Find Nearby Plumbers In Florissant, Missouri

This contractor's review profile is deeply mixed and spans over two decades, making reliable assessment difficult. Recent reviews (2023–2024) include serious allegations: one reviewer claims the contractor is unlicensed and overcharges for poor work, another accuses the company of fabricating a plumbing problem to extract nearly $3,000, and a third documents late arrivals, price discrepancies, and dirty workmanship. These are offset by several genuine-seeming positive reviews praising punctuality, politeness, and fair pricing — most notably a long-term customer of 10+ years. Pricing is a particular concern, with multiple independent reviewers citing overcharging or bait-and-switch pricing tactics. Project completion also has documented failures, including a contractor who abandoned a gas installation job out of anger and workers who left job sites dirty and unfinished.

• SERIOUS CREDIBILITY CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor is not a licensed plumber (2024-07-06). This is a significant red flag that could not be verified from reviews alone but warrants independent verification before hiring.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION: A 2024-01-10 review accuses the company of fabricating a plumbing problem to charge $2,600 for unnecessary work. The reviewer states a second plumber resolved the issue with a simple snake. This is a serious allegation.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple independent reviewers (2023-04-12, 2024-01-10, 2024-07-06) cite overcharging, hidden fees, or prices that changed after the job. This pattern across unrelated reviews is a meaningful signal.
• RECENCY CONCERN: A significant portion of positive reviews are from 2003 or earlier (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2007), which are over 20 years old and carry very little weight in assessing current service quality. These were included in mention counts but given minimal scoring weight.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-ENTITY REVIEW MIX: Reviews reference multiple named individuals (Cale, Gary, Guillermo, Eric Brown) and appear to describe different contractors or companies. This suggests the review pool may aggregate reviews for more than one business, reducing the reliability of any composite score.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several older reviews (2000–2003) are written in all-caps with generic praise and no specifics. While this may reflect the review platform style of that era, they add little evidentiary value and were treated with reduced confidence.
• ABANDONED WORK DOCUMENTED: A 2018 review documents a contractor (Cale) refusing to complete a gas installation job because a different plumber had finished the water portion — a clear project completion failure.
• WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT: A 2023 review documents workers leaving job sites dirty, arriving late, and rushing work due to scheduling pressure from the company.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while mention counts are high enough to generate scores, the review pool spans 24 years, likely covers multiple contractors or business entities, and contains serious unresolved allegations of unlicensed work, fraud, and price manipulation that materially drag down trustworthiness.

Tony's performance is highly inconsistent across reviews. While he demonstrates strong responsiveness and friendliness in positive reviews, multiple recent reviews (2018–2020) document serious failures in project completion, technical judgment, and professionalism. Specifically, he abandoned jobs when faced with standard basement cleanout access, misdiagnosed problems requiring unnecessary basement excavation, and exhibited poor hygiene practices (walking in sewage without cleaning shoes, throwing live electrical cords into water). Only one recent positive review (2022) suggests possible improvement, but the weight of evidence from three detailed negative reviews describing incomplete work and poor technical decision-making significantly outweighs this. Pricing appears fair when work is completed, but completion failures dominate the overall assessment.

• CRITICAL: Three detailed negative reviews (2018, 2020, 2020) describe identical pattern of job abandonment and refusal to use basement cleanout access—a standard plumbing procedure. This suggests systemic avoidance behavior rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 4–6 years old (2018–2020). One positive review from 2022 suggests possible operational changes, but insufficient recent data to confirm improvement.
• SAFETY HAZARD DOCUMENTED: Review from 2018-11-08 explicitly describes throwing a plugged-in extension cord into sewer water—a serious electrical safety violation.
• TECHNICAL JUDGMENT FAILURE: Multiple reviews document misdiagnosis (claiming basement excavation necessary when problem was 135 ft outside) and refusal to attempt standard procedures, suggesting either skill gaps or unwillingness to perform difficult work.
• HYGIENE/PROFESSIONALISM: Documented failure to clean shoes after contact with sewage and only cleaning cart tires after customer request indicates poor professional standards.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to small sample size (5 reviews) and significant recency gap, but the consistency and specificity of negative reviews describing identical failure patterns (job abandonment, technical misdiagnosis, safety violations) across three separate customers provides credible evidence of serious operational issues, even if the most recent review suggests possible improvement.

The review set is very small (3 reviews) and paints a mixed picture. Two positive reviews highlight friendliness, speed, and technical effectiveness, while one detailed negative review describes a complete breakdown in communication and follow-through — the contractor went silent after an initial promising encounter and never returned calls or texts. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by the no-call/no-show complaint, which is a serious red flag in any service business. Project completion is similarly penalized because one customer never had their job started at all, despite an agreement. Pricing and experience scores are based on only one or two mentions each and should be treated with very low confidence.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should not be used as a definitive assessment.
• One review (2-star, Oct 2021) describes a serious pattern of non-responsiveness and failure to honor a verbal commitment — this is a significant professionalism and project completion concern.
• All reviews are dated 2021 — no data from the past 12 months is available, meaning current performance is entirely unknown.
• The two positive reviews are somewhat generic in detail ('super friendly,' 'knows her stuff') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though they do not appear to be fake.
• Small sample size means a single bad experience has an outsized impact on the score — more reviews are needed for a reliable assessment.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all from 2021, and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use this score as a confident indicator of current contractor quality without seeking more recent and numerous reviews.

This single review describes severe failures across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. The contractor allegedly took a part and $100, failed to return on the promised date, ignored 30+ calls and multiple texts, and left an elderly customer without hot water in winter. No information about technical skill or workmanship quality is provided. With only one review and no recent data (from 2020), a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient data for reliable scoring (minimum 3 reviews required)
• Review is from December 2020 — over 3 years old; does not reflect current business practices
• Serious allegations of financial misconduct and abandonment; if accurate, represents major red flags for trustworthiness
• No corroborating reviews to validate or contextualize these claims
• No data on technical experience/skill level

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=1). The single review contains severe allegations but lacks corroboration and is significantly outdated; treat with caution and seek additional current reviews before making any business decision.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review reports poor professionalism (indifference to complaint) and unfavorable pricing ($200 for 45 minutes of furnace cleaning). However, with only one data point and no information on project completion or technical experience, no meaningful overall score can be derived.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Review is from 2013 (over 10 years old) — recency is very poor and may not reflect current business practices.
• No data on project completion or experience dimensions.

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.