Find Nearby Plumbers In Waukegan, Illinois

Little Tommy's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, politeness, and workmanship quality. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished as promised and follow-through honored. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous explicit complaints about high costs, unexpected fees, and what customers perceive as unfair charges relative to work performed. The company excels at responsiveness and expertise but struggles with value perception, which materially impacts overall trustworthiness despite strong execution on the work itself.

• PRICING PATTERN: 32 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Of these, 14 are negative (1-2 star ratings) citing high costs, unexpected fees, or perceived overcharging. Positive pricing mentions (5 reviews) describe 'competitive' or 'fair' pricing, but negative mentions outnumber positive 3:1, suggesting systematic pricing concerns rather than isolated incidents.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE CONTROVERSY: Multiple reviews (2024-02-25, 2021-09-01) describe frustration with mandatory diagnostic/service fees ($89-$165) that are charged even when customers decline work. One customer explicitly felt 'scanned' by this practice.
• ELDERLY CUSTOMER EXPLOITATION ALLEGATION: One 1-star review (2020-10-07) alleges the company took advantage of a 94-year-old customer, charging $1,039 instead of quoted $425. This is a serious red flag for ethical conduct.
• SCOPE CREEP / BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2019-10-01, 2020-06-22, 2018-09-04) describe situations where initial quotes were significantly exceeded mid-project without proper written authorization, leading to bills 2-3x higher than quoted. One customer reported a jump from $3,600 to $9,100.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE: One review (2017-07-06) mentions unglued connections on external work that came apart after installation, indicating potential quality lapses.
• LATE ARRIVAL / SCHEDULING: Two reviews (2016-11-02, 2017-03-31) describe technicians arriving significantly later than promised (30+ minutes to 1+ hour delays) with dismissive responses from dispatch.
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN PERFORMANCE: While most technicians are praised, a few reviews describe technicians lacking knowledge (2017-03-31: plumber unfamiliar with disposal assembly) or making poor recommendations (2018-04-26: overpriced sump pump replacement).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (past 12 months, June 2025 back to April 2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2013-2020) contain more substantive criticism and pricing complaints. This pattern warrants caution regarding potential review quality shift or selection bias in recent submissions.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable but reflects a company with significant internal contradictions: excellent technical execution and professionalism are substantially undermined by persistent, well-documented pricing concerns and ethical issues around fee transparency. The HIGH overall confidence is justified by the large sample size (125 reviews) and consistent patterns, but customers should be aware that while work quality is strong, cost management and billing practices present material risk. The company excels at what it does but charges premium prices and has documented instances of scope creep and aggressive fee structures that disproportionately affect vulnerable customers.

Dave's Handyman/Summit Handyman demonstrates strong technical skills and generally fair pricing, with most customers praising quality workmanship and reasonable costs. However, professionalism and project completion are significantly undermined by recurring communication failures and follow-through issues. Multiple reviews document unresponsiveness to callbacks, missed appointments without explanation, and failure to honor promised refunds. While recent reviews (2023-2024) are consistently positive, older reviews (2016-2017) reveal serious patterns of non-communication and incomplete remediation. The business shows capability but inconsistent execution and accountability.

• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2014-2019 and 2023-2024. Critical negative reviews cluster in 2016-2017, suggesting possible past operational issues that may or may not have been resolved.
• COMMUNICATION PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2017, 2016) explicitly cite failure to return calls, missed appointments, and lack of communication about job difficulties. This is a recurring theme that contradicts the positive narrative in recent reviews.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Review from 2016-11-11 documents work that failed to solve the problem (wax ring improperly installed), plus refund promise not honored. Review from 2020-01-22 documents customer instructions ignored without communication.
• INCONSISTENCY: The stark contrast between glowing recent reviews and damning older reviews raises questions about whether operational changes occurred or if review patterns are selective.
• SAMPLE COMPOSITION: 15 of 20 reviews are 5-star ratings. While some negative reviews provide detailed complaints, the high proportion of perfect ratings may not fully represent customer experience distribution.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While recent reviews (past 12 months) are uniformly positive and suggest improved operations, the documented pattern of communication failures and incomplete work in 2016-2017 indicates systemic issues that may recur. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects genuine capability in technical work and pricing, but the professionalism and completion dimensions are dragged down by verifiable accountability gaps. Customers should verify current responsiveness before engaging.

T and T Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service, with most customers praising responsiveness, politeness, and workmanship quality. However, the company has a significant reliability problem: three reviews explicitly document no-shows, missed appointments, or failure to follow up, which substantially impacts the Project Completion score. Pricing is consistently described as fair and reasonable across multiple reviews. The most recent negative review (April 2024) raises concerns about a service charge policy change. While the majority of reviews are positive and detailed, the pattern of scheduling failures and one documented instance of incomplete problem-solving (2019 sewer line case) indicate operational inconsistencies that prevent a higher overall score.

• CRITICAL: Three explicit no-show or missed appointment complaints (2022-07-28, 2020-06-27, and referenced in 2022-07-28 review as 'habit'). This is a material operational issue.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2017-2021. Recent reviews (2024, 2023) show mixed results with one negative pricing complaint and one very positive experience, suggesting possible recent changes in operations or personnel.
• INCOMPLETE PROBLEM-SOLVING: 2019-01-12 review documents failed sewer line cleaning with inadequate equipment and rushed service. Customer self-resolved the issue with rental equipment, indicating service quality gap.
• UNRESPONSIVE TO COMPLAINTS: 2019-01-12 reviewer reported no response from owner Tom regarding service failure, suggesting poor complaint resolution process.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: 2024-04-26 review mentions new $250 service charge policy ('just to walk in the door'), contrasting with earlier reviews praising fair pricing. This may indicate recent policy change causing customer dissatisfaction.

This score should be treated with caution: while technical competence and professionalism are well-documented across 15+ reviews, the documented pattern of no-shows and scheduling failures (3 explicit cases) represents a material reliability risk that is not fully captured in the overall score. The company's operational consistency appears to have declined in recent years based on review dates.

Beck's Heating has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise technicians like Ken, Dominic, and Chris for being professional, knowledgeable, and fairly priced. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — particularly from 2015–2016 — describes a recurring pattern of incomplete repairs, refusal to honor callbacks for the same issue, and poor owner-level customer service, which significantly drags down the project completion and professionalism scores. The boiler technician Jeff received a pointed 1-star review in 2021 citing repeated no-shows, inability to source parts, and an unresolved job lasting over three months, further undermining confidence in consistent service delivery. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by satisfied customers, but the negative reviewers felt they were charged again for work that was never properly completed the first time, which clouds the pricing dimension. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are positive, suggesting possible improvement, but the volume of recent data is too thin to confirm a sustained turnaround.

• Three negative reviews from January 2016 (dated 2016-01-02, 2016-01-09, and 2016-01-22) describe nearly identical complaints — heat not fixed after a $120 service call, same problem recurring within days, and owner refusing to return without a new full charge. One reviewer from 2016-02-02 also noted suspicion that three named reviewers (Zohra, Ali, Miriam) may be the same person attempting to pile on. These reviews are treated as independent given distinct writing styles and slightly different details, but the pattern warrants caution.
• The review dated 2016-10-07 contains only the text 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• Most reviews with substantive detail are from 2009–2020, making them 4–15+ years old. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024), which is insufficient to confirm current service quality with high confidence.
• The 2021 negative review about technician Jeff describes an unresolved boiler job spanning over three months — a serious project completion failure that is weighted accordingly.
• Several older 5-star reviews lack specific detail (e.g., 2005, 2008, 2013 entries) and read as generic praise. While not conclusively fake, they contribute limited evidentiary weight and were scored conservatively.

This WW Score is based on 21 usable reviews spanning approximately 19 years, with high mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with moderate real-world trust due to the age of most reviews, a documented pattern of callback refusal complaints, and only 2 reviews from the past 12 months to reflect current performance.

Rescue Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising named technicians — particularly Javier, Dex, Logan, Pete, and Victor — for punctuality, clear communication, friendliness, and technical competence. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished same-day or next-day, though a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite incomplete work, abandoned jobs, or issues recurring shortly after service. Pricing is the most consistently flagged concern across the review corpus: multiple reviewers across different years describe charges as significantly above market rate, inconsistent quoting between teams, and refusal to provide phone estimates — a pattern that materially drags the pricing score down. The overall WW Score of 74.2 reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional field staff offset by a recurring and credible pricing transparency problem.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH FREQUENCY: At least 12 distinct reviews across multiple years explicitly describe pricing as excessive, inconsistent, or non-transparent. Specific complaints include: $725 for main sewer rodding, $499 for a cartridge replacement, $1,000 for a basic toilet fix requiring 4 visits, $700+ for a faucet replacement after a $375 quote, and $15,000–$18,000 estimates later resolved for under $2,000 by another plumber. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCONSISTENT QUOTING: Multiple reviewers report being given one price by one team and a significantly higher price by a different team for the same job. This suggests non-standardized pricing practices.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least 4 reviews describe work that was not completed, abandoned mid-job, or required multiple return visits to fix the original problem. One review describes a gas leak emergency where the technician refused to enter. One describes a job abandoned with a dismissive text message.
• TECHNICIAN CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe specific technicians as rude, dismissive, or aggressive — including one who insulted a building maintenance manager, one described as 'extremely rude and nasty,' and one who allegedly attempted to charge double the agreed price.
• BLANK AND MINIMAL REVIEWS: Approximately 20 reviews contain no text (blank or single punctuation mark) and were excluded from dimension scoring. These inflate the total review count without providing usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review corpus spans from 2004 to June 2025. Reviews from 2012–2019 are sparse and some are very generic. The bulk of substantive reviews are from 2022–2025 and were weighted more heavily. Older reviews (pre-2020) were treated as low-weight context only.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN — MODERATE SUSPICION: A cluster of reviews dated exactly '2023-06-10' and '2022-06-10' share identical date stamps across many entries, with some being very short and generic (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Pete and Noah', 'Nice guys and great work!'). While not conclusive, the identical date clustering and lack of specificity in some of these reviews warrants caution. Confidence is not reduced to LIMITED because the majority of reviews are detailed and specific, but this pattern is flagged.
• PAID REVIEW DISCLOSURE: One reviewer explicitly disclosed their review was paid for, which raises integrity concerns about the overall review pool.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review corpus with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given credible and recurring evidence of inconsistent pricing, occasional project abandonment, and a cluster of suspiciously generic same-date reviews that may artificially inflate the positive signal.

ASAP Plumbing & HVAC earns strong marks for professionalism, with dozens of reviewers praising punctuality, communication, courteous staff, and the office manager Olha by name across many years of reviews. Experience and workmanship are also well-regarded, with multiple reviewers citing knowledgeable technicians, problem-solving ability, and quality outcomes on complex jobs. However, a recurring and serious pattern drags down both project completion and pricing scores: at least four independent reviewers across different years (2020, 2021, 2025, and one more) explicitly report that work failed within weeks to months and the company refused to honor any warranty beyond 30 days without additional charges — a significant reliability concern. Pricing receives a moderate penalty because while several reviewers call pricing fair or reasonable, at least two note the service is more expensive than alternatives, and the warranty refusal complaints implicitly represent poor value. The WW Score reflects a company with genuine strengths in customer-facing professionalism but a documented and repeated failure in standing behind completed work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The rooftop AC crane job review (Alex, responsive/professional/reliable, on time and on budget) appears verbatim twice — dated 2022-06-10 and 2021-12-05. This is likely a duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The new condo kitchen sink faucet review (receptionist pleasant, technician wore mask and shoe covers, ran out to get new faucet) appears verbatim twice — dated 2021-06-10 and 2020-12-15. Counted only once for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 'reliable plumber' review (responded quickly, scheduled immediately, arrived on time, reasonable price) appears verbatim twice — dated 2022-06-10 and 2021-01-27. Counted only once for scoring.
• WARRANTY FAILURE PATTERN — HIGH CONCERN: At least four separate reviewers across 2020, 2021, 2021, and 2025 independently report that work failed within 30–90 days and the company refused to return without additional payment, citing a strict 30-day warranty cutoff. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not an isolated complaint, and materially impacts the project completion score.
• 4 blank reviews (no text, only a star rating) were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2020–2022. Only 5 reviews are dated within the past 12 months (2024–2025), and one of those is the most recent and most detailed negative review (April 2025). The warranty complaint pattern appears in both older and recent reviews, suggesting the issue has not been resolved over time.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW FLAG — LOW SEVERITY: A small number of reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Very professional & experienced', 'Very good customer service! We love working with this team.', 'Great job and good service providing the new water heater') with no specifics. These were included but weighted conservatively. No large-scale coordinated fake review pattern was detected overall.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews spanning 2015–2025 and carries HIGH overall confidence, but readers should treat the project completion score with particular seriousness given the documented, repeated, and multi-year pattern of warranty refusals reported by independent customers.