Find Nearby Plumbers In Overland Park, Kansas

Riden Plumbing shows generally positive signals across all four dimensions, but the review base is extremely thin and heavily dated — four of five usable reviews are from 2006 or earlier, with only one review from the past three years (2022). Professionalism is supported by the 2022 review citing exceptional customer service and personal follow-through by the owner, but only one other review touches on this dimension. Pricing receives a modest MODERATE confidence rating because two reviews explicitly mention work being done 'cheaply' or 'within estimated cost,' though those reviews are nearly 20 years old. Project completion is similarly supported by references to timely, complete work, but again the data is old. Experience is inferred from successful problem resolution but lacks detailed workmanship commentary. The overall score is deliberately conservative given the age and volume of the data.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2004-02-26 and 2004-03-05 contain nearly identical text ('RIDEN UNCLOGGED THE SEWER AND WERE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF MY PROBLEM VERY QUICKLY AND CHEAPLY'). One of these has been treated as a duplicate and excluded from scoring to avoid inflating mention counts.
• RECENCY WARNING: Four of five reviews are more than 10 years old. Only one review (2022) falls within a recent window. This score should not be treated as reflective of current service quality.
• VERY LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 total reviews exist, with 4 usable. This is insufficient to draw reliable conclusions about consistent performance.
• One review contains only 'unknown' as text and was excluded from all dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings. While not conclusive evidence of manipulation, the combination of all-5-star ratings, very low volume, and one near-duplicate entry warrants caution.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a critically small and predominantly outdated review set spanning nearly two decades, a detected near-duplicate review, and no reviews from the past 12 months aside from a single 2022 entry — prospective customers should seek additional current references before making a hiring decision.

Neal Harris Service Experts presents a deeply split profile: individual technicians are frequently praised for professionalism, friendliness, punctuality, and technical knowledge — with dozens of named techs (AJ, Delaney, Andre, Brandon, Chris Hovde, Jeffrey, etc.) receiving glowing commendations. However, the company is severely dragged down by a substantial and consistent pattern of negative reviews spanning multiple years, covering predatory upselling and misdiagnosis, billing fraud and unauthorized charges, the Advantage Program being described repeatedly as a financial scam, and chronic no-show or missed appointment failures. Pricing is a major liability: numerous reviewers explicitly describe being quoted thousands of dollars for repairs that other companies completed for under $300-$400, and the Advantage Program is called out as deceptive and exploitative across many independent reviews. Project completion is mixed — while many installations and repairs are completed successfully, there are documented cases of abandoned work, faulty installations requiring multiple return visits, unresolved warranty disputes, and units left non-functional after technician visits. The experience dimension scores moderately well due to the volume of positive technical feedback, but is tempered by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis and technicians who lacked basic knowledge.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: 'Ryan Rio did an Excellent, professional job.' appears twice (2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06). 'Mo did a great job.' appears twice (2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04). One review about no-shows and refund failure appears twice with identical text (2024-06-07). Two nearly identical reviews about being quoted $2000+ for AC repair appear on 2021-08-12. Two nearly identical reviews about the Advantage Program billing issues appear on 2021-02-10. These duplicates suggest possible review manipulation on both the positive and negative sides.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE: Several very recent reviews (June 2025) are extremely short, generic, and lack any specific detail (e.g., 'Ryan Rio did an Excellent, professional job.' repeated verbatim, 'Mo did a great job.' repeated verbatim, multiple blank 5-star reviews with no text). This pattern is consistent with coordinated fake positive review activity.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 7 reviews contain no text whatsoever but carry 5-star ratings. These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2012–2025) describe being quoted $1,200–$9,000 for repairs that competing companies completed for $87–$400. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents, and significantly suppresses the pricing score.
• ADVANTAGE PROGRAM COMPLAINTS: At least 6 independent reviews explicitly describe the Advantage Program as a scam, citing hidden fees, unauthorized billing after cancellation, inability to own equipment, and deceptive sales tactics. This is a recurring and serious reputational risk.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 8 independent reviews describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, sometimes across multiple consecutive appointments. This is a systemic operational issue.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviews describe Neal Harris diagnosing expensive repairs or full system replacements that were subsequently found to be unnecessary by competing companies. This pattern spans 2012–2025.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2012 to June 2025. Reviews from 2025 and late 2024 are weighted more heavily. The most recent negative reviews (2025) focus on billing disputes and the Advantage Program, while recent positive reviews focus on individual technician quality. The split between positive individual-level and negative company-level feedback appears consistent across all time periods.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews (218 total), but consumers should treat the score as a composite that masks a significant internal split: individual technicians frequently perform well, while the company's billing practices, Advantage Program, scheduling reliability, and sales ethics have generated serious and repeated complaints across more than a decade — meaning the score of 68.4 likely overstates the experience for customers who encounter the company's systemic operational and pricing issues.

AP Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for professionalism and technician demeanor — the majority of substantive reviews praise individual technicians as courteous, punctual, and communicative — but this is heavily counterbalanced by a very large volume of serious pricing complaints spanning the entire review history. Pricing is the single most-mentioned dimension and is overwhelmingly negative: dozens of reviewers across many years describe charges they consider grossly inflated for simple jobs (e.g., $400+ for a 15-minute faucet swap, $800–$2,000 to clear a drain, $1,200+ for a garbage disposal install), and multiple reviewers explicitly accuse the company of targeting elderly or vulnerable customers. Project completion is moderate: most jobs are finished, but there are meaningful complaints about return visits for the same problem, abandoned work orders, no-shows, and at least one case of a gas leak caused by improper installation. Technical experience is generally rated positively by satisfied customers, though several reviews describe technicians who failed to diagnose problems that were quickly found by others, undermining confidence in consistency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates within the same week (e.g., the Kendal Rosa review from 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06 are identical; the 'On their second trip back' 1-star review appears twice; the 'KendL was very professional' review appears twice; the 'Really enjoyed my experience with Kendal Rosa' review appears twice; the 'David was great' review appears twice; the 'Kendal solved the issue' review appears twice; the 'Honest work done well' review appears twice). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or platform duplication artifacts. Confidence in the June 2025 review cluster is reduced.
• LARGE VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence in high concentration around specific date clusters (June 2025, May 2025) is consistent with fake review padding patterns.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPAN OVER 15 YEARS (2006–2025): This is not an isolated pattern. Dozens of independent reviewers across multiple platforms and time periods describe the same core complaint — high flat-rate pricing, $89 dispatch fees, and charges perceived as exploitative for short or simple jobs. This is a structural business practice, not an anomaly.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews specifically name a manager ('Jason') as rude, dismissive, and unwilling to resolve legitimate complaints. One review describes a gas leak caused by improper installation followed by inadequate customer service response. These are serious operational red flags.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are heavily skewed toward 5-star ratings, many of which are blank or duplicated. Reviews from 2019–2024 contain a disproportionately high volume of 1-star pricing and professionalism complaints. The recent positive cluster should be treated with skepticism given the duplication evidence.
• ELDERLY TARGETING ALLEGATIONS: At least four independent reviews explicitly state that AP Plumbing took financial advantage of elderly or fixed-income customers. This is a serious reputational and ethical flag.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe jobs that were not fixed on the first visit, return visits that introduced new problems, and instances where the company refused to honor callbacks without additional dispatch fees.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set spanning over 15 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of duplicate and blank review padding in recent months, systemic pricing complaints that are deeply consistent across independent reviewers, and serious isolated incidents involving gas leaks, abandoned work, and alleged elder financial exploitation.

K&S Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with strong technical competence and punctuality in some jobs offset by serious failures in communication, follow-through, and responsiveness in others. Professionalism is dragged down by documented instances of poor attitude, unresponsiveness to calls, and abandoned work (old water heaters left in basements, lack of follow-up on safety-critical issues). Pricing concerns are raised in at least one review alleging overcharging. Project completion is compromised by multiple reports of incomplete work and failure to honor callbacks. The company demonstrates solid workmanship when engaged, but reliability and accountability are major weaknesses.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2017–2019; only 2 reviews from 2020 or later. Recent performance data is limited.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: Extreme split between 5-star and 1-star reviews with no middle ground suggests either highly variable service quality or inconsistent customer expectations.
• SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE: One review (2017-07-27) documents failure to follow up on carbon monoxide detection—a critical safety matter. This is a major red flag for reliability.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2017-12-13, 2017-07-27) explicitly cite inability to reach the company, voicemail not returned, and lack of follow-up. This is a recurring theme.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Two separate reviews document failure to remove old equipment as promised, suggesting systemic follow-through problems.
• PRICING DISPUTE: One review alleges overcharging ($725 for 2.5 hours with $18 fittings), though this is a single data point.

This score should be treated with caution. While the WW Score of 68.2 reflects the data present, the extreme polarization of reviews, serious communication failures documented in older reviews, and limited recent data (only 2 reviews from 2020+) suggest the company's current performance is uncertain. The documented safety-related follow-up failure is particularly concerning and warrants independent verification of current practices before engaging this contractor.

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension across all three reviews and is significantly dragged down by a 2-star review explicitly describing aggressive driving behavior and rude conduct by a company vehicle driver, which directly reflects on the business. The positive reviews praise responsiveness (answering on a Sunday holiday weekend) and timely arrival, which partially offset the negative conduct report. Pricing and workmanship quality are mentioned only in a single older review from 2019 with no specific detail, making those scores low-confidence and conservative. Project completion received modest positive signals from two reviews noting the job was done well, but the small sample size limits reliability.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable until more reviews are available.
• One review (2019-10-11) is over 4 years old and carries significantly reduced weight under recency rules.
• The 2019 review ('best plumber in Kansas, great work, excellent prices') is generic with no specific details, raising mild concern about authenticity — scored conservatively.
• A serious professionalism incident was reported (aggressive driving, obscene gesture from a company vehicle) which materially lowers the professionalism score.
• With only 3 reviews, no statistically meaningful pattern can be established for any dimension.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning multiple years, with one flagged for potential inauthenticity and one containing a significant negative conduct incident, making the overall score LOW reliability and unsuitable for confident decision-making without additional review data.

Nate receives consistently positive marks for responsiveness, communication, and professionalism across four of five reviews, with customers praising his promptness, honesty, and willingness to work on weekends. However, the most recent review (July 2024) is a serious outlier describing a materially deficient furnace installation — missing filter housing, an unconnected AC drain line, and resulting water damage to flooring — with the contractor allegedly refusing to remedy the situation. This single but severe and recent complaint significantly drags down the project completion and experience scores. The positive reviews are older (2021–2022), meaning the most current data point is a damaging one. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with apparent interpersonal strengths but a documented and unresolved workmanship failure on a major installation.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (2024-07-08) is the only 1-star review and describes serious workmanship failures and refusal to make repairs right. All positive reviews are from 2021–2022, meaning the contractor's recent track record is represented solely by a negative experience.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: The 2024 review describes a furnace installation with no filter or filter housing installed, and an AC drain line left disconnected, causing water damage to laminate flooring. This is a significant technical and professional failure.
• UNRESOLVED COMPLAINT: The 2024 reviewer explicitly states the contractor refuses to make the situation right, which is a serious flag for accountability and follow-through.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total. Scores should be treated with caution as a single bad or good review has outsized influence on the overall result.
• POSSIBLE PATTERN SHIFT: The gap between the positive 2021–2022 reviews and the negative 2024 review may indicate a decline in quality or consistency over time, but cannot be confirmed with only 5 data points.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to the very small review sample (5 reviews), a significant three-year gap between the positive and negative reviews, and one serious unresolved workmanship complaint that represents the contractor's most recent documented work.