Find Nearby Plumbers In Independence, Missouri

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews, with critical failures in professionalism and project completion offsetting demonstrated technical skill. The 2024 review documents catastrophic project failure, complete communication breakdown, and refusal to address $70-100k in damages—a pattern corroborated by a 2019 BBB complaint with identical non-responsiveness. Two older positive reviews (2018-2019) praise workmanship and problem-solving, but cannot overcome recent evidence of abandonment and legal threats. The stark polarization between glowing testimonials and severe failure accounts suggests either dramatic service degradation or potential review manipulation.

• CRITICAL: Most recent review (2024-03-07) documents severe project failure, non-responsiveness, blocked communications, and potential legal action. This is a major red flag.
• PATTERN ALERT: 2019 BBB complaint describes identical behavior (non-responsiveness after payment). This suggests systemic issue, not isolated incident.
• RECENCY BIAS: Positive reviews are 4-6 years old (2018-2020). Most recent substantive review is catastrophically negative (2024).
• POLARIZATION: Extreme split between 1-star (catastrophic failure, non-responsiveness) and 5-star (exceptional work) reviews with no middle ground. This pattern warrants caution.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: The 2020 and 2019 positive reviews use generic praise language ('best experience I've ever had', 'exceptional company', 'go above and beyond') with minimal specific detail. However, the 2019 review does contain specific details (Servpro comparison, sump pump fix in 10 minutes), reducing suspicion.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Multiple reviews explicitly mention non-responsiveness, blocked calls, and refusal to provide insurance information—critical professionalism failures.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 5 reviews, the extreme recency shift from positive (2018-2020) to catastrophic failure (2024), combined with corroborating BBB complaint and documented legal threats, suggests significant deterioration in service quality. The WW Score reflects current risk profile, but the 2024 evidence of project abandonment and communication breakdown is the most reliable indicator of present-day performance.

Du-All exhibits significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While some technicians demonstrate professionalism and competent workmanship (earning 5-star reviews), multiple recent and historical reviews document serious issues: rude management behavior, poor follow-up on callbacks, quality failures requiring re-work, aggressive upselling tactics, and pricing disputes. The 2024 review reveals current management problems with a service manager who was hostile and dismissive. Pricing concerns appear across multiple reviews, with customers reporting excessive charges, hidden fees, and aggressive upsells for unnecessary services. Project completion suffers from delayed callbacks, incomplete follow-through, and work that failed within months. The company shows a pattern of inconsistent service quality dependent on which technician is assigned.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2024, 2014, 2013) document aggressive, rude, and dismissive behavior from management and service staff, including yelling, hanging up on customers, and refusing to listen to customer concerns.
• PATTERN OF UPSELLING: At least 5 reviews explicitly describe aggressive upselling of unnecessary services (backflushing, system rejuvenation, drain replacement, filter upgrades) with inflated pricing ($2,800-$19,500 quotes later proven unnecessary).
• QUALITY FAILURES: Multiple reviews report work that failed within weeks to months (toilet flapper/fill valve lasted 6 months, drains backed up repeatedly after expensive 'fixes'), suggesting poor workmanship or inappropriate solutions.
• CALLBACK/FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 3 reviews document failure to return calls, broken promises to call back, and lack of follow-through on refunds or warranty issues.
• PRICING DISPUTES: Consistent pattern of quoted prices not matching final bills, hidden charges, and customers reporting they were charged significantly more than competitors for identical work.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2012-2015, but the most recent review (2024-01-16) documents current management problems, suggesting issues persist.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Multiple reviews marked 'unknown' with 5-star ratings (2016, 2015) and one review containing only '.' with 5-star rating (2015) suggest possible fake positive reviews padding the record.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews praising specific technicians (Will, Slim, James, Chip) and 1-star reviews describing the same company as 'crooks' and untrustworthy, indicating highly variable service quality.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 33 reviews with adequate mention counts, the data reveals a company with severe internal inconsistency, documented management problems, and a pattern of customer complaints about pricing practices and work quality. The presence of suspicious fake reviews and the stark polarization between 5-star and 1-star ratings (no middle ground) further reduces confidence. Recent 2024 review confirms current management issues persist. Customers should seek independent verification and multiple quotes before engaging this company.

C&C Mechanical presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with three of five reviewers explicitly describing charges as excessive, opaque, or inconsistent with what was quoted — including one reviewer paying $627 to replace a $50 faucet and another seeing a $140 job balloon to $440. Project completion is also a significant concern, with two reviewers describing work that was not fully resolved on the first visit and one noting a sink stopper was left non-functional after service. Professionalism scores slightly higher due to two positive reviews praising technician demeanor, punctuality, and tidiness, but these are offset by complaints about a technician taking excessive time and an owner who was perceived as dismissive when disputes arose. Experience scores reflect a similar split — one reviewer praised knowledgeable and efficient service, while others described slow diagnosis, inability to locate a shutoff valve, and a drain clog that recurred the next day.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• Significant recency gap: two of the five reviews are from 2016 and 2020, which are well outside the 12-month recency window. Only two reviews (2024) are recent. The older reviews are given reduced weight in interpretation.
• The two positive reviews (5-star) are notably more generic in praise compared to the detailed negative reviews, though they do include some specific details (booties, coupons, water softener install) so fake review risk is LOW but noted.
• Three of five reviews describe billing disputes or price escalation beyond the original quote — this is a recurring pattern that warrants serious attention.
• One reviewer explicitly states a sink stopper was left non-functional after the service call, indicating incomplete work was delivered.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 8 years, with just 2 recent reviews from 2024, making it LOW reliability — the score directionally suggests pricing and project completion concerns but should not be treated as a definitive assessment of current performance.

All About Comfort Heating and Cooling has an overwhelmingly negative review profile across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of rude, aggressive, and dismissive behavior from the owner James and office staff, with only a small handful of positive reviews describing courteous and professional technicians. Project completion is a critical failure point, with multiple reviewers documenting unfinished work, abandoned jobs, incorrect installations causing safety hazards including a carbon monoxide risk and a gas leak, and a pattern of refusing to honor callbacks or warranty visits. Technical experience scores are very low due to documented instances of dangerous workmanship including overfilling refrigerant, incorrect drain line installation, sparking fan motor installations, and failure to diagnose root-cause HVAC issues. Pricing received the lowest score of any dimension, with one reviewer documenting part markups of over 21 times retail cost and a charge for a part that was not even broken. The few positive reviews are significantly outweighed by the volume and severity of the negative accounts.

• SAFETY CONCERN: Multiple reviews allege dangerous workmanship including an unattached carbon monoxide vent pipe, a gas line leak caused during installation, and a fan motor installation that caused sparking and tripped the main breaker — posing serious risk of fire, explosion, or carbon monoxide poisoning.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONED/INCOMPLETE WORK: At least four reviews explicitly state the company left jobs unfinished, failed to return for scheduled warranty visits, or refused to come back to fix problems they caused.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews specifically name the owner (James) as being aggressive, dismissive, argumentative, and unwilling to accept responsibility for documented errors.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most recent reviews (March 2024) are both 1-star and describe active unresolved problems, suggesting the negative pattern has continued through the most recent period. The positive reviews are largely from 2017–2021 and are outnumbered by negative reviews in every time period.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW CONCERN: The positive reviews are few (5 out of 16) and while some are brief and generic (e.g., 'Quick, courteous and really know what they are doing'), others contain specific names and details. No strong evidence of coordinated fake positive reviews, but the contrast between the brief positives and the highly detailed negatives is notable.
• WARRANTY COMPANY CONTEXT: Several negative reviews involve jobs dispatched through home warranty companies, which may limit the contractor's accountability and create conflicts of interest that affect service quality.

This WW Score of 28.1 is based on 16 reviews with strong data across all four dimensions and should be considered highly reliable as a warning signal — the volume, specificity, and severity of negative reviews, including documented safety hazards, create a consistent and credible pattern of poor performance.

This contractor's review record is overwhelmingly negative across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is catastrophically low, with repeated no-shows, missed appointments, unreturned calls, full voicemail boxes, rude or indifferent technicians, and excuses ranging from family deaths to diarrhea cited across nearly every review. Project completion is nearly nonexistent — the vast majority of jobs were either abandoned, never started, or left in worse condition than before, with technicians frequently leaving without completing work and never returning. Experience scores are also extremely poor, with multiple reviewers describing technicians as young, untrained, unable to diagnose basic problems, and in one case apparently intoxicated; there is one isolated positive note about the owner's competence, but this is far outweighed by consistent incompetence from field staff. Pricing received a marginally higher score only because one early review was positive and a few others noted transparent estimates, but several reviews describe deceptive billing practices, inflated quotes, and alleged fraud against both customers and home warranty companies.

• 18 out of 19 reviews are 1-star; the single 5-star review (2021-03-22) is notably generic in praise and stands in extreme contrast to all other reviews — it may be authentic but should be treated with caution given the pattern.
• Multiple reviews describe what appears to be systematic fraud: closing repair tickets falsely as completed, lying to home warranty companies (AHS, HSA, AHS) about job status, misrepresenting parts and conditions to deny coverage, and inflating quotes to extract cash payments.
• One reviewer explicitly states the company is under investigation by the Kansas Attorney General's office.
• One reviewer warns that the company does not pay subcontractors, resulting in mechanics liens placed on customer homes.
• A strong pattern of identical complaint types across reviews (no-shows, no callbacks, full voicemail, inexperienced technicians, work left incomplete) suggests systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• Several reviews reference the same young/inexperienced technician across different jobs, suggesting severely understaffed or undertrained field crew.
• Review dates span 2018–2021 with no improvement trend over time; the most recent negative reviews are as severe as the earliest ones.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months relative to a 2025 analysis date; no recent reviews are available to assess current performance.

This WW Score of 18.7 is based on 19 reviews with strong cross-dimensional evidence and HIGH confidence across all dimensions, and should be treated as a highly reliable indicator of extremely poor contractor performance.

All three reviews are strongly negative, painting a consistent picture of a contractor with serious deficiencies across every measured dimension. Pricing is the most damaging area, with two reviewers citing extreme overcharging — including $1,900 for a shut-off valve and a misrepresented stopper replacement — and one reviewer describing a total bill of $2,287 for work that was left functionally broken. Professionalism scores near zero due to an installer re-entering a home without consent, a company that repeatedly failed to return calls, and a reviewer describing the business outright as 'thieves.' Project completion is marginally the least catastrophic dimension, but still deeply problematic — a sump pump that failed on first use, a water softener bypassed entirely, and a week-long delay to address a known defect all indicate severe follow-through failures. Experience scores low based on the water softener plumbing error and the sump pump malfunction, both suggesting inadequate technical execution.

• All three reviews are 1-star ratings — while this could reflect genuine poor performance, the small sample size (3 reviews) means the score should be treated with caution.
• The oldest review dates to 2018, making it over 5 years old. Only one review falls within the past 3 years (2022). Recency is limited and the contractor's current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data alone.
• No positive reviews were provided for analysis. It is possible this sample is not representative of the contractor's full review history. Score should be interpreted in that context.
• One review describes a contractor re-entering a property without consent and removing completed work — this is a serious legal and ethical concern that warrants independent verification before engaging this contractor.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all negative and spanning several years, which limits statistical reliability — however, the consistency and specificity of the complaints across pricing, professionalism, and project completion lend credibility to the low score.