Find Nearby Plumbers In Kansas City, Missouri

Reddi Services has a large and broadly positive review base, with the majority of customers praising individual technicians — particularly Matt H, Matt Mattox, Bryant, Pepe, Gerald, Damion, Daniel, and others — for being knowledgeable, professional, courteous, and effective. The experience and professionalism dimensions are well-supported by hundreds of specific, detailed reviews. However, a meaningful and recurring pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down the scores: scheduling failures (no-shows, missed windows, no callbacks), pricing complaints (described as expensive, overpriced, or higher than expected), and a handful of serious workmanship or ethics complaints (broken pipes, misdiagnosis, upselling, and one allegation of offering a refund in exchange for review removal) all weigh heavily. The pricing dimension is notably weak, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling the company too expensive or noting surprise at final bills. Project completion is moderately strong when technicians do show up, but the volume of no-show and abandonment complaints prevents a higher score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 4 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the AC midnight emergency review and the Bryant leak review each appear twice within days of each other). This inflates positive review counts and reduces confidence in the authenticity of the review pool.
• REVIEW REMOVAL ALLEGATION: One reviewer (Dec 2024) explicitly states that Reddi Services offered a reimbursement in exchange for removing a negative review, and then failed to follow through. This is a serious ethical flag and suggests possible review manipulation.
• SCHEDULING/NO-SHOW PATTERN: A statistically significant number of negative reviews (15+) describe the same failure mode: confirmed appointments with no technician arrival, no proactive communication, and dismissive responses when customers called to follow up. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviewers across different time periods describe pricing as significantly higher than competitors or higher than quoted, including one reviewer charged $693 for under 30 minutes of labor, and another charged $8,200 for an AC unit that still did not work.
• WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe technicians causing damage (broken pipes, damaged wiring, incorrect installations) and the company refusing accountability. One review describes a septic job done incorrectly with no warranty offered.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These provide no usable data and may artificially inflate the star average.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews analyzed span from approximately 2014 to June 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong individual technician praise alongside persistent scheduling and pricing complaints, suggesting no material improvement in operational reliability.

This WW Score is based on a very large review dataset and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, a credible review-manipulation allegation, and a persistent pattern of scheduling failures and pricing complaints that suggest the customer experience is highly inconsistent depending on which technician is dispatched and whether the company follows through on its commitments.

Quality Plumbing receives strong praise across hundreds of reviews for responsiveness, friendly technicians, and professional demeanor, with many customers citing specific plumbers by name and describing courteous, efficient service. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — spread across many years and locations — describe serious concerns including billing disputes (charging for travel time, rounding up hours, marking up parts significantly), failed diagnoses, abandoned or incomplete work, and rude office staff who hung up on customers. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers describe feeling overcharged, discovering parts were marked up 200-300%, or being billed for time the plumber was not on-site. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews describing jobs left unfinished, return visits that never materialized, or problems that were not resolved after multiple attempts. The experience dimension scores moderately well overall, as most technicians are described as knowledgeable and skilled, but a subset of reviews describe misdiagnoses, amateur-level work, and technicians who could not complete the job.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens dated exactly 2024-09-12, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11, 2018-06-11, 2017-06-11) with very short, generic, undetailed text and all 5-star ratings. This pattern is consistent with bulk review submission and inflates the positive signal. These reviews were counted but treated with reduced evidentiary weight.
• MULTI-LOCATION AGGREGATION RISK — HIGH: Reviews reference locations across at least 8 distinct geographic markets including Seattle WA, Cape Coral/Fort Myers FL, Kansas City MO, Ventura County CA, Honolulu HI, Galveston TX, Denver CO, and Fresno CA. These are almost certainly different businesses operating under the same or similar name 'Quality Plumbing.' Scores reflect the aggregate pool and may not represent any single business accurately.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 30 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive, detailed reviews are from 2020 to 2025, which carry the most weight. Reviews from 2005-2015 are present but represent a smaller share and may reflect different ownership or staffing.
• BILLING COMPLAINTS — RECURRING PATTERN: At least 15 independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe billing practices including charging for drive time, rounding up labor hours, excessive parts markups, and charging for assessments where no work was performed. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, promises to return that were never honored, and supervisors who never called back after complaints. This meaningfully depresses the project completion score.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE FOR A RESTAURANT (Mexican food/tamales) — clearly misattributed and excluded from scoring.
• ONE REVIEW APPEARS TO BE A POLITICAL COMPLAINT about signage outside the business — excluded from scoring as it does not address service quality.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a predictor for any single 'Quality Plumbing' location is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence that reviews from multiple unrelated businesses across the United States have been aggregated together, and that a notable share of 5-star reviews show patterns consistent with fake or bulk submissions.

MVP scores reasonably well on professionalism at the individual technician level, with dozens of reviews praising specific techs as friendly, punctual, communicative, and thorough. However, this is significantly offset by a substantial pattern of no-show appointments, unreturned calls, and poor scheduling follow-through documented across multiple years and multiple reviewers. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while some reviewers praised affordability and transparency, a notable cluster of negative reviews describes deceptive billing practices, charges for work not performed, prices far above competitors, and aggressive upselling — pulling the score down considerably. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were completed well, but recurring themes of abandoned work, return visits required to fix botched jobs, and technicians leaving without completing tasks drag the score below average. Experience scores moderately — individual technicians are frequently praised for technical knowledge, but there are credible accounts of incorrect diagnoses, improper installations, and work that had to be redone by other companies.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A block of approximately 18 reviews dated 2025-06-06 through 2025-06-09 appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates of reviews dated 2025-06-04 through 2025-06-08. Identical review text, identical ratings, and near-identical dates strongly suggest artificial review inflation. These duplicates were counted once each for scoring purposes but flagged as suspicious.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several recent 5-star reviews contain only generic praise with no specifics (e.g., 'Great always helpful', 'Excellent work...Always!', 'They did a great job', 'Great service') and no detail about the work performed. These are consistent with padding patterns.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15 reviews contained no text at all, only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe being quoted prices 2x–4x higher than competitors for identical work, charges for services not rendered, and deceptive membership billing practices. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 8 distinct reviews across multiple years describe technicians who never arrived, appointments that were confirmed but not honored, and no proactive communication from the company. This is a systemic issue.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe installations that failed shortly after completion, incorrect parts installed, work that had to be redone by other companies, and technicians leaving job sites without completing work.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2025. The most recent reviews (2025) skew heavily positive and include the suspected duplicate block. Negative reviews are distributed across all years, suggesting persistent underlying issues rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews and carries HIGH data confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to confirmed duplicate reviews inflating recent positive signals, a consistent multi-year pattern of pricing complaints and no-show incidents, and credible accounts of workmanship failures — the true performance score may be lower than the calculated figure suggests.

A-1 Sewer & Septic has a large and predominantly positive review base, with many customers praising individual technicians by name for being friendly, knowledgeable, communicative, and efficient. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and covering pricing deception, scheduling failures, incomplete work, property damage with no accountability, and rude office staff — significantly tempers the overall scores across all dimensions. Professionalism scores well on average due to the volume of positive technician interactions, but is dragged down by repeated complaints about dismissive office staff, no-shows, and unprofessional conduct from specific technicians. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing bait-and-switch quoting practices, inflated estimates, charges for incomplete work, and prices that tripled or quintupled from initial quotes. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were resolved quickly and thoroughly, but a notable number of reviews describe work that failed within days, jobs left incomplete, and a lack of follow-through or accountability. Experience scores moderately well given the many reviews praising technical skill, though several reviews describe misdiagnoses, failed attempts to clear lines, and damage caused by inexperienced technicians.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., 'Charles was very helpful and friendly...' appears on both 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; 'Timely, honest, thorough...' appears on both 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; 'Great job getting us all cleaned out...' appears on both 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; the long Andrew/Dan review appears on both 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; 'The A-1 Crew were polite...' appears on both 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04; 'Dan was very helpful today...' appears on both 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04). These duplicates were counted only once per unique review for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: The June 2025 batch contains a high density of very short, generic, all-5-star reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Fast service!!! Excellent service!', 'He was great. Very professional', 'Great job', 'Excellent', 'He was very helpful.'). Several blank reviews with 5-star ratings also appear. This pattern is consistent with review padding and confidence in the positive signal from this period is reduced.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS — SIGNIFICANT PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023, 2024) describe bait-and-switch pricing, quotes that multiplied several times over during service, charges for work not completed, and refusal to adjust inflated estimates. This is a recurring and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS — RECURRING PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years describe technicians not arriving during promised windows, being lied to by phone staff about arrival status, and appointments being cancelled or rescheduled without notice. This is a systemic issue reflected across the review history.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE AND ACCOUNTABILITY FAILURES: At least two reviews describe significant property damage caused by technicians (sewage flooding a basement, broken sprinkler system and fence) with the company refusing to accept responsibility or return calls. One reviewer explicitly states the company's insurance denied the claim due to lack of sewage coverage.
• OFFICE STAFF CONDUCT: Multiple reviews spanning 2012 through 2025 specifically call out rude, dismissive, or unhelpful office/phone staff. This is a long-standing and consistent complaint separate from technician quality.
• RECENCY NOTE: The bulk of positive reviews are clustered in 2025 and mid-2024, while the most severe negative reviews span 2014–2024. The recent positive trend may reflect genuine improvement or may be partially inflated by the duplicate and generic review patterns noted above. Older negative reviews carry meaningful weight given their specificity and detail.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH statistical confidence in volume, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by confirmed duplicate reviews, suspected review padding in the most recent period, and a well-documented pattern of serious negative experiences in pricing, scheduling, and accountability that contrasts sharply with the predominantly positive technician-level feedback.

North Star Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise the professionalism, punctuality, and technical skill of named technicians like Rick, Brandon, Aaron, and Ronnie. However, a significant and recurring cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years but continuing into 2024 and 2025 — documents serious project completion failures including no-shows, abandoned jobs, missed appointments, and unresponsive communication, primarily in the context of Lowe's/Handy/Angi subcontracting work. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive by direct customers, but at least two reviewers flagged unexpected charges or overpricing on specific jobs. The dual nature of this contractor — performing well for direct/repeat clients while generating consistent complaints through third-party referral channels — significantly drags down the project completion and professionalism scores. Experience scores remain relatively strong, as most reviewers who received completed work reported skilled, knowledgeable technicians.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews across 2023, 2024, and 2025 describe the same failure mode — installer marks job complete without showing up, claims they could not reach the customer, and provides no verification. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• THIRD-PARTY CHANNEL FAILURES: The majority of negative reviews originate from customers assigned through Lowe's, Handy, or Angi. Direct customers report a markedly better experience. This split suggests the company may be overextended or less accountable when working through intermediaries.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least one review (2024-06-09) explicitly states a faucet was partially installed and never completed despite multiple follow-up attempts. A 2023 review describes a dishwasher reinstall that caused flooding and the owner denying responsibility.
• HIDDEN/UNEXPECTED CHARGES: Two reviews (2019 and 2023) describe being charged significantly more than the quoted or expected price without prior notice, including a $150 charge for a low-cost part and a final bill $155 above the quoted amount.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2007 to 2025. Reviews from 2007–2018 were given reduced weight. The majority of scoreable data comes from 2019–2025, with the most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) showing a mixed but active pattern of both strong praise and serious complaints.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-05-26 and 2025-05-10 share very similar short, generic phrasing with no specific job details. While not conclusive, this warrants mild caution. Several blank-text reviews with 5-star ratings also appear throughout the dataset and were excluded from scoring.
• INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (2024-11-08) alleges an installer made inappropriate personal comments during a job, causing the customer significant distress. This is a serious professionalism concern even if isolated.
• UNSAFE DRIVING ALLEGATION: One review (2024-12-11) alleges a company vehicle nearly caused a road accident. While not directly related to plumbing quality, it reflects on company culture and professionalism.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 18 years, with strong data across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to a well-documented and recurring pattern of service failures in third-party referral contexts — prospective customers using Lowe's or similar platforms should be especially aware of these risks before booking.

Craig Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise prompt response times, courteous technicians, and fair pricing across dozens of reviews spanning nearly a decade. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by a notable cluster of serious negative reviews describing incomplete work, abandoned projects, overcharging, rude behavior, property damage, and at least one incident of a technician publicly shaming a customer on social media. The project completion dimension is particularly impacted by a 1-star review describing a master bath addition left unfinished for months, a review alleging work was done on the wrong pipe, a review claiming the company does not stand behind its work, and a detailed account of a sewer job that failed immediately and caused water damage. Professionalism is similarly mixed, with many glowing accounts of polite and tidy technicians offset by reviews citing stained uniforms, rude attitudes, overcharging, and the egregious social media misconduct by a technician named Jason. Pricing scores moderately well overall but is tempered by complaints about undisclosed minimum labor charges and a $50 charge for a $5 valve.

• 18 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These blank reviews cannot be scored on any dimension and were excluded from dimensional analysis. The volume of blank 5-star reviews is a mild fake review concern.
• Suspected fake or low-quality reviews: Multiple blank 5-star reviews with identical dates (e.g., 2022-06-10, 2024-06-09, 2023-06-10, 2019-06-11) suggest possible review padding or bulk submission. Confidence is slightly reduced for the positive signal.
• Serious misconduct flag: One verified 2025 review describes a technician (Jason) retaliating against a dissatisfied customer by posting photos of the interior of their home on social media and calling it a 'trap house.' A BBB complaint was filed. This is a significant professionalism red flag.
• Project abandonment flag: One review describes a master bath addition where Craig Plumbing failed to respond for months, did not order fixtures, cut new drywall without notifying the homeowner, and never completed the job.
• Workmanship failure flag: One review describes a sewer job that failed within two flushes, caused flooding, and left an A/C drain improperly reinstalled on the roof, resulting in ceiling water damage.
• Recency note: The two most recent reviews (February 2025) are both 1-star and describe serious professionalism and service failures. This is a negative recency signal that warrants caution.
• Most of the strongly positive reviews are from 2020 and earlier. Recent positive reviews exist but are fewer in number relative to the negative ones in the 2024-2025 window.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (87 reviews) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the presence of blank review padding, a serious recent misconduct incident, and multiple credible project failure accounts mean prospective customers should read the negative reviews carefully before hiring.