praise professionalism, punctuality, and technical skill, while two more recent reviews (2011, 2020) document serious professionalism failures including a no-show appointment and aggressive, sarcastic behavior during estimate discussions. Pricing feedback is limited but positive where mentioned. The stark contrast between positive and negative experiences, combined with the recency of negative feedback, suggests deterioration in service quality or consistency over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 13+ years old (2007, 2009). Most recent reviews (2011, 2020) are negative, suggesting potential decline in service quality.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: 2020 review documents unprofessional, aggressive behavior during estimate discussion with sarcastic emojis. 2011 review documents no-show appointment without explanation.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Score reliability is limited and may not represent current service quality.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contradiction between older glowing reviews and recent negative experiences suggests either inconsistent service delivery or significant business changes.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, significant recency bias favoring older reviews, and a concerning pattern of recent professionalism failures that contradict older positive feedback.