Find Nearby Plumbers In Independence, Missouri

Richard at AAAbility Discount Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, communication, and responsiveness — including taking calls on Sundays. Pricing is rated positively in the reviews that mention it, with specific callouts for reasonable costs and money-saving recommendations. However, a 1-star review explicitly describes a no-show with no cancellation call and no response when contacted, which is a serious professionalism and project-completion failure that meaningfully drags down both dimensions. Experience scores moderately well based on specific mentions of quality workmanship, correct diagnosis, and use of robust components, but only a handful of reviews provide enough detail to assess this confidently. The no-show incident is the single largest negative data point and cannot be dismissed.

• One review explicitly reports a no-show appointment with no cancellation notice and no response to follow-up calls — this is a significant reliability red flag that directly impacts professionalism and project completion scores.
• Two reviews (2022-08-12 and 2024-04-08) describe only phone assistance, not completed on-site work. These were counted for professionalism but excluded from project completion scoring as no physical job was performed.
• Several reviews are older than 12 months (2019, 2021, 2022), and only two reviews fall within the past 12 months from the most recent date in the dataset (2024-05-09). Recency weighting is limited; the older no-show review (2021) is still treated as valid negative evidence.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, and tone. The presence of a 1-star review and varied detail levels across 5-star reviews reduces suspicion of review manipulation.

This WW Score is based on a small sample of 7 reviews spanning five years, with only 2 reviews from the past 12 months, which limits reliability — the score should be treated as a directional indicator rather than a definitive assessment of current service quality.

All four reviews are positive and collectively touch on professionalism, pricing, project completion, and technical experience. Professionalism is the most consistently mentioned dimension, with reviewers citing responsiveness, communication, friendliness, and the ability to accommodate urgent requests. Pricing is explicitly called out as fair or affordable in three reviews, which is a meaningful positive signal. Project completion is supported by references to fast service, handling multiple issues, and repeat usage by at least one customer. Experience is noted through mentions of broad skill sets, knowledge, and quality of work, though specifics remain limited. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool of only four reviews, all of which are dated between late 2022 and late 2023.

• Only 4 reviews analyzed — this is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for high-stakes decisions.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details and varied writing styles that reduce fake review suspicion.
• Most reviews are between 1 and 2 years old (2022–2023) with no reviews from the past 12 months — recency of data is a concern and current service quality cannot be confirmed.
• The playful Mario/Luigi-themed review, while charming, is light on verifiable specifics and contributes limited scoring evidence beyond general praise.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all positive and moderately detailed, but the small sample size and lack of recent reviews (none within the past 12 months) significantly limit reliability — treat this score as a promising early signal rather than a definitive assessment.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses and individual operators all operating under or associated with the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different regions and time periods, making direct comparison difficult but revealing a deeply polarized reputation. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of explicit complaints about rudeness, no-shows, broken appointments, and dismissive customer service — including multiple accounts of technicians yelling at customers, slamming doors, and hanging up on home warranty representatives. Pricing is the single most-criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing charges 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, non-itemized invoices, and aggressive upselling tactics; a minority of reviewers — particularly those dealing with individual operators like Oscar, Jeff, and Rick — praised fair and transparent pricing. Project completion suffers from a notable pattern of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, work left incomplete for weeks or months, and instances where problems were made worse rather than fixed. Experience scores are moderate-positive, as many positive reviews do cite skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship from specific named technicians, but are offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect parts installation, and damage caused during service.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: These reviews appear to aggregate multiple distinct businesses and sole operators all using the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different U.S. regions (Georgia, New Jersey, Oklahoma, California, New York, Indiana, Tennessee, etc.). Scores reflect a blended profile and should not be applied to any single operator without filtering by location.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews — particularly those dated 2025-05-07, 2025-05-10, and 2025-05-19 with no review text — are blank ratings only and provide zero usable data. Several other 5-star reviews are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., two reviews from 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10 are word-for-word duplicates for 'Michael'). These have been excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star average.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews are near-verbatim duplicates submitted on consecutive or same dates (the 'Michael' gas line reviews dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10; the rude technician reviews dated 2023-08-09 and 2023-08-10). These were counted as single mentions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal text, while the most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2018–2024. The oldest reviews (2005–2013) skew positive but reflect a different era of the business. Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no evidence per Rule 1.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One review (dated 2021-06-07, 5 stars) references a healthcare provider ('very helpful with my daughter and son... ADHD and learning disabilities') and is clearly posted to the wrong business. It was excluded entirely.
• PRICING PATTERN: A recurring pattern of non-itemized invoices, refusal to provide cost breakdowns, and prices dropping significantly when customers push back strongly suggests systematic price gouging practices at certain franchise or affiliate locations, particularly those associated with Coolray/Mr. Plumber in the Atlanta, GA market.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe technicians starting jobs, leaving for parts, and never returning — sometimes for months. This pattern appears across different named technicians and locations, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the dataset aggregates multiple distinct businesses operating under the same trade name across different regions and time periods — consumers should filter reviews by their specific geographic location and verify the operator before relying on this blended score.

Anthony Plumbing, Heating, Cooling & Electric presents a deeply split profile: individual technicians are frequently praised for professionalism, friendliness, and knowledge, but the company is overwhelmed by a very high volume of serious complaints about pricing, deceptive sales practices, and service failures. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with dozens of reviewers describing charges they considered grossly excessive — often 3x to 10x competitor quotes — for routine work such as capacitor replacements, wax ring resets, faucet installs, and cartridge replacements. Project completion is also significantly undermined by multiple accounts of no-shows, rescheduled appointments, incomplete work, and in several cases technicians allegedly causing new damage. Experience scores are pulled down by multiple credible accounts of misdiagnosis, failed leak detection, and technicians unable to identify problems that competitors resolved quickly and cheaply. The overall WW Score of 61.2 reflects a company with capable field staff but systemic issues in pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and sales ethics.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: A large block of reviews dated 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-08 appear to be exact duplicates of one another — identical review text, identical ratings, posted across two consecutive date clusters. These duplicated reviews were counted only once per unique review text to avoid score inflation. Approximately 19 reviews in the June 2025 cluster are duplicates of reviews already present in the dataset.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contained no text at all (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 2, but were counted in total reviews analyzed.
• PRICING CONCERNS — SYSTEMIC: An unusually high number of negative reviews (30+) specifically cite excessive pricing, with many customers providing direct competitor comparisons showing Anthony's charges at 3x–10x market rate for identical work. This is a strong and consistent signal, not isolated incidents.
• SALES TACTIC COMPLAINTS: Multiple independent reviewers allege high-pressure upselling, bait-and-switch practices, unnecessary replacement recommendations, and technicians on commission incentivizing overselling. Several reviewers mention elderly or vulnerable customers being targeted.
• ALLEGED DAMAGE CAUSED BY TECHNICIANS: Multiple reviewers credibly allege that Anthony technicians caused new damage during service visits (e.g., melted wiring during capacitor replacement, worsened leaks, AC not working after tune-up, drain not cleared properly). These are serious workmanship concerns.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviewers across different years report appointments being canceled same-day, rescheduled multiple times, or technicians arriving hours late with no communication. This is a recurring operational failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2021–2024. The positive reviews are heavily concentrated in the duplicate June 2025 cluster and the May 2025 batch, which are generic in nature. The negative reviews tend to be more specific and credible.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE FLAG: Multiple long-term customers explicitly note a decline in service quality following a reported ownership/acquisition change, suggesting the current company may not reflect the historical reputation.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but readers should weight the negative reviews heavily as they are consistently more detailed, specific, and independently corroborated than the positive ones, and a significant portion of the 5-star reviews appear to be duplicates or content-free entries.

Crosslin Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed track record across reviews spanning 2007–2019. Professionalism scores moderately — several reviews praise responsiveness, punctuality, and friendly communication, but one review describes staff as agitated and unwilling, and another documents a serious billing failure where a charge was silently retried nine months later. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: two reviews describe jobs where nothing was repaired (wrong parts, inability to source components, a no-show appointment), while other reviews show efficient and thorough work. Pricing drew explicit criticism in two reviews — one calling charges 'very high for the work performed' and another objecting to a $133 service call where nothing was fixed — dragging that dimension down significantly. Experience scores reasonably well where work was actually completed, with reviewers noting quick diagnosis, technical explanations, and thorough follow-through, but the failed-repair incidents temper confidence in consistent skill delivery.

• Most reviews are older than 5 years; only one review (2019) falls within the past 6 years, making recency-weighted reliability very low. The score should be treated with caution as it may not reflect current business practices.
• The 2017 no-show review includes a disputed account (contractor claimed warranty company canceled; customer says they did not) — this could not be independently verified and was scored conservatively against the contractor.
• The 2018 billing review (9-month delayed charge attempt) is a significant professionalism and trust flag that is not offset by any other billing-related positive reviews.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in rating, detail level, writing style, and specificity, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review pool (9 reviews), the near-total absence of recent reviews (only one from 2019, none from 2020 onward), and meaningful negative incidents across multiple dimensions that prevent a high-confidence positive assessment.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Two reviews (2021, 2018) praise responsiveness, friendliness, and professionalism, with one explicitly noting cost-saving advice. However, a 2017 review reports serious professionalism issues including dishonesty, unauthorized work, and argumentative behavior from the owner, though the installer was competent. The pricing dimension is supported by only one mention of money-saving guidance. Project completion appears adequate in positive reviews but the negative review raises concerns about authorization and scope control. The stark contrast between reviews suggests either inconsistent service quality or potential personnel differences.

• CRITICAL: Extreme rating variance (5.0, 5.0, 1.0) suggests either significant service inconsistency or different personnel delivering vastly different experiences.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are from 2018 and 2021; one highly negative review from 2017. No recent reviews provided to assess current service quality.
• AUTHORIZATION ISSUE: 2017 review explicitly states unauthorized changes made to customer's water softener without consent—potential liability concern.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Negative review specifically criticizes owner's dishonesty and argumentative behavior, while praising installer—suggests management/personnel quality control issue.
• LIMITED DATA: Only 3 reviews total; confidence in any dimension is constrained by small sample size.

This score should be treated with caution due to only 3 reviews with extreme rating variance and recency concerns; the presence of serious professionalism and authorization issues in one review substantially undermines confidence in the overall rating despite positive feedback in others.