Find Nearby Plumbers In Independence, Missouri

KB Complete demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for politeness, knowledge, and efficiency. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous customers reporting excessive charges, hidden fees, and what they perceive as predatory pricing practices—particularly on service calls, diagnostics, and parts markups. Project completion is generally solid, though some customers report incomplete work or follow-up issues. The company shows a stark divide: loyal, long-term customers report excellent service, while newer or one-time customers frequently report feeling overcharged or misled. Recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but historical reviews reveal persistent pricing complaints and occasional service failures.

• PRICING PATTERN: 68 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent complaint pattern. Customers report: $89 diagnostic fees, excessive labor charges (e.g., $450 for 15-minute work, $700 for $350 job), parts marked up 5-10x cost, and hidden fees not disclosed upfront. This is the single largest complaint category.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews (2017-2024) describe misleading quotes, upselling tactics, and pressure to purchase unnecessary services or upgrades. Examples include recommending full furnace replacement when capacitor replacement would suffice.
• ELDERLY EXPLOITATION: At least 3 reviews explicitly mention the company taking advantage of elderly customers with inflated quotes or unnecessary work.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE CONTROVERSY: Repeated complaints about $89 diagnostic fees that are not waived even if customer declines service, and confusion about whether fees apply to final bill.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Service quality varies significantly by technician. Some reviews praise specific technicians highly, while others report poor diagnostics or incomplete work from different technicians.
• RECENT REVIEW CLUSTERING: 2025 reviews (June and May) show almost exclusively 5-star ratings with generic praise. This clustering of identical-rating reviews from the same dates warrants scrutiny for potential review manipulation, though individual reviews contain specific details that suggest authenticity.
• HISTORICAL PATTERN: Negative reviews cluster in 2016-2019 and 2021-2024, with fewer complaints in 2025. This may reflect genuine improvement or review filtering.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Several reviews report technicians leaving jobs unfinished, not verifying work before departure, or requiring multiple callbacks.
• SECOND-OPINION PATTERN: Numerous customers report getting second opinions and discovering KB Complete overcharged or misdiagnosed (e.g., recommending $3500 furnace replacement when $16 part was needed).

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable but reflects a company with significant internal inconsistency. The HIGH confidence is based on 89-127 mentions per dimension across 200 reviews spanning 13 years. However, the score masks a critical bifurcation: KB Complete excels in professionalism and technical knowledge but has a well-documented pattern of aggressive pricing and upselling that disproportionately affects price-sensitive and elderly customers. The company appears to have improved in 2025, but historical data suggests caution is warranted, particularly for large projects or if you are unfamiliar with HVAC/plumbing pricing. Always obtain multiple quotes before engaging this company for major work.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses operating under similar 'All About Plumbing' or 'Allison Plumbing' names, making direct attribution difficult, but the overall picture is a contractor with a strong positive majority offset by a meaningful minority of serious complaints. Professionalism scores are dragged down by recurring patterns of no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, and failure to return calls — issues mentioned explicitly across dozens of negative reviews spanning multiple years. Pricing receives a moderate-to-low score because while many customers praise fair and competitive pricing, a notable cluster of reviews describe bait-and-switch tactics, charges added without consent, overcharging seniors, and prices that jumped significantly from quoted amounts. Project completion is similarly mixed: the majority of jobs are described as completed well, but multiple reviews describe abandoned work, callbacks not honored, problems made worse, and in at least two cases customers had to take legal action or dispute charges. Experience scores highest because the technical skill of individual plumbers is frequently praised, with many reviewers noting knowledgeable diagnosis and quality workmanship — though a handful of reviews describe misdiagnosis, broken pipes caused by the plumber, and failed repairs.

• MULTIPLE BUSINESS ENTITIES: Reviews appear to cover several distinct businesses operating under similar names including 'All About Plumbing,' 'All In A Day Plumbing,' 'Allison Plumbing,' and variations. Scores reflect an aggregate and may not represent any single contractor accurately.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews about Ray Buchanan dated 2023-03-25, two identical reviews about the 'ALL ABOUT NOT CARING' experience dated 2024-05-27, two identical reviews about the Troy water hammering job, two identical reviews about the water filtration estimate with Xzavia). This inflates review count and may indicate review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text content and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their presence in high volume is a mild fake-review signal.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are dated 2022 or earlier, including many from 2019 and before. Older reviews carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) continue to show both strong positives and serious negatives, suggesting persistent quality inconsistency.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege fraud, unauthorized credit card charges, charging for work not performed, referring customers to fraudulent contractors, and in one case a customer reports winning a court judgment against the company. These are not scored but significantly reduce trust in the overall profile.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 10 distinct reviews across multiple years describe scheduled appointments where no plumber arrived and no call was made. This is a persistent and documented pattern affecting the professionalism score.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: The large volume of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great service,' 'Excellent,' 'Professional,' 'Fast reliable service') alongside blank-text 5-star entries raises moderate concern about review padding. Confidence is not reduced to LOW given the large volume of detailed genuine reviews, but the inflated positive count should be noted.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but moderate trust reliability due to the presence of multiple business entities in the dataset, duplicate reviews, blank reviews, and serious misconduct allegations that suggest the true score for any single contractor may differ materially from this aggregate.

B&R Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who frequently praise responsiveness, professionalism, and technical skill — with multiple named technicians (Michael, Ron, Alex, Kevin) receiving specific commendations. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by several credible negative reviews citing serious concerns: two no-show incidents, one rude and incomplete repair job, a $5,363 water heater charge that the technician himself could not justify, a $1,400 charge for roughly 1.5 hours of work and ~$200 in parts, and a reported $300 unexplained overcharge on a quoted job. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with a notable split between customers who felt they received great value and others who felt significantly overcharged. Project completion is moderately strong but is tempered by the no-show pattern and one instance of incomplete repair work where follow-up calls went unanswered.

• 14 reviews contain no text at all (only a rating) and were excluded from dimensional scoring — these blank reviews inflate the visible star average without providing usable evidence.
• Several reviews from 2021 appear to be near-duplicates: two reviews describe an almost identical scenario involving Alex finding a leak between the house and street, fixing a waste line, and saving the customer ~$6,000. This may indicate a duplicated or manipulated review submission.
• A cluster of reviews dated exactly '2024-06-09', '2023-06-10', '2022-06-10', '2021-06-10', and '2019-06-11' with identical timestamps suggests possible batch imports or platform migration artifacts rather than organic review dates — treat these with moderate caution.
• The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2020–2024, which is positive for recency. However, negative reviews span multiple years (2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2023), suggesting pricing and professionalism issues are not isolated incidents.
• Pricing complaints are serious and specific: one customer cited $5,363 for a water heater, another cited $1,400 for ~1.5 hours of labor and ~$200 in parts, and a third cited an unjustified $300 overcharge above a quoted range. These are not vague complaints and meaningfully reduce confidence in fair pricing.

This WW Score is based on 43 reviews with usable content across a multi-year period and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, though prospective customers should weigh the specific and recurring pricing complaints seriously before engaging this contractor for larger jobs.

CME demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise in sewer line work, with multiple recent reviews (2024) praising crew efficiency, courtesy, and care. However, the score is significantly impacted by serious project completion failures documented in older reviews (2016-2017), including no-shows and missed appointments that caused customer frustration. Pricing presents a major concern: one customer was quoted $14,000 for work that a competitor identified as a city responsibility and resolved for $250, raising questions about diagnostic accuracy and sales practices. Recent positive reviews focus on sewer liner installations, while older negative reviews highlight communication and follow-through breakdowns.

• RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: 4 of 5 most recent reviews (2024, 2020) are 5-star with glowing praise, while all 3 one-star reviews are from 2016-2017. This temporal clustering suggests either significant operational improvement or potential review manipulation.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: 2017 review documents a $14,000 quote for work identified by competitor as city responsibility, resolved for $250. This suggests either poor diagnostic practices or aggressive upselling. No response or clarification from company in review record.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: 2016 reviews document two no-shows with scheduling/communication failures and a 2-week non-response to estimate request. These are serious professionalism breaches.
• SAMPLE SIZE LIMITATION: Only 8 reviews total. Recent reviews are heavily weighted toward 5-star ratings with similar language patterns ('exceptional,' 'highly recommend,' 'stress-free'), though they do contain specific details (names, service types) that suggest authenticity.
• TEMPORAL GAP: No reviews between August 2015 and March 2024 (8.5-year gap). Unable to assess consistency of service quality during this period.

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews show strong performance in professionalism and technical execution, the small sample size (8 reviews), significant temporal clustering, documented pricing concerns, and serious historical project completion failures create substantial uncertainty. The company may have improved operations significantly since 2016-2017, but insufficient recent data on pricing practices and follow-through prevents high confidence. Recommend requesting references and clarifying diagnostic methodology before engaging.

Inception Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and project completion capabilities, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, communication, and follow-through on complex jobs. Technical expertise is evident in successful problem-solving and quality workmanship. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with multiple customers explicitly citing excessive charges compared to competitors, creating a stark divide between satisfied customers and those who felt overcharged. The company shows inconsistency: some customers received fair quotes and value, while others experienced aggressive pricing tactics and poor communication about costs upfront. Recent reviews (2024) are more positive, suggesting possible operational improvements.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Stark polarization between 5-star reviews praising fair pricing and 1-star reviews citing excessive charges (e.g., $615 vs competitor's $285 for toilet replacement; $325 drain clearing vs competitor's $79). This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or targeting of vulnerable customers.
• VULNERABLE CUSTOMER TARGETING: Multiple reviews mention disabled individuals or distressed customers being charged premium prices, raising ethical concerns.
• RECENCY BIAS: Positive reviews cluster in 2018-2024, while negative pricing reviews are from 2021-2023. Most recent reviews (2024) are positive, but sample size is small.
• PROMOTIONAL BAIT-AND-SWITCH: One review describes $49 drain promotion as misleading—technician charged $325 for incomplete work, later refunded after complaint.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: Two highly detailed positive reviews (2018) read as exceptionally polished and may be owner-written or curated, though they contain specific details that suggest authenticity.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization in customer experiences around pricing. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and completion but is significantly dragged down by consistent pricing complaints. The company appears capable of excellent work but has serious transparency and fairness issues in pricing that create substantial customer dissatisfaction.

Hunt Plumbing demonstrates strong technical skill and problem-solving ability, evidenced by successful drain clearing and water line restoration work. However, the score is significantly dragged down by a critical project completion failure: incomplete diagnostic work on a basement smell issue, improper smoke testing that allegedly caused damage, and a water heater installation that failed within 18 months, resulting in $1,400 in additional costs to the customer. Professionalism is mixed—punctuality and responsiveness are praised, but the owner's refusal to take responsibility for poor workmanship undermines trust. The business appears to have declined since a key employee (Peter) departed.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of five reviews are from 2022 or earlier (one from 2018). Only two reviews from 2024 and 2022. Most data is 2+ years old, limiting current reliability.
• QUALITY VARIANCE: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising speed/skill and a 1-star review documenting repeated failures and financial harm. This suggests inconsistent service quality or possible deterioration over time.
• CRITICAL FAILURE DOCUMENTED: The 1-star review details specific, quantifiable failures (improper smoke test, water heater leak within 18 months, $1,400 in damages) with follow-up verification. This is not a vague complaint and significantly impacts project completion and experience scores.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The first three 5-star reviews use similar enthusiastic language ('Phenomenal,' 'highly recommend,' 'just the best') with minimal specific technical detail. However, the 1-star review's specificity and the 2018 review's brevity suggest these are likely genuine, not coordinated fake reviews.
• STAFF TURNOVER: Explicit mention that service quality declined after key employee 'Peter' left, suggesting dependency on individual personnel rather than consistent systems.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (5 total), significant recency gaps (most data 2+ years old), and high variance in outcomes. The documented project completion failures and financial harm to a customer are credible concerns that outweigh positive reviews, but the small sample size and age of data prevent high confidence in the overall assessment.