Find Nearby Plumbers In Waukegan, Illinois

Morales Plumbing shows a deeply mixed track record across its review history. On the positive side, several reviewers praised prompt same-day or within-the-hour response times, reasonable pricing, and competent workmanship including passing city code inspections. However, two separate reviews — from 2016 and 2022 — describe serious no-show incidents where the contractor scheduled work, failed to appear, and went completely silent, which significantly drags down professionalism and project completion scores. The positive reviews skew heavily older (2015–2021), and the most recent substantive negative review (2022) raises ongoing reliability concerns. Three reviews were entirely blank (no text), and several recent Spanish-language reviews are vague and lack specific detail, limiting their evidentiary value.

• THREE BLANK REVIEWS: Reviews dated 2025-05-10, 2025-05-10, and 2023-06-10 contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These provide zero usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• SUSPECTED LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: The review 'La mejor plomeria más buena del mundo de mi padrino' (translated: 'The best plumbing in the world from my godfather') is a personal/familial reference with no service detail, suggesting a biased or non-customer review. Confidence reduced for this entry.
• TWO SERIOUS NO-SHOW INCIDENTS: Reviews from 2016 and 2022 independently describe the contractor scheduling work, failing to appear, and refusing to answer calls or return messages. This is a significant reliability pattern, not an isolated incident.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of detailed, positive reviews are from 2017–2021. The most recent reviews with actual text (2025) are vague or blank. The most recent substantive negative review is from 2022. No strong positive evidence exists from the past 12 months.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'I had three things I needed a plumber to handle...' appears twice with identical text — once dated 2020-06-10 and once dated 2019-06-25. Only one instance was counted in scoring.
• OVERALL PATTERN: The combination of blank 5-star ratings, a familial reference review, and vague generic praise alongside two documented no-show complaints suggests the positive review pool may be partially inflated. Score conservatism applied.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability — while there are enough reviews to calculate a score, the dataset is undermined by blank entries, a suspected non-customer review, a duplicate review, and two independently corroborated no-show incidents that represent a serious and recurring professionalism failure.

D & J Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for professionalism across multiple reviews, with customers noting punctuality, friendliness, and clean work habits. Pricing feedback is limited but generally favorable, with one reviewer pleasantly surprised by a bill coming in well under estimate. However, the single most recent review (2020) is a serious negative outlier, describing poor workmanship, failure to follow manufacturer instructions, leakage issues, and a complete lack of accountability — this materially drags down project completion and experience scores. The bulk of positive reviews are dated between 2009 and 2018, meaning the most current data point available is the damaging 2020 complaint, which raises legitimate concerns about current service quality. Scores have been conservatively adjusted to reflect this recency imbalance.

• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review (July 2020) is a 1-star complaint describing serious workmanship failures, leakage, and no accountability. All other reviews are from 2009–2018, making the 2020 review the most current signal of service quality.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are more than 5 years old, with several exceeding 10 years. The WW Score may not reflect current business performance.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIER: The 2020 review explicitly describes a contractor knowingly installing a tub without a proper trim kit, ignoring manufacturer instructions, and refusing to stand behind their work — this is a significant project completion and experience failure.
• DATA VOLUME: Only 8 reviews total. Score reliability is limited by small sample size and wide date range spanning over a decade.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability due to a small review sample, a wide date range spanning 11 years, and a critical recent negative review that stands in sharp contrast to older positive feedback — prospective customers should seek more current references before hiring.

Bishop Plumbing presents a deeply split profile: many individual technicians (Jim, Jeff, Joe, Pat, Bryan, James) receive genuine praise for friendliness, punctuality, and professionalism, which keeps the professionalism and experience scores from collapsing entirely. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across the entire review set, with a large number of reviewers — spanning over a decade — describing charges they characterize as grossly excessive, inconsistent, and in several cases predatory toward elderly or vulnerable customers. Project completion is mixed: most jobs appear to get done, but there are notable failures including abandoned jobs with no follow-up, property damage left unaddressed (drywall hole, flooded basement from over-tightening), and at least one instance where a drain-snaking job was left incomplete requiring a second contractor. The volume and consistency of pricing complaints across many years and many reviewers is the dominant signal dragging the overall WW Score down significantly.

• PRICING ABUSE PATTERN: At least 18 individual reviews across 2010–2025 independently describe charges they consider extreme or predatory. Specific examples include: $900 for 30 minutes of labor (sump pump), $749 for 10 minutes of drain clearing, $1,500 quoted for a running toilet and sink drain replacement (done elsewhere for $140), $645 quoted for a wax ring replacement (market rate ~$175), $400 to clean an elbow pipe with no parts, and $600+ for one valve and one hour of work on a 96-year-old's sink. This is not isolated — it is a sustained, multi-year pattern.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — PARTIALLY FLAGGED: One reviewer explicitly alleges fake reviews and notes the pattern of naming specific plumbers (Jim, Jeff, Joe, Pat) as a tell. While naming technicians is also consistent with genuine reviews, the volume of brief, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Excellent work done by Jimmy.', 'Quick and very professional', blank-text 5-star entries) is notable. Several blank-text 5-star reviews were excluded from scoring. Confidence in the positive reviews is reduced accordingly.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 3 reviews contained no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• ABANDONED JOB / NO FOLLOW-UP: One reviewer (2024-10-12 area, Pat Bishop) reports the contractor left mid-job to another site and never returned, never returned calls. A second reviewer (2024-10-12 area) reports being charged $735 for an incomplete sewer video job with a promised follow-up quote that never came.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: One reviewer (2024-08-13) reports a hole punched through dining room drywall during pipe removal that was not disclosed or addressed. A 2012 reviewer reports a basement flood caused by over-tightened PVC pipe, resulting in $6,000+ in damage, after which Bishop sent a bill rather than honoring responsibility.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL: A 2014 reviewer reports Bishop refused to honor a 90-day warranty explicitly stated on their invoice, demanding full fees for a repeat failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2010–2025. Pricing complaints are present in nearly every year, including the most recent 12 months (2024–2025), confirming this is not a historical issue that has been resolved. Positive reviews are also present in recent months, suggesting individual technician quality varies.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: One reviewer (2024-09-12) reports witnessing the owner/boss verbally disrespecting employees in public, which they found alarming enough to warn others.
• DISPATCH FEE TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviewers across different years report surprise at a non-refundable dispatch/call-out fee ($75–$89) that was not clearly communicated upfront, or that is not credited toward work performed. This is a recurring transparency issue.

This WW Score is based on 70 reviews spanning 13 years with strong data across all four dimensions, and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy — the pricing score in particular is extremely well-supported and should be treated as a reliable warning signal for prospective customers.

Plumb Crazy presents a deeply split profile. Older reviews (2019–2023) consistently praise Jeff's technical skill, honesty, fair pricing, and responsive communication, painting a picture of a reliable and knowledgeable plumber. However, the most recent review (September 2024) is a severe, detailed account of property damage, aggressive and intoxicated behavior, verbal abuse, and a complete failure to follow through on remediation — all attributed to the owner himself. This single recent review carries significant weight under recency rules and dramatically pulls down professionalism and project completion scores. The no-show and communication failure described in the February 2023 review further corroborates a pattern of reliability issues that appears to have worsened over time. The gap between the contractor's historical reputation and recent conduct is a serious concern for prospective customers.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (2024-09-20) describes extreme misconduct including property destruction, verbal abuse, suspected intoxication on the job, and retaliatory behavior after a negative review. This is the most recent data point and must be weighted heavily.
• PATTERN OF DECLINE: A 2023 review documents a no-show and unresponsive technician, and the 2024 review documents the same unresponsiveness pattern plus escalated misconduct, suggesting a deteriorating trend in service quality and professionalism.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: Five of the nine reviews are from 2019–2021 and reflect a contractor who may have operated differently in the past. Only three reviews fall within the past 24 months, and two of those are negative.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several older 5-star reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Simply the best,' 'quick and courtious responce job well done'). While not conclusive, these warrant mild skepticism and reduce confidence in the older positive data.
• OWNER CONDUCT ALLEGATION: The 2024 reviewer explicitly states the person who came to her home reeking of beer and behaving aggressively was the owner. If accurate, this represents a fundamental business integrity issue beyond a one-off service failure.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is low, the most credible and recent evidence points to serious misconduct, and several older positive reviews lack the specificity needed to fully offset the documented harm described in the 2024 complaint.

Speed Plumbing shows a deeply polarized performance profile. Positive reviews (3 of 5) consistently praise quick response times, fair pricing, technical skill, and reliability over years of service. However, two highly damaging reviews—one alleging non-payment for services rendered over 5 months with deliberate avoidance, and another reporting complete non-responsiveness—raise serious concerns about professionalism and business integrity. The payment dispute is particularly severe as it suggests potential fraud or financial irresponsibility. While technical competence appears solid among satisfied customers, the company's communication and follow-through on obligations are inconsistent and unreliable.

• CRITICAL: One review alleges non-payment for services with deliberate avoidance of communication over 5 months—this is a serious red flag for business integrity and suggests potential fraud.
• CRITICAL: One review reports complete non-responsiveness (no callback) despite using Yelp to contact—contradicts claims of 'prompt' service in other reviews.
• POLARIZATION PATTERN: Stark divide between 3 five-star reviews and 2 one-star reviews with no middle ground suggests inconsistent service delivery or potential selection bias in positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2019-2022; the most recent reviews (2023 and late 2022) are both highly negative, suggesting possible deterioration in service quality or business practices.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews praise responsiveness and communication; negative reviews document communication avoidance and non-payment—these are contradictory patterns that cannot both be true for all customers.

This score should be treated with caution. While the numerical WW Score of 56.8 reflects the mixed data, the presence of a serious non-payment allegation and complete non-responsiveness complaint suggests the company may pose financial or reliability risks that a single score cannot fully capture. Potential customers should independently verify the non-payment claim and seek recent references before engaging this contractor.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely undermined by two reviews describing unreturned calls and one instance of a no-call no-show for an estimate, partially offset by two positive responsiveness experiences. Pricing is a notable concern, with one reviewer explicitly describing a $730 bill for an hour of work as feeling like price-gouging with no itemized charges, while one reviewer praised reasonable cost. Project completion is a significant weakness — one review describes a failed repair that led to flooding and a complete breakdown in follow-up communication, which is a serious red flag. Experience scores modestly higher as the contractor was described as competent in two reviews, but the failed toilet repair drags this down. Overall, the pattern of reviews suggests inconsistent service quality and reliability.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 of 5 reviews is from the past 12 months (2024). Three of the five reviews are from 2014–2016, meaning the score is heavily influenced by older data that may not reflect current performance.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT: One reviewer describes a failed repair leading to sewage backup and flooding, followed by complete non-responsiveness despite the contractor advertising 24/7 availability. This is a high-severity project completion failure.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly alleges price adjustment based on neighborhood quality and received no itemized bill — this is a transparency and fairness red flag.
• NO-SHOW COMPLAINT: One reviewer reports the contractor agreed to call back with an estimate and never did, suggesting inconsistent responsiveness.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews total. This is insufficient to establish a reliable performance baseline. All scores should be treated with caution.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to only 5 total reviews, a heavy skew toward reviews that are 8–10 years old, and significant contradictions between positive and negative experiences that cannot be resolved without more recent data.