Find Nearby Plumbers In Rogers, Arkansas

Kenny's Plumbing shows strong technical competence and generally reliable project completion, with many customers praising workmanship and responsiveness. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing and ethical concerns documented in multiple detailed complaints spanning 2015–2021, including allegations of time-billing fraud, undisclosed charging practices, and hostile owner behavior. While recent reviews (2024) and older positive reviews (2004–2014) suggest capable work, the pattern of billing disputes and customer service failures during the 2015–2021 period creates substantial trust issues. The WW Score reflects this polarization: strong execution scores offset by moderate pricing confidence and unresolved professionalism concerns.

• CRITICAL: Multiple detailed allegations of billing fraud and deceptive practices. Review dated 2021-05-04 documents systematic overcharging (charged for 2 hours labor when technician was on-site ~20 minutes), refusal to provide itemized receipts, non-transparent charging policy, and owner Kenny's hostile response (yelling, refusing refund, threatening legal action). Review dated 2016-03-14 alleges GPS time-stamp fraud with 4 invoices showing 6+ hour discrepancies, requiring attorney intervention. Review dated 2015-05-29 reports $200 overcharge beyond quoted price with vague justification.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2015–2021 period (5 one-star reviews). Only 1 review from 2024 (positive but generic). Majority of positive reviews are from 2004–2014 (older than 10 years). This suggests either business practices changed negatively mid-period, or recent reviews are sparse and may not reflect current operations.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 8 reviews contain only 'unknown' or '.' as text with 5.0 ratings (2015-03-26, 2015-03-19, 2015-06-11, 2015-07-21, 2016-02-10, 2017-01-28). These provide zero substantive data and appear potentially fabricated or placeholder entries. Reduces confidence in overall positive rating distribution.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews document unprofessional behavior during work (2017-07-14: constant swearing and complaints; 2016-12-05: scheduling cancellation with poor communication and dismissive attitude). Contradicts claims of professionalism in other reviews.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY FAILURE: Review 2021-05-04 explicitly documents that customers were not informed upfront of actual billing methodology (charging from office departure to return, not actual on-site time). This is a material disclosure failure.
• OWNER ACCOUNTABILITY GAP: Multiple reviews (2021-05-04, 2016-12-05) document difficulty reaching owner Kenny for resolution. One customer reports weeks of unanswered callback requests.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 72.8 reflects genuine strengths in technical execution and project completion, it masks a serious bifurcation in the data: strong positive reviews from 2004–2014 and one recent 2024 review contrast sharply with detailed, credible allegations of systematic billing fraud, deceptive practices, and hostile customer service from 2015–2021. The presence of 8 suspicious placeholder reviews further reduces confidence. Potential customers should heavily weight the detailed negative reviews (especially 2021-05-04 and 2016-03-14) as they document specific, verifiable misconduct (billing discrepancies, refusal to provide receipts, attorney involvement) rather than relying on the aggregate score. The company's current operational practices and owner behavior remain unclear due to sparse recent data.

The five usable customer reviews paint a consistently positive picture of the contractor, with multiple reviewers praising professionalism, reliability, and technical competence across a variety of plumbing jobs including drain cleaning, water line repair, and water softener installation. Project completion is a clear strength — reviewers specifically noted that the plumber stayed until the job was fully done and followed through on commitments. Pricing was mentioned positively in two reviews, with customers describing the rates as 'more than fair,' though the limited mention count means this score carries low confidence. The one-star review was entirely about unsolicited marketing text spam and contains no information about actual service quality, so it was excluded from dimension scoring but is flagged as a serious concern.

• SPAM/HARASSMENT FLAG: One review (1-star, dated 2024-09-13) documents repeated unsolicited marketing text messages from the business. The reviewer explicitly calls the business 'shady' and directs others to report them to the FTC. This is a significant reputational and legal concern unrelated to plumbing quality but relevant to overall business trustworthiness.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews contain usable service data. This is an extremely small sample size and scores should be treated with caution. The WW Score cannot be considered reliable at this volume.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Of the 5 usable reviews, only 2 are from the past 12 months (2024). Two reviews are from 2021–2022, which are over 2 years old. Business quality may have changed since those older reviews were written.
• POSSIBLE SELECTION BIAS: All 5 usable reviews are 5-star ratings with no mixed or negative service feedback. While the reviews do contain specific details (job types, names, scenarios) that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformity of perfect ratings on a small sample warrants caution.
• MARKETING PRACTICES: The spam review includes what appear to be actual text messages sent by the business using high-pressure, time-limited discount tactics. This pattern of aggressive marketing may be worth noting when evaluating overall business conduct.

This WW Score is based on only 5 usable reviews, all of which are 5-star ratings, making it statistically insufficient and potentially unrepresentative — treat this score as a preliminary positive signal only, not a reliable measure of consistent performance.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile. Three recent 5-star reviews (2024) praise professionalism, respectfulness, and fair pricing, while two older 1-star reviews (2013 and 2015) describe serious failures including repeated no-shows, ignored calls, and defective work that required a second contractor to fix. Project completion is a significant concern, with two reviews explicitly describing abandoned or botched jobs. The positive reviews are relatively thin on specifics, which limits confidence in the higher scores. The recency gap between the positive and negative reviews is notable — the negatives are 9–11 years old, but they describe severe enough failures that they cannot be dismissed.

• Two 1-star reviews describe severe reliability and workmanship failures, including no-shows across multiple days, unreturned calls, and back-pitched pipe installation requiring remediation by another contractor.
• The three 5-star reviews (all from May 2024) are clustered within a 7-day window, which may indicate a coordinated review push. They are also relatively generic and light on specific job details.
• Recency note: The two negative reviews are from 2013 and 2015 and may not reflect current performance. However, the positive reviews are also sparse in verifiable detail, so improvement cannot be confirmed with confidence.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews makes any score highly sensitive to individual outliers. WW Score should be treated as preliminary only.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review sample, a suspicious clustering of recent 5-star reviews, and two historically severe failure reports that significantly drag down project completion and professionalism scores.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, all with negative ratings (1.0 stars). Two reviews are from 2012 (over 12 years old) and provide limited actionable detail. The single recent review (October 2024) documents poor responsiveness and job refusal rather than completed work quality. Professionalism concerns are mentioned in 2 reviews (unprofessional behavior, rude responses), pricing issues in 1 review (25% price increase after bid), and project completion failures in 2 reviews (work not performed as promised, jobs declined). No positive data points exist to balance assessment.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 total reviews — sample size is too small for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: 2 of 3 reviews are from 2012 (12+ years old); only 1 recent review from October 2024
• All 3 reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive feedback — potential selection bias (only dissatisfied customers reviewed)
• Limited specificity in older reviews; insufficient detail to validate claims
• No reviews mention technical skill or experience quality — cannot assess workmanship

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and severe recency bias (67% of reviews are 12+ years old). The single recent review suggests serious issues, but a meaningful WW Score requires at least 5-10 reviews with balanced recency and detail.

Both reviews are extremely positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience explicitly. The contractor is praised for responsiveness, politeness, completing entire job lists, and exceeding expectations across multiple project types. One review mentions fair pricing. However, with only 2 reviews total, all scores carry LIMITED confidence and cannot support a reliable WW Score calculation per the minimum threshold of 3 reviews.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Minimum 3 reviews required.
• Both reviews are dated July 2023 (approximately 1+ year old) — recency is limited.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with highly positive language; no negative feedback or specific complaints present. While not definitively fake, the uniformly glowing tone with no critical detail warrants caution.
• Second review contains HTML entity encoding (') suggesting copy-paste or platform formatting artifact — minor flag for authenticity.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews). A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a reliable score. Additionally, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to low mention counts, and the uniformly positive tone without critical feedback reduces confidence further.

Only one review is available for analysis. The review explicitly mentions professionalism elements (customer service, fast response, friendly attitude), which scored 85 based on positive language. However, no information is provided regarding pricing, project completion, or technical experience/workmanship. With only a single data point and three dimensions lacking evidence, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• Generic praise with minimal specifics — mentions 'leak detection' but provides no detail on actual work quality or completion
• Three of four dimensions have zero mentions — pricing, project completion, and experience are completely undocumented

This analysis is unreliable for decision-making. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a WW Score, and this contractor has only 1 review with limited dimensional coverage.