Find Nearby Plumbers In Manhattan, Kansas

United Heating, Cooling, and Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism scores reasonably well (72) with consistent mentions of polite, knowledgeable technicians and good communication, though punctuality issues appear in multiple reviews. Pricing is a significant weakness (48), with numerous complaints about overcharging, inflated parts markups, high service call fees, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion (65) is hampered by delayed callbacks, incomplete follow-through on repairs, and installation issues that required multiple visits. Experience (78) is the strongest dimension, with many reviews praising technical knowledge and problem-solving ability, particularly for diagnostic work. The company's performance is highly inconsistent across reviews spanning 2013–2023.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (10 mentions) cite excessive charges, parts markups (e.g., $196 for a $20.58 part), high service call fees ($143–$145), and aggressive upselling to elderly customers. This is a material weakness.
• PUNCTUALITY & SCHEDULING: At least 5 reviews document late arrivals, no-shows, or failure to honor appointment windows despite advance scheduling. One review waited until 9:15 PM with no contact.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Several reviews describe incomplete repairs, multiple callbacks required, lack of follow-up, and poor communication after initial service (e.g., 2015-08-11 review with 17 steps of unresolved issues).
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Reviews describe technicians breaking equipment during maintenance (2016-07-24), misdiagnosis of heat exchangers (2016-10-02, 2018-01-03), and failure to detect low refrigerant during inspection (2019-07-12).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2013–2018 (older than 1 year). Only 4 reviews are from 2021 or later. Recent data is limited.
• MIXED AUTHENTICITY: While most reviews appear genuine with specific details, the 5-star reviews from 2013–2018 are somewhat generic in praise. No obvious fake review pattern detected, but older reviews may not reflect current operations.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the sample size is adequate (35 reviews), the data is heavily weighted toward reviews older than 5 years, limiting current relevance. Pricing emerges as a consistent, material weakness across multiple independent reviews, but professionalism and experience show genuine strengths. The score reflects a company with skilled technicians but significant operational and pricing concerns that warrant caution.

Central Mechanical's review set is deeply polarized, with a cluster of detailed, credible negative reviews pulling scores down significantly across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension and is severely damaged by multiple accounts of the owner Kriss yelling at customers, hanging up on them, and refusing to return calls — including to a disabled customer left without water for nine days. Project completion is similarly compromised by accounts of abandoned jobs, failed repairs requiring multiple return visits, work that failed inspection, and a water heater installation that was simply refused and never completed. On the positive side, a handful of reviews do describe courteous technicians, on-time arrivals, and work completed as promised, which prevents scores from bottoming out entirely. However, the volume and specificity of the negative reviews — spanning multiple years and multiple service types — indicate systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.

• Several positive reviews are extremely vague and lack any specific detail (e.g., 'the best', 'Central has always went above and beyond', 'Best service techs in town') — these may be low-quality or potentially inflated reviews and were weighted conservatively.
• Two reviews (the February 2019 pipe break incident) appear to describe the same event from what may be the same or closely related customers. This was treated as a single incident for scoring purposes to avoid double-counting negative sentiment, though both were read for context.
• The review dated 2014 contains only a period ('.') with no usable text and was excluded from scoring.
• Most reviews with specific dates are from 2010–2019, making them 5–15 years old. No reviews with confirmed dates are from the past 12 months. Recency cannot be confirmed for undated reviews, reducing overall reliability.
• The owner's behavior (yelling, hanging up, refusing callbacks) is corroborated independently across at least three separate reviews, suggesting a genuine and recurring pattern rather than a one-off complaint.
• Work failing inspection (bathtub installed out of plumb), duct work blowing into crawlspace, and a laundry leak flooding a bedroom after repairs represent serious workmanship failures documented in detail.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the high mention counts on professionalism, project completion, and experience provide statistical grounding, but the age of most dated reviews, the presence of several suspiciously vague positive reviews, and the extreme polarization between detailed negatives and generic positives mean the score should be interpreted cautiously and weighted toward the negative signals.

This contractor shows severe pricing concerns that dominate the overall assessment. Two reviews explicitly cite egregious overcharging ($165 for a $15 part, $341 for a 20-minute service), with poor transparency and dismissive customer service when questioned. Professionalism and experience are mixed: one review praises friendly, knowledgeable technicians and quick work, while another criticizes poor problem-solving and upselling tactics. Project completion appears adequate when work is performed, but pricing practices and customer relations are the primary detractors. The small sample size and age of reviews (oldest from 2017, most from 2020–2023) limit confidence in this assessment.

• CRITICAL: Severe pricing complaints in 2 of 4 reviews with explicit evidence of massive markups and lack of transparency. Customer explicitly mentioned contacting BBB.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review is from February 2023; oldest is from August 2017. Limited recent data to assess current practices.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Score reliability is inherently limited.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between positive experience (disposal replacement) and negative experiences (A/C and plumbing overcharges). Suggests inconsistent service delivery or pricing practices.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews) and significant recency gaps. The pricing dimension is well-evidenced and concerning, but overall confidence is LIMITED. Additional recent reviews are needed before making a high-stakes hiring decision.

Reid Plumbing's review set reveals a deeply divided customer base, with several glowing 5-star reviews offset by a significant number of serious 1-star complaints. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is heavily dragged down by multiple explicit accounts of the owner being rude, unresponsive, and dismissive — including a no-show appointment with no communication and a pattern of never returning calls. Project completion is similarly damaged by a standout case where a customer endured over a year of failed appointments and incomplete HVAC work, and another where a technician never showed up at all. Pricing received a direct negative flag for advertising free estimates and then charging, which is a transparency violation. On the positive side, a handful of reviews do praise specific technicians (Cooper, Jesse) for being fast, knowledgeable, and courteous on smaller jobs, which keeps the experience score from bottoming out entirely.

• Several 5-star reviews are notably brief and generic (e.g., 'Reid Plumbing is the best!! They are honest and professional. We recommend them to everyone we know!!') with no specific job details, technician names, or context — these may carry reduced authenticity.
• One review (2015-01-11) pertains to a rental property management experience (Reid Rentals), not a plumbing/HVAC service job. It was excluded from scoring dimensions but noted for brand reputation context.
• A clear pattern of owner-level complaints emerges across multiple independent reviews spanning 2021–2023: rudeness, refusal to engage with clients, and failure to return calls. This is a consistent and credible negative signal, not an isolated incident.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2023) are negative. Positive reviews are predominantly from 2021 and earlier, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. More weight was given to 2022–2023 reviews per recency rules.
• Deceptive pricing flag: One review explicitly states the company advertises 'free estimates' but then charges customers — this is a direct transparency violation under the pricing dimension.

This WW Score of 42.1 is based on 11 reviews with moderate-to-high mention counts across most dimensions, and should be treated as a cautionary signal — the volume of specific, detailed negative reviews from multiple independent customers across several years meaningfully outweighs the generic positive reviews in credibility.

The overwhelming majority of recent reviews describe serious failures across all dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple accounts of rude, intimidating, and belittling behavior from the owner, including a deeply troubling gender-based comment made to a customer. Project completion is undermined by reports of a backwards pipe installation, repeated unnecessary HVAC service trips, and unresolved work that required other contractors to fix. Pricing and experience scores are dragged down by allegations of billing manipulation, scamming subcontractors, and incompetent HVAC installs costing customers thousands. The sole positive review is from 2018 and is now over five years old, making it far less relevant given the pattern of negative experiences documented in 2022 and 2023.

• RECENCY WARNING: The only positive review is dated November 2018 — over 5 years old. All negative reviews are from 2022–2023, suggesting a significant and recent decline in service quality.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review alleges the owner made a sexist remark to a customer who was crying, stating 'isn't that just like a woman to start crying.' This is a significant professionalism and conduct red flag.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT FLAG: Multiple reviews from subcontractors and customers allege being cheated, scammed, or not paid for work performed. This goes beyond service quality and suggests potential ethical or legal issues.
• PATTERN FLAG: Reviews describe a deliberate strategy of repeat service trips and unnecessary billing rather than resolving issues — this is a systemic business practice concern, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The single 5-star review is generic in praise and lacks specific detail compared to the detailed negative reviews. Its age (2018) and contrast with all other reviews warrants skepticism about its current relevance.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small review pool of only 5 reviews; however, the consistency and specificity of the four negative reviews from 2022–2023 paint a credible and concerning picture that prospective customers should take seriously.

Both reviews speak positively about professionalism, describing the team as kind, thorough, clean, and communicative during installation. Project completion appears strong, with both reviewers describing seamless installs and thorough explanations of the work performed. Experience is reflected in the quality of installation and the products performing as advertised, including noticeable real-world results. However, pricing is never mentioned in either review, leaving that dimension entirely unscored. With only two reviews available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are 5-star and positive in tone; while not conclusively fake, the small sample size prevents meaningful pattern analysis.
• Both reviews are older than 12 months (2018 and 2022), meaning recency weighting cannot favor either review and current service quality is unknown.
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — this dimension is entirely unscored and contributes nothing to any future WW Score calculation.

This score report should be treated as highly unreliable due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews, both of which are over two years old, making it impossible to draw confident conclusions about current or consistent contractor performance.