Find Nearby Plumbers In Hutchinson, Kansas

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

Malloy Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 13 years. While early reviews (2010–2013) praise fair pricing, honest service, and technical competence, later reviews reveal serious professionalism issues including poor responsiveness, missed appointments, and communication failures. A critical 2012 incident involving a water heater explosion and invoice delays, combined with a 2016 complaint about rate discrepancies and uncomfortable customer interactions, indicate deteriorating service quality. The business demonstrates strong technical capability when engaged, but professionalism and follow-through have become unreliable.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 8–13 years old (2010–2013). Recent reviews (2016, 2012, 2011) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality has declined significantly over time.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Multiple reviews cite non-responsiveness, missed appointments, and failure to return calls. Two reviews explicitly state the owner was unpleasant or uncomfortable to work with.
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUE: 2012 review describes a water heater explosion allegedly caused by improper backflow valve installation, with the owner denying responsibility and delaying invoice delivery until third parties intervened.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: 2016 review documents quoted rate of $85/hour being charged at $94/hour, with owner refusing to honor the quote and citing old invoices as justification.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Multiple reviews (2012, 2013, 2011) report unanswered calls, delayed callbacks (2+ hours for emergency), and failure to follow up on promised deliverables.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant temporal inconsistency in review quality and the apparent decline in service standards over the 13-year review period; the most recent negative reviews (2016, 2012, 2011) suggest current reliability is lower than the overall score indicates, and potential customers should prioritize recent feedback over older positive reviews.

Barkley Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers praise politeness, punctuality, and communication, a significant cluster of negative reviews — including multiple accounts of the owner (Robert) being rude, hanging up on customers, yelling at clients, and behaving aggressively on job sites — substantially drags the score down. Project completion is similarly split: numerous reviews confirm jobs completed on time and within quote, but several describe abandoned or botched work, a refusal to fix faulty installations, and one case where the owner had to be asked to leave a site after denying his own mistake. Pricing drew serious concern from multiple reviewers, with allegations of billing for services not rendered (leak detection charged but not performed), a job that escalated from a $300 quote to over $1,000 without authorization, and a $450 charge for a few minutes of snaking — offset by other reviewers who praised fair and transparent pricing. Experience scores moderately, with skilled work praised in many reviews but countered by accounts of sloppy pipe work, failure to diagnose obvious issues like a shutoff valve, and a plumber unable to answer basic technical questions. The score reflects a contractor with genuine capability but a documented pattern of serious professionalism and integrity failures.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2024-08-03 are word-for-word identical (the 'Dishonest' leak detection review). One appears to be a duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• 10 reviews contain no text whatsoever (blank body, rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews reference 'Ball Plumbing' or 'Ball' rather than 'Barkley Plumbing' — these appear to be reviews from an earlier business name or a merged listing and may not fully reflect the current operation. They were included but noted.
• RECENCY NOTE: A substantial portion of reviews (roughly 20+) are dated 2023 or earlier, with many from 2021 and before. The most recent 12 months (2024-2025) contain the highest concentration of serious negative reviews, including multiple 1-star accounts of rudeness, dishonesty, and botched work. This is a meaningful negative trend.
• PATTERN OF OWNER BEHAVIOR: Multiple independent reviewers across different years specifically name the owner (Robert) as the source of rude, aggressive, or dishonest conduct. This is not isolated and represents a systemic risk flag.
• One 5-star review (2012-09-14) rates 5 stars while describing a high estimate and choosing not to hire — this is an anomalous rating that may reflect a misclick or misunderstanding of the rating system and was treated with caution.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several reviews from the 2023-06-10 cluster are very brief and generic ('Great and fast service', 'Prompt, friendly service', 'Lovely staff') with no specifics. While not conclusive, the identical date across many of these reviews is unusual and may suggest a solicited review campaign.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (72 total, 62 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of sample size; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given a clear negative trend in the most recent 12 months, documented allegations of dishonesty and aggressive owner behavior from multiple independent sources, and a meaningful gap between the contractor's best and worst performances.

This contractor shows strong technical skill and fair pricing, but is severely hampered by critical project completion failures. Two explicit no-show incidents (2015 and 2013) with no follow-up communication represent major reliability issues that directly contradict positive reviews about punctuality from 2011. Positive reviews emphasize professionalism, fair rates, and quality workmanship, but the pattern of missed appointments—despite claims of pride in punctuality—suggests inconsistent execution. The 2017 review shows capability when work is performed, but the frequency of no-shows creates substantial trust concerns.

• CRITICAL: Two documented no-show incidents (2015 and 2013) with no rescheduling or explanation—severe project completion failures
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 6+ years old (2011-2015). Only one review from 2017. Recent reliability cannot be assessed
• CONTRADICTION: 2011 review praises punctuality and reliability, but 2013 and 2015 reviews document opposite behavior—suggests deterioration in service quality or inconsistent performance
• One review (2014-10-23) contains no usable text ('unknown'), excluded from analysis
• One review (2014-10-12) is extremely brief and vague, minimal detail for scoring

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data and conflicting patterns; the two no-show incidents are serious red flags that outweigh positive technical reviews, but insufficient recent data prevents confident assessment of current reliability.

Eck Services shows a deeply polarized customer base with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. While professionalism and technical skill receive moderate-to-good marks from satisfied customers who praise punctuality, courtesy, and competence, the company is severely hampered by consistent pricing complaints across multiple reviews alleging hidden charges, inflated labor costs, and misleading quotes. Project completion is compromised by documented cases of incomplete troubleshooting, refusal to return for callbacks, and misdiagnosis. The WW Score of 58.3 reflects that while some customers experience excellent service, the frequency and severity of pricing deception and follow-through failures create substantial trust concerns.

• CRITICAL: Strong pattern of pricing complaints (7 mentions across 15 reviews) alleging hidden charges, inflated labor rates, and misleading cost disclosure. Multiple customers report being charged significantly more than quoted or discovering additional fees after service.
• CRITICAL: Multiple documented cases of poor project completion and refusal to honor callbacks. Two reviews explicitly state the company refused to return to diagnose or fix problems despite customer willingness to pay.
• CRITICAL: Potential misdiagnosis pattern. At least two reviews describe incorrect parts installed or incorrect diagnoses (thermostat vs. heater issue, wrong AC part), suggesting technical knowledge gaps despite some positive skill assessments.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2024 (Jan-Aug), suggesting recent deterioration in service quality or business practices. Older positive reviews (2019-2022) may not reflect current operations.
• POLARIZATION ALERT: Extreme bimodal distribution—5 five-star reviews vs. 6 one-star reviews with minimal middle ground. This suggests either inconsistent service delivery or potential selection bias in review population.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted cautiously: while the score reflects genuine data from 15 reviews, the extreme polarization and concentration of serious pricing/completion failures in recent months suggest the company's current reliability is lower than the aggregate score indicates. Prospective customers should heavily weight the 2024 negative reviews and pricing concerns over older positive testimonials.

This contractor exhibits a stark divide between positive and negative customer experiences. Professionalism scores reasonably well (72.5) based on multiple mentions of punctuality, politeness, and courteous staff interactions. However, pricing practices are severely problematic (25.0), with three detailed complaints documenting overbilling, inflated markups (200-300%), excessive labor hour charges, and refusal to issue refunds. Project completion is inconsistent (50.0), with some jobs completed successfully but at least one major failure where diagnostic work was incorrect and no actual service was rendered. Experience ratings are mixed (60.0), with quality workmanship praised in some reviews but serious technical incompetence alleged in others (misdiagnosis of sewer line condition). The company's responsiveness to complaints is poor, with multiple mentions of the owner failing to return calls.

• CRITICAL: Multiple detailed complaints (3 reviews) documenting systematic overbilling, inflated parts markups, and dishonest billing practices. These are specific, credible allegations with dollar amounts and dates.
• CRITICAL: One review alleges complete diagnostic failure and incompetence—sewer line misdiagnosed as broken when it was in good condition, customer charged for unnecessary work.
• CRITICAL: Owner responsiveness is poor—multiple reviews mention failure to return calls or delayed callbacks (2 months in one case).
• Positive reviews are older (2009-2015) while negative reviews are more recent (2014-2019), suggesting service quality may have declined.
• Positive reviews lack specificity and detail compared to negative reviews, which are highly detailed with specific dollar amounts and dates. This asymmetry suggests negative reviews are more credible.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the stark contrast between generic praise and detailed complaints warrants caution.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution. While based on 8 reviews, the data is heavily weighted by serious, detailed complaints about billing fraud and diagnostic incompetence that directly contradict the company's trustworthiness. The WW Score of 54.3 reflects a contractor with inconsistent service quality and significant ethical concerns around pricing and customer service. Prospective customers should prioritize the detailed negative reviews over generic praise.