Find Nearby Plumbers In Wheaton, Illinois

Burlingame Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praise Mark's technical skill and workmanship, and several note timely arrival and good communication. However, professionalism is significantly dragged down by two serious 1-star reviews describing Jan's hostile, abusive, and threatening behavior toward customers — including leaving threatening voicemails and threatening to fabricate negative reviews about a client's business. Pricing is a notable concern, with one detailed review explicitly describing hidden costs and a final charge more than double the quoted price, and Jan allegedly admitting she withholds cost components unless specifically asked. Project completion scores moderately well as most jobs appear to have been finished, but the responsiveness failure noted in one review and the late arrival with no communication in another temper that score.

• SERIOUS CONDUCT FLAG: One detailed 1-star review (2021-09-04) describes Jan leaving threatening voicemails against a customer's wife and threatening to solicit fake negative reviews about the customer's business. This is a significant red flag for business integrity.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY FLAG: One review explicitly describes hidden parts and travel costs not disclosed upfront, with the final charge exceeding double the quoted price. Jan allegedly acknowledged she does not proactively disclose these costs.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The 5-star review dated 2021-09-05 — posted just one day after the detailed threatening-voicemail complaint — uses generic praise language with no specifics. Given Jan's admitted willingness to solicit fabricated reviews, this review should be treated with skepticism and was weighted conservatively.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews are from 2023 and are positive, but the most detailed and serious complaints are from 2021. The 2018 review is older than 5 years and was given reduced weight.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 9 total reviews limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review volume is low, at least one 5-star review is potentially fabricated based on the contractor's own admitted behavior, and the serious misconduct allegations (threatening voicemails, hidden pricing) introduce meaningful downward risk that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

The review set is small (4 reviews) and spans several years, limiting reliability. The most damaging review (1-star, 2021) describes a serious pricing dispute where the contractor charged $2,200 after quoting a maximum of $1,400, and also failed to complete the job fully by not reinstalling the sink — a significant project completion and pricing failure. The two positive reviews from 2020 and one from 2019 describe good workmanship, punctuality, and satisfactory pricing, which partially offset the negative. However, the 2021 negative review is the most recent and carries the most recency weight, pulling scores down meaningfully across pricing and project completion dimensions.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• The most recent review (October 2021) is a 1-star complaint alleging significant overcharging beyond the quoted range and incomplete job handoff (sink not reinstalled). This is a serious flag for both pricing transparency and project completion.
• The contractor showed up on Day 1 without the required tools, indicating a preparation and professionalism concern noted in the negative review.
• Two of the three positive reviews (2019, 2020) are somewhat generic in praise language with limited specifics, which slightly raises concern about authenticity, though the third positive review (January 2020) is highly detailed and credible.
• All reviews are older than 12 months from a typical current date — no recent reviews available to confirm current performance standards.
• Review spread: 3 five-star reviews vs. 1 one-star review with no middle-ground ratings, which is a pattern sometimes associated with selective or unrepresentative review sets.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 2019–2021, with no recent data, and should be considered LOW RELIABILITY — the score reflects meaningful uncertainty and should not be used as a confident hiring signal without seeking additional current references.

Two of the three reviews are positive, praising professional installation, punctuality, friendliness, and fair pricing. However, the negative review is substantive and damaging: it describes a recurring AC issue within one month of a paid repair, resulting in property damage (drywall destruction), and critically, the contractor stopped returning the customer's calls entirely. This non-response and failure to resolve the job weighs heavily on project completion and professionalism scores. The positive reviews lack specific detail, which limits their ability to fully offset the documented failure. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with some positive signals but a serious unresolved complaint that cannot be ignored.

• Only 3 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about consistent performance.
• The two positive reviews are relatively generic and lack specific detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight.
• One review dates from 2016 and one from 2020 — only one review (2023) falls within the past 12 months, meaning most data is outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• The 2016 negative review describes a serious pattern: incomplete repair, property damage caused by the unresolved issue, and complete non-responsiveness to follow-up contact — this is a significant red flag for both project completion and professionalism.
• Recency note: The most recent review (2023) is positive, but a single recent review is insufficient to confirm improvement over the older negative experience.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence due to the very small review sample (3 reviews), wide date range spanning 7 years, and the presence of one detailed negative review describing both workmanship failure and communication breakdown that meaningfully offsets the two positive but generic reviews.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews, with critical failures in project completion and professionalism heavily outweighing positive testimonials. Two detailed negative reviews document serious issues: inadequate diagnosis leading to unnecessary replacement, poor workmanship (incomplete solutions, lack of attention to detail), and catastrophic downstream damage ($17,000 in repairs from avoided valve replacement). Two older positive reviews (2012–2014) praise quality and reasonableness, but the more recent negative reviews (2015, 2019) reveal patterns of cutting corners, poor communication, and failure to address actual problems. The contractor's experience is evident in some work, but judgment and follow-through are severely compromised.

• CRITICAL: Two detailed, specific negative reviews document serious professional failures including inadequate diagnosis, incomplete work, and $17,000+ in preventable water damage. These are not generic complaints.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are from 2012–2014 (9–12 years old). Negative reviews are from 2015 and 2019, suggesting deterioration in service quality over time.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews mention the contractor taking 'easier routes' and avoiding proper solutions in favor of cheaper/faster alternatives, indicating systemic judgment issues.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: First review explicitly notes contractor did not remove shoes or use shoe covers, leaving work area messy. Second review shows poor communication and failure to address customer's stated concerns.
• PRICING CONCERN: First review documents $950 quote for 40-minute job using $200 pump, with contractor claiming 'very complicated work' — appears to be significant overcharging.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews) and extreme polarization, but the detailed, specific nature of the negative reviews and their recency (2015, 2019) suggest genuine service deterioration and warrant serious consideration before hiring.

This contractor's review profile is sharply divided between older positive reviews (2018–2021) and more recent negative reviews (2024), suggesting a meaningful decline in service quality over time. The two most recent reviews (August 2024) are detailed, credible, and independently describe the same pattern: inability to clear basic drain clogs, unnecessary upselling of invasive solutions, and overcharging — all of which heavily penalize both experience and project completion scores. Professionalism is further damaged by a 2020 incident in which the contractor refused service based on a customer's political sign and by recurring reports of late arrivals and cash-only demands. Pricing received mixed signals — some older reviews praised reasonable quotes, while newer reviews describe being charged for incomplete or failed work. The positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are predominantly from 2018–2021 and carry reduced weight given the recency rule.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most detailed and critical reviews are from August 2024 and describe nearly identical failure patterns (inability to clear a drain, suggestion to open drywall unnecessarily, overcharging). These are weighted heavily as the most current data points.
• DECLINE PATTERN: Multiple reviewers explicitly state the contractor 'used to be good' but has declined in skill and professionalism over time, suggesting a trajectory of deteriorating service quality.
• UNLICENSED CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor is not a licensed plumber and cannot pull city permits, which is a significant risk flag for customers requiring permitted work.
• CASH-ONLY PATTERN: Multiple reviews mention the contractor demands cash payment, including a reported $500 cash demand for emergency midnight calls, which raises transparency and accountability concerns.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCIDENT: One review documents the contractor refusing service and driving away from a job site due to a customer's political sign (BLM), which is a serious professionalism and conduct flag.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ARE DATED: All clearly positive reviews are from 2018–2021. No positive reviews exist from 2022 onward with meaningful detail; the 2022 five-star review is extremely generic with no specifics, reducing its evidentiary value.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review count is small (8 reviews) but the data is rich, specific, and consistent enough across multiple reviewers to support the low score, particularly given the corroborating 2024 reviews and the documented decline pattern.

This contractor's review record is deeply mixed and heavily dated, with all reviews ranging from 2012 to 2018. Two detailed negative reviews paint a serious picture of unreliability, incomplete work, billing disputes, and unprofessional communication — including one case where the contractor never finished a new home construction job and another where billing terms were disputed and the contractor responded to emails with only the word 'null.' Positive reviews do exist and mention professionalism, reasonable pricing, and good workmanship, but several lack any substantive detail. The most recent review (2018) is a 1-star complaint about unfinished work and no-shows, which is the most temporally relevant data point and weighs heavily against the score. Overall confidence is low due to the small review pool, the age of all reviews, and the presence of two substantive negative accounts that describe serious failures across multiple dimensions.

• Two reviews contain no usable text ('.' and 'unknown') and were excluded from scoring — these blank 5-star entries are a potential fake review signal.
• All reviews are older than 6 years (most recent: January 2018); no recent data exists to assess current contractor performance.
• The most recent substantive review (2018, 1-star) describes abandoned work on a new home construction, repeated no-shows, and phone avoidance — a severe project completion and professionalism failure.
• A 2012 review describes a billing dispute with inconsistent invoicing and unprofessional email responses, raising concerns about pricing transparency and communication.
• Small total review pool (8 reviews, only 6 with usable data) severely limits statistical reliability of any score produced.
• Positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are mostly brief and lack specific detail, reducing their evidentiary weight relative to the detailed negative reviews.

This WW Score should be treated with very low confidence — the review pool is small, all data is over 6 years old, two reviews contain no content, and the most detailed accounts include serious documented failures in professionalism, project completion, and billing transparency.