Find Nearby Plumbers In Waukegan, Illinois

This contractor receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven primarily by severe and consistent pricing complaints across 14 reviews spanning 2011–2024. Customers repeatedly report being charged 2–10x market rates for basic plumbing work (e.g., $780 for a flange replacement, $700 for a garbage disposal, $214 for 30 minutes of drain rodding). While professionalism and project completion show moderate scores (52 and 48 respectively), with some positive notes on responsiveness and friendliness, these strengths are overwhelmed by systematic overcharging, lack of transparency in quotes, and failure to stand behind warranty work. Experience is rated moderately (65) due to mixed evidence of technical competence, but poor diagnostic work and incomplete repairs undermine this dimension.

• SEVERE PRICING PATTERN: 14 of 20 reviews (70%) explicitly cite excessive charges. This is not isolated—it is systemic and spans 13 years (2011–2024). Customers consistently report being charged 2–10x what competitors charge for identical work.
• LACK OF TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviews report surprise charges, undisclosed service fees ($59 quote fee, $65 service call fee), and vague billing with no itemization. Customers were not informed of charges upfront.
• WARRANTY & FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete repairs requiring callbacks (water heater thermostat, pilot light issues, toilet repair). One long-term customer (15–20 years) reports the company refused to warranty a water line repair that failed twice at the same location.
• DIAGNOSTIC FAILURES: Several reviews indicate plumbers missed root causes (thermocouple issue diagnosed as pilot light problem, toilet flapper issue unresolved). A $10 part was missed and customer charged $175 for re-lighting.
• COMPANY TRANSITION: Reviews reference transition to 'Ravinia Plumbing' and mention of 'Tom Mahoney' leaving to start separate business, suggesting possible organizational instability.
• RECENCY: Most damaging reviews are from 2012–2015, but the most recent 5-star review (2024-08-23) is extremely brief and generic ('Great service... you can't go wrong with CJ!!'), lacking specifics. This contrasts sharply with detailed negative reviews. The 2024 review may indicate improved service or could be a planted review.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS PATTERN: The 4 positive reviews (5.0, 4.0, 5.0, 4.0) are notably brief and generic, while negative reviews are detailed and specific. This asymmetry is typical of reputation management or fake review patterns.
• CUSTOMER TRUST EROSION: Multiple reviews explicitly state loss of trust despite long-term relationships. One 15–20 year customer terminated service due to warranty refusal and poor maintenance.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 20 reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific evidence across all dimensions. The pricing dimension alone (18/100 with HIGH confidence from 14 mentions) is sufficiently damaging to warrant extreme caution. The systematic nature of overcharging across 13 years, combined with documented warranty failures and diagnostic errors, indicates this is not a matter of isolated complaints but a business model issue. The recent positive review lacks credibility given the pattern of generic praise versus detailed criticism elsewhere.

Pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset, with an overwhelming majority of reviewers — spanning years and across multiple service types — explicitly describing charges as grossly inflated, deceptive, or predatory, including multiple allegations of price gouging against elderly customers and hidden fees contradicting advertised rates. Project completion is severely undermined by a persistent pattern of no-shows, repeated rescheduling, abandoned jobs, and warranty non-fulfillment, with multiple reviewers describing incomplete installations lasting weeks or months. Professionalism scores slightly higher because a meaningful subset of reviews praise individual technicians as polite, punctual, and communicative, but this is heavily offset by systemic failures in scheduling reliability, callback responsiveness, and corporate-level communication. Experience scores reflect a split picture: some technicians demonstrate genuine skill and problem-solving ability, while others are credibly accused of misdiagnosis, fabricating problems to drive sales, and performing substandard work that required correction by competitors. The overall WW Score of 28.4 reflects a company with serious, well-documented, and recurring failures across nearly every dimension of service quality.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly allege that the company's Google and Facebook 5-star ratings are padded with fake or bot reviews. One reviewer noted Facebook positive reviews appeared to be bots selling bitcoin. This is a credible concern given the stark contrast between the volume of detailed negative reviews and any claimed high aggregate ratings on other platforms.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Numerous reviews across 2012–2024 describe quotes that are 2x to 10x higher than competitors for identical work. This is not isolated — it spans water heaters, sewer rodding, faucet installation, valve replacement, and HVAC, suggesting a systemic pricing model rather than individual technician error.
• ELDERLY EXPLOITATION: At least two reviews explicitly describe the company charging elderly customers (ages 83+ and elderly parents on Social Security) dramatically above-market rates, with minimal or token refunds after complaints.
• FRAUDULENT DIAGNOSIS ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers credibly describe technicians fabricating or exaggerating problems to drive large-ticket sales — including one reviewer who documented a technician showing photos that were not of their actual furnace, and another where a competitor found the real issue (walnuts in exhaust) after Precision quoted $2,700–$12,000.
• SYSTEMIC NO-SHOW AND RESCHEDULING PATTERN: At least 12 reviews across 2016–2024 describe confirmed appointments that were cancelled same-day, no-showed entirely, or rescheduled multiple times with no communication. This is a persistent operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / WARRANTY NON-FULFILLMENT: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished for weeks or months after full payment, including an $18K HVAC installation still incomplete after 3 months, and a $15K plumbing job where contracted concrete repair was abandoned. Warranty claims were also denied or ignored in several cases.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) show no improvement in the patterns documented as far back as 2012. Negative patterns have intensified rather than resolved, particularly around no-shows, pricing deception, and post-acquisition (Precision absorbing 5 Star / Millers) service degradation.
• HIDDEN FEES: Multiple reviewers describe being charged undisclosed travel/dispatch fees after being told there were none, and advertised promotional prices being applied deceptively or not honored as described.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on 75 reviews spanning over a decade with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable and conservative assessment of a company with deeply systemic problems in pricing transparency, appointment reliability, work completion, and diagnostic integrity.

Analysis cannot proceed due to detection of systematic fake review patterns. Three consecutive reviews (dated 2024-01-15) contain identical text word-for-word, indicating coordinated or fabricated submissions. The remaining reviews, while individually positive, lack sufficient independent verification and specificity to establish reliable scoring. The dataset is compromised and does not meet minimum standards for trustworthy WW Score calculation.

• CRITICAL: Three identical reviews detected (2024-01-15 06:56:46, 06:53:43, 05:48:53) with verbatim text. This is a strong indicator of fake or coordinated reviews.
• All 11 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or balanced perspectives. This uniformity is statistically suspicious.
• Most reviews lack specific technical details about work performed, making verification impossible.
• Review dates span 2012-2024 with significant gaps; most recent cluster (3 identical reviews) is highly suspicious.
• Generic praise language ('A+ service', 'Excellent work', 'highly recommend') appears across multiple reviews without substantive detail.

This dataset cannot be used to generate a reliable WW Score due to confirmed fake review patterns (identical duplicate reviews) and overall lack of independent verification. Any score derived would be unreliable and potentially misleading.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 total reviews analyzed, with extremely limited mention counts across all dimensions (1–2 mentions each). Two reviews are highly positive and detailed (5-star ratings from March 2023), praising professionalism, responsiveness, pricing competitiveness, and technical skill. However, one review (August 2023) alleges a serious scam involving payment fraud and non-service. The conflicting evidence and minimal data volume prevent reliable scoring.

• CRITICAL: One review alleges payment fraud, non-service, and blocking of customer contact. This is a serious allegation that contradicts the positive reviews and suggests potential fraudulent activity or severe service failure.
• Extremely small sample size (n=3) with uneven distribution of positive vs. negative feedback. Two 5-star reviews vs. one 1-star fraud allegation creates high volatility.
• All reviews are from 2023 (oldest data available). No recent reviews to assess current service quality or whether issues have been resolved.
• Positive reviews contain some generic praise language ('life savers', 'absolute joy') but also include specific job details (leak fixed, clog rodded, gas line reconnected), so they do not appear fabricated.
• The fraud allegation is specific and detailed (Apple Pay/Venmo only, 50% deposit, no-show, blocked number), which increases credibility of that complaint.
• Insufficient data to determine if the scam review represents an isolated incident or a pattern of behavior.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and conflicting evidence (two 5-star vs. one 1-star fraud allegation). Any WW Score derived from this data would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. The fraud allegation requires immediate investigation before engaging this contractor.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews needed for confidence. Additionally, the review set is severely imbalanced: one 1-star review from 2019 citing severe professionalism failures (no-show, rudeness, door slamming), and two 5-star reviews from 2015 and 2019 praising Mike's expertise and long-term reliability. The extreme polarity and small sample size make any aggregate score unreliable. Professionalism scores range from 30 (based on the negative review) to implied high scores in positive reviews, creating contradictory signals.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Minimum 5+ reviews recommended for reliable scoring.
• EXTREME POLARITY: One 1-star review vs. two 5-star reviews with no middle ground suggests either inconsistent service quality or potential selection bias in review collection.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2015 and 2019 (5+ years old). Only one review is from 2019. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The two 5-star reviews contain generic praise language ('really knowledgeable,' 'good job,' 'won't let anyone else') with minimal specific detail about actual work performed. The 2015 review uses excessive punctuation ('!!!!') typical of low-effort positive reviews.
• PROJECT COMPLETION DATA MISSING: No reviews explicitly mention job completion, timeliness, or follow-through on callbacks, making this critical dimension unscoreable.
• CONTRADICTORY SERVICE QUALITY: The 1-star review describes abandonment of a job mid-visit, while 5-star reviews praise reliability and thoroughness. This suggests either a single bad incident or inconsistent service delivery.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3), extreme rating polarity, outdated data (most reviews 5+ years old), and missing data on critical dimensions like project completion. Any aggregate score would be misleading and should not be used for decision-making.

Only two reviews are available, both dated between 2017 and 2019, making them over five years old and of limited relevance to current performance. Project completion is supported by both reviews — one highlights thorough water removal and remediation, and the other confirms warranty follow-through on a previously installed sump pump, which is a meaningful indicator of accountability. Experience is suggested by the detailed, step-by-step remediation described in the 2017 review and the successful warranty repair in the 2019 review, though the sample is too small to score with confidence. Professionalism is explicitly mentioned in only one review, earning a conservative score. Pricing is entirely absent from both reviews and cannot be scored.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated 2017 and 2019 — all data is more than 5 years old and may not reflect current contractor performance.
• The two reviews reference different business names ('Absolute Plumbing' and 'Absolute Water Damage') — it is unclear if these are the same entity, which introduces uncertainty about whether both reviews apply to the same contractor.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns, but both reviews are generic in structure with limited specific detail about technician names, pricing, or timelines.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — it is based on only 2 reviews, all of which are over 5 years old, and covers an insufficient range of dimensions to produce a meaningful or stable WW Score.