Find Nearby Plumbers In Kansas City, Missouri

Climate Control Heating and Cooling demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. The company exhibits pervasive patterns of aggressive upselling, misdiagnosis, and deceptive sales tactics targeting vulnerable populations (elderly, families in crisis). Professionalism is undermined by chronic no-shows, poor communication, unprofessional staff conduct, and high-pressure sales approaches. Pricing is substantially above market rates with documented overcharges (Freon at $200/lb vs. $60-100 market rate; $1500 for routine repairs; $9000+ for unnecessary system replacements). Project completion suffers from incomplete work, failed repairs requiring callbacks, and installation defects. Technical experience is questionable, with multiple independent second opinions contradicting diagnoses and technicians unable to identify or explain problems. The few positive reviews (5 total, mostly pre-2017) are vastly outweighed by 25 negative reviews documenting fraud-like behavior, particularly false claims of CO2 leaks, cracked heat exchangers, and system failures that independent inspections proved non-existent.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of predatory targeting of vulnerable populations (elderly, cancer patients, families in financial distress, medical emergencies) with false diagnoses to justify unnecessary expensive replacements
• CRITICAL: Multiple independent second opinions (fire department, competing HVAC companies, HVAC engineers) directly contradict company diagnoses, suggesting systematic misrepresentation
• CRITICAL: Documented false claims including CO2 leaks, cracked heat exchangers, unsafe systems, and condemned units that were later proven non-existent by qualified third parties
• CRITICAL: Extreme pricing disparity documented: Freon charged at $200/lb when market rate is $60-100; service calls $89-200 for 3-20 minutes of work; unnecessary system replacements quoted at $8000-9000
• CRITICAL: Chronic no-shows, missed appointments, failure to honor service calls despite customer waiting all day
• CRITICAL: Refund promises not honored (documented 2-week+ delays after assurances of expedited refunds)
• CRITICAL: High-pressure sales tactics, fast-talking, manipulation of emotional situations (cancer treatment, financial hardship)
• CRITICAL: Installation defects documented across multiple reviews (improper installation causing leaks, gashes in doors, incorrect thermostat type)
• CRITICAL: Incomplete work and failed repairs requiring multiple callbacks and outside contractors to fix
• CRITICAL: Spam text marketing tactics reported
• CRITICAL: Staff unprofessionalism including rude managers, dismissive attitudes, and lack of accountability
• Positive reviews (5 total) are concentrated in 2012-2019 period; recent reviews (2020-2024) are overwhelmingly negative, suggesting significant deterioration in service quality or business practices
• One positive 2024 review mentions 'Zach' favorably but is isolated among 34 other reviews; insufficient to establish reliability of positive claims

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 35 reviews with consistent, detailed, and corroborated evidence across all dimensions. The score is conservative and may even be generous given the severity and frequency of documented misconduct, including apparent fraud, predatory practices, and systematic misdiagnosis. This company presents significant risk to consumers.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is critically weak, with explicit complaints about rude phone etiquette, poor communication, unresponsiveness to texts and calls, and failure to follow through on commitments. Project completion is severely compromised, evidenced by missed appointments with no-shows, abandoned estimates, and failure to deliver promised follow-up. The single positive review from 2016 praising honesty and follow-through is substantially outweighed by four recent negative reviews spanning 2017–2019 documenting systemic failures. The company appears unable to maintain basic operational standards.

• CRITICAL: Four of five reviews are 1-star ratings with explicit complaints about core business failures (no-shows, unresponsiveness, rude communication). This is not a pattern of isolated incidents but systemic dysfunction.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2017–2019. The single positive review is from 2016 and predates the documented problems. Recent pattern suggests deterioration.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews document failure to respond to texts, calls, and follow-up requests. This indicates operational or management failure.
• OPERATIONAL FAILURE: Website phone number error persisting for months despite multiple notifications suggests lack of attention to basic business operations.
• The 2016 positive review (Patrick's service) contrasts sharply with subsequent reviews, suggesting either staff turnover or inconsistent service delivery.

This WW Score of 32.1 is highly reliable and should be trusted as an accurate reflection of serious, documented service failures. The score is based on explicit evidence from multiple reviews spanning several years, with consistent patterns of poor professionalism and incomplete project delivery. This contractor presents significant risk.

APW Plumbing, Heating & Cooling receives an extremely low WW Score driven by pervasive, multi-dimensional failures documented across a large review base spanning nearly a decade. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of rude office staff, condescending technicians, missed appointments without notice, failure to return calls, and in two documented cases, a convicted thief being sent to customer homes. Pricing is the worst-scoring dimension, with dozens of reviewers independently documenting extreme parts markups (e.g., $20 parts billed at $169+), deceptive upselling, fraudulent warranty reporting to extract out-of-pocket payments, and quotes 2-5x higher than competitors. Project completion is critically poor, with numerous reviews describing abandoned work, systems installed incorrectly and never properly remediated, warranty obligations ignored, and jobs requiring 5-12 return visits without resolution. Technical experience is undermined by documented misdiagnoses, dangerous oversights such as missed furnace heat exchanger cracks, incorrect installations, and technicians lacking proper tools — though a minority of positive reviews do praise individual technicians by name for competent work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 pairs of near-identical reviews were submitted (e.g., the 'heat exchanger cracks' review appears twice with dates 2022-10-08 and 2023-06-10; the 'Beware scam' review appears twice dated 2019-12-20; the Tyler/mom AC review appears twice dated 2019-07-22 and 2019-07-23). These duplicates were counted only once per unique incident for scoring purposes.
• SUSPECTED FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: A cluster of 5-star reviews from 2014-03-08 through 2014-03-14 are extremely brief, generic, and submitted within days of each other with no specific details ('Great.', 'went very well', 'Arrived on time and was reasonably priced'). One reviewer explicitly alleges APW offered a $300 refund in exchange for a 5-star review, and another flags two simultaneous 5-star Yelp reviews from San Francisco as suspicious. Positive review confidence is reduced accordingly.
• EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT: Two separate reviews (2014-01-30 and 2015-07-27) document APW knowingly employing a convicted thief who stole jewelry from customers. Court proceedings confirmed APW admitted awareness of the employee's criminal record.
• PATTERN OF WARRANTY FRAUD: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe APW submitting false or inflated reports to home warranty companies, failing to submit paperwork at all, and pressuring customers to pay out-of-pocket for items covered under warranty — a consistent pattern suggesting systemic deceptive business practices.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023-2024) continue to reflect the same negative patterns as older reviews, indicating no meaningful improvement in service quality over time. The single 2024 review is a 1-star complaint about service abandonment.
• REVIEW DATE RANGE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2024. The majority of substantive reviews are from 2018-2023. Older reviews (pre-2016) skew more positive but are outweighed by volume and specificity of negative reviews in recent years.

This WW Score is based on 125 reviews with HIGH confidence — the large volume of detailed, independently corroborating negative reviews across multiple dimensions and years makes this score highly reliable, and the true performance of this contractor is almost certainly at or below the calculated score of 28.4.

Bob Hamilton Plumbing, Heating & Cooling receives a critically low WW Score of 28.4, driven by severe deficiencies across all dimensions. The company exhibits pervasive patterns of deceptive pricing practices, with quotes routinely 5-10x higher than competitors for identical work, aggressive upselling tactics, and frequent misdiagnosis to justify unnecessary repairs. Project completion is severely compromised by chronic no-shows, missed appointments, failure to follow through on promised callbacks, and incomplete work. Professionalism is undermined by poor communication, unresponsiveness to customer concerns, dishonest claims about attempted contact, and aggressive sales pressure. While individual technicians occasionally demonstrate competence, systemic issues in business practices, accountability, and customer service create an overwhelmingly negative experience.

• PATTERN OF FRAUDULENT DIAGNOSIS: Multiple independent reviews document cases where Bob Hamilton technicians recommended expensive repairs (heat exchanger replacement $8k-$20k, sewer line replacement $9.8k-$15k, furnace motor $1,643) that were later found to be unnecessary or false by competing plumbers or warranty inspectors. This pattern suggests either systemic incompetence or intentional deception.
• CHRONIC NO-SHOW PROBLEM: At least 15 reviews explicitly document scheduled appointments where technicians failed to appear, with no advance notice or callback. Several customers report being given 4-6 hour windows and waiting all day with no contact.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING & FEAR-BASED SALES: Multiple reviews describe technicians using scare tactics (CO2 leaks, system failures, structural damage) to pressure customers into expensive upgrades or replacements, often contradicted by second opinions.
• PRICING MANIPULATION: Consistent pattern of quotes 200-400% above market rate for identical services. Examples: $935 for spigot replacement (45 min), $1,590 vs $130-$500 for sink/disposal install, $450 for 3 electrical outlets, $2,600 for water heater installation with no itemization.
• LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY: Numerous reports of promised manager callbacks that never occur, refusal to provide itemized receipts, failure to honor warranty claims, and avoidance of customers after poor service.
• DECEPTIVE SERVICE AGREEMENTS: Multiple complaints about aggressive enrollment in monthly service plans ($25/month) with repeated unwanted follow-up calls and difficulty canceling, even after explicit customer requests.
• INCOMPLETE & DEFECTIVE WORK: Reports of incomplete sewer line replacements (stopped 8-10 feet short), broken equipment during service (AC unit), improper installations violating manufacturer specifications, and damage to property (gutters, drywall) without proper remediation.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are from 2019-2024 (past 5 years), with particularly high concentration in 2023-2024, suggesting ongoing systemic problems rather than historical issues.
• POSITIVE REVIEW ANOMALY: Only 5 five-star reviews among 100 total, with 3 appearing generic and 2 mentioning specific technicians (Amy, Eric, Matt, Sam) by name. The overwhelming majority of positive feedback is technician-specific rather than company-wide, suggesting individual excellence cannot overcome systemic company failures.
• BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews reference filing BBB complaints, indicating formal escalation of disputes.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 42-72 mentions each) and reflects a company with severe, systemic problems in pricing transparency, project completion, and professional conduct. The consistency of complaints across 100 reviews spanning multiple years, geographic areas, and service types (plumbing, HVAC, electrical) indicates these are not isolated incidents but rather core business practices. This score should be trusted as a strong warning against using this company.

This contractor's review profile is overwhelmingly negative, with three of four reviews describing serious failures including taking deposits and abandoning jobs, not returning to complete promised work, and failing to answer calls or communicate. The single positive review praises friendliness, short-notice availability, and fair pricing, but it is outnumbered and outweighed by detailed, specific accounts of misconduct. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating work was never finished after payment was collected. Professionalism scores are near the floor due to repeated no-shows, ghosting, and broken promises across multiple independent accounts.

• SUSPECTED FAKE POSITIVE REVIEW: One reviewer explicitly alleges that the single positive review on the profile was written by the contractor's wife. This is a serious credibility concern and the positive review should be treated with extreme skepticism.
• DEPOSIT FRAUD PATTERN: Two separate reviewers describe paying deposits and having the contractor take the money without starting or completing the work — a pattern consistent with fraudulent business practices.
• GHOSTING PATTERN: Multiple reviewers report the contractor stopped answering calls and texts after receiving payment, suggesting a deliberate pattern rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews are from 2021–2022. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, so current business behavior cannot be assessed. The score reflects historical data only.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. While the WW Score is calculated, it should be treated with caution due to the small sample size.

This WW Score has LIMITED overall reliability due to the very small review sample (4 reviews), a credibly alleged fake positive review, and all data being more than 12 months old — however, the severity and specificity of the negative reviews make the low score directionally trustworthy.

This contractor exhibits a severe and irreconcilable pattern of contradictory performance across reviews spanning 13 years. Recent positive reviews (2011, 2016, 2022) consistently praise professionalism, communication, punctuality, and workmanship quality. However, three damaging reviews from 2012–2013 describe catastrophic project failures including incomplete work, basement flooding, refusal to return for callbacks, threats of liens, and refusal of refunds. The pricing review (2018) documents labor rates significantly above market expectations. The extreme polarity—five 5-star reviews versus three 1-star reviews with serious allegations—combined with the 13-year span and absence of recent negative feedback makes reliable scoring impossible. The allegations of property damage and non-completion are severe enough to warrant serious concern regardless of positive testimonials.

• CRITICAL: Extreme review polarity with serious allegations. Three reviews (2012–2013) describe catastrophic failures: incomplete main line repair, basement flooding, refusal to complete work, threats of liens, and refusal of refunds. These are not minor complaints but claims of significant property damage and breach of contract.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most damaging reviews are 11–13 years old (2012–2013). Recent reviews (2016–2022) are uniformly positive. This could indicate genuine business improvement, but the severity of past allegations cannot be dismissed by time alone.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY PATTERN: Positive reviews praise efficiency, cleanliness, and communication. Negative reviews describe abandonment of work and threats. This suggests either: (a) highly variable service quality, (b) fake positive reviews, or (c) fake negative reviews. Without independent verification, trustworthiness is severely compromised.
• PRICING COMPLAINT: One review documents $160/hour labor rate charged for faucet work, described as excessive for a home-based operation. No other pricing data available to contextualize.
• INSUFFICIENT RECENT DATA: Only 2 reviews from past 5 years (2022, 2016). Cannot reliably assess current business practices or whether past issues have been resolved.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to irreconcilable contradictions in review content and the severity of unresolved allegations regarding property damage and non-completion. The extreme polarity, 13-year span, and lack of recent negative feedback create ambiguity about current reliability. Potential customers should request references, verify insurance/licensing, and obtain detailed written contracts before engaging this contractor.