Find Nearby Plumbers In O'Fallon, Missouri

Mounts Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism and project completion being the most heavily documented failures. Reviewers consistently describe technicians failing to show up for appointments, abandoning jobs mid-service, blocking customer phone numbers, and leaving homes with active damage including holes in walls, shattered pipes, and water-damaged flooring. Project completion is catastrophically poor — multiple reviewers describe work that was never finished, plumbers who left without notice, and a company that refused to return to correct damage they caused. Experience scores marginally higher only because one positive review and one partial-positive review describe a skilled master plumber named Matt, but the broader pattern shows technicians who lacked proper tools, misdiagnosed problems, and caused additional damage through negligence. Pricing data is limited but one reviewer noted being quoted a price that was undercut by a competitor using a standard off-the-shelf part, and another was left with a higher bill from a second company after Mounts abandoned the job.

• Two reviews (2020-05-17 and 2020-05-18) are nearly identical in content — one is explicitly stated to be posted on behalf of the reviewer's mother, who is the same customer. These appear to be the same incident posted twice by two related individuals. Both were counted but treated as a single incident for scoring purposes to avoid double-weighting.
• The sole 5-star review (2019-08-14) is extremely generic with no specific details about the job, technician, or nature of work. It reads as a possible fake or solicited review and was given minimal weight in scoring.
• A strong pattern of call-blocking customers, hiding from customers at the office, and refusing to respond to warranty companies suggests systemic and deliberate avoidance of accountability — not isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews reference the company being assigned through home warranty providers (AHS, HSA, home warranty companies), suggesting the business may rely on captive referrals rather than earned reputation, reducing incentive for quality service.
• Most reviews are from 2018–2021. No reviews from 2022 or later are present. The score reflects historical performance and may not represent current operations, but the recency of the most recent reviews (2021) is still within a relevant window.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews with strong dimensional coverage across all four categories, and the overwhelmingly consistent negative pattern across independent reviewers gives HIGH confidence that this score accurately reflects the contractor's performance during the reviewed period.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Two detailed negative reviews from 2022–2023 document critical failures: gas line leaks posing safety hazards, failed inspections, scratched fixtures, no-shows, broken promises on reimbursement, and use of unlicensed/unprofessional practices. One positive review from 2020 praising pricing and timeliness is contradicted by the later reviews and lacks specificity. The extreme disparity and recency of damaging evidence (within past 2 years) strongly suggests deterioration in service quality or potential review authenticity issues.

• CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE: Gas line leak reported that could have caused property explosion — this is a life-safety failure.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPECTED: The 5-star review (2020) uses generic praise ('Great company!', 'Highly recommend') with no specific details, contrasts sharply with two detailed negative reviews, and is significantly older (3+ years). Pattern suggests potential self-review.
• FINANCIAL DISPUTE: Customer reports $30k paid with promised reimbursement never delivered — indicates breach of contract.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One review explicitly states 'Not licenced' — if accurate, this is a legal/regulatory violation.
• INSPECTION FAILURES: Multiple failed plumbing inspections documented; inspector noted shock at work quality.
• RECENCY BIAS: Two highly credible negative reviews are recent (2022–2023); positive review is 3+ years old and generic.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient data (only 3 reviews) and suspected fake review contamination; however, the two detailed, recent negative reviews documenting safety failures, inspection failures, and breach of contract provide strong evidence of serious service deficiencies that warrant extreme caution. This contractor should not be hired without independent verification and licensing confirmation.

Only two reviews are available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The first review (2017) praises a specific technician named Ryan for attention to detail and communication, contributing positively to professionalism and experience scores. The second review (2015) is a detailed and credible negative account describing a dispatcher who refused to schedule service despite advertised 24/7 availability, significantly dragging down professionalism, project completion, and pricing scores. The stark contrast between the two reviews — one glowing, one scathing — produces averaged scores that may not reflect the contractor's true performance in either direction. With only two data points spanning different years, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. A minimum of 3 reviews is required for a reliable WW Score. Results should not be used for decision-making.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are older than 7 years (2015 and 2017). No recent reviews are available, meaning current service quality is entirely unknown.
• ADVERTISED SERVICE MISMATCH: The negative review explicitly documents that the company advertises 24/7 service but a dispatcher refused to honor that commitment, which is a potential deceptive advertising concern.
• DISPATCHER CONDUCT: The negative review describes a dispatcher who refused to schedule service despite technician availability and a customer willing to pay, which is a significant operational and professionalism red flag.
• SCORE RELIABILITY: All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-mention or two-mention evidence bases. These scores should be treated as directional indicators only, not reliable assessments.

This WW Score report is not reliable for decision-making — only 2 reviews were available, both are over 7 years old, and all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence based on minimal evidence.

Both reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of poor performance across all dimensions. Professionalism was severely lacking — the contractor arrived late across multiple visits, exhibited upselling behavior after quoting a price over the phone, and required customer assistance during installation. Project completion was critically poor — the faucet installation required three visits, the garbage disposal was left in a worse state than found (with plastic bags left inside the unit), and a separate review describes a repair that failed within one month. Pricing raised red flags in both reviews, with one describing a bait-and-switch dynamic (low phone quote followed by on-site price escalation) and the other noting a $213 charge for an incomplete fix. Experience scores were extremely low given the technician failed to check the disposal after installation, left debris inside the unit, and performed a repair that did not hold.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• Both reviews are dated between 2014 and 2016, making them 8–10 years old. These scores reflect historical performance only and may not represent current service quality.
• Bait-and-switch pricing pattern detected: contractor quoted a price by phone then attempted to escalate cost on-site citing job difficulty.
• Technician left foreign debris (plastic bags) inside the garbage disposal after installation — a significant workmanship and safety concern.
• Repair failure within 30 days noted in second review, suggesting substandard fix quality.
• No reviews with positive sentiment present — score is based entirely on negative feedback, which may reflect selection bias but is all available data.

This score carries very low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, both of which are over 8 years old, making it impossible to draw confident conclusions about the contractor's current performance.

With only two reviews, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The two reviews present a sharply divided picture: one customer (2024) paid for a repair that did not fix the problem and found the contractor unresponsive to follow-up, while the other customer (2019) praised the contractor's honesty and courteous communication, though no actual repair was completed in that case either. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, as neither review documents a successfully completed repair. The 2024 review is the more recent and more damaging data point, describing a contractor who collected payment without delivering results and then became evasive.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The two reviews are approximately 5 years apart (2019 and 2024), making trend assessment impossible.
• The positive 2019 review, while genuine in tone, did not involve a completed repair — the customer chose not to proceed. This limits its value as evidence of workmanship quality.
• The 2024 review describes a potential pattern of concern: charging for incomplete work and avoiding follow-up callbacks, which is a significant red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews appear authentic with specific, distinct details.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews spanning 5 years and should not be considered a reliable assessment of this contractor's overall quality; significantly more review data is required before any confident hiring decision can be made.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a statistically meaningful WW Score. The two reviews present extreme polarity: one 5-star generic praise from 2012 with minimal specifics, and one detailed 1-star complaint from 2009 documenting multiple serious failures including incomplete work, lack of accountability, and poor attitude. The extreme age of both reviews (13+ years old) and the stark contradiction between them prevent reliable scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• EXTREME RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are older than 12 years (2009 and 2012). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• EXTREME POLARITY: One generic 5-star review with no specifics vs. one detailed 1-star review with documented failures. This suggests either significant business change over time or inconsistent service quality.
• FIRST REVIEW LACKS SPECIFICITY: The 2012 review contains only generic praise ('gentleman,' 'polite,' 'clean,' 'nice work') with no concrete examples or details. Raises minor concern about authenticity but insufficient evidence to flag as fake.
• SECOND REVIEW HIGHLY CREDIBLE: The 2009 review is extremely detailed with specific incidents (washer/dryer failure, toilet leak, water damage, attitude issues), dates, and financial impact ($1200). This level of detail suggests genuine customer experience.

This score cannot be calculated and should not be used for decision-making. With only 2 reviews, both older than 12 years, and contradictory in nature, there is insufficient reliable data to assess current contractor performance. A minimum of 3 recent reviews is required; ideally 5+ reviews from the past 12 months for trustworthy scoring.