Find Nearby Plumbers In O'Fallon, Missouri

This contractor's review pool is deeply polarized: a cluster of recent 2025 reviews (many from what appears to be a single business entity operating as Precision Planbing Solutions) are overwhelmingly positive, while a large and detailed body of older reviews — spanning 2011 through 2024 — documents severe, recurring failures across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most damaged dimension, with dozens of explicit accounts of rude technicians, no-call no-shows, rude office staff, and outright dishonest behavior toward customers. Project completion is critically undermined by repeated reports of abandoned jobs, unresolved issues, missed appointments, and work that made problems worse. Pricing concerns are serious and specific, with multiple reviewers alleging deliberate manipulation of home warranty claims to extract out-of-pocket payments or deny coverage — a pattern consistent across many independent accounts spanning several years. Experience scores are mixed: a handful of reviewers praised knowledgeable technicians, but a comparable number described technicians who Googled repairs on-site, misdiagnosed problems repeatedly, or admitted they could not perform basic plumbing tasks.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR SOLICITED REVIEWS: A large cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-06/07 contain either no text at all or extremely brief, generic praise with no specifics. Multiple blank-text reviews with 5-star ratings on the same dates are a strong indicator of review manipulation or solicited ratings.
• DUAL BUSINESS IDENTITY: Reviews reference at least two distinct business names — 'American Plumbing Solutions' and 'Precision Plumbing Solutions' — with different technician names (Ken, Brian, Jamie vs. Chad, Kent, Mark, Ricky). These may be separate businesses whose reviews have been aggregated, which significantly undermines the reliability of any composite score.
• SYSTEMATIC HOME WARRANTY FRAUD PATTERN: At least 15 independent reviewers across multiple years describe an identical scheme: technicians misrepresent findings to home warranty companies to deny claims, then offer to perform the same work out-of-pocket at inflated prices. This pattern is too consistent and specific to dismiss as coincidence.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The majority of positive reviews are from 2025 and lack substantive detail, while the majority of negative reviews are from 2016–2024 and contain extensive, specific, credible accounts. Scoring weighted toward recency would artificially inflate the score.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two review pairs appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., the two 1-star reviews dated 2021-02-25 and 2021-03-22 with nearly identical text, and the two 1-star reviews dated 2017-03-21 with identical text). These were counted as single mentions per dimension.
• 25 reviews contained no text and were excluded from dimensional scoring but counted in total review tally.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution: the review pool shows strong evidence of review manipulation via blank 5-star submissions, a possible dual-business identity problem, and a well-documented multi-year pattern of fraudulent home warranty claim handling that materially affects all four scoring dimensions — the true performance score for the negative-review entity is likely far lower than 42, while the Precision Plumbing entity referenced in 2025 reviews may be a legitimately different and better-performing business.

Tony and Premier Water and Sewer Services receive strong praise for responsiveness, friendliness, and technical capability in two of the three reviews, including handling a complex job that other contractors could not solve. However, a serious 1-star review from 2018 describes a contractor who disappeared after payment, failed to complete the job over a two-month period, and repeatedly broke promises — a significant project completion failure that heavily drags down the overall score. Pricing was mentioned positively in one review as competitive and fair, but with only a single mention this carries very limited confidence. The mixed record on project completion is the most concerning dimension and is the primary driver of score reduction. With only three total reviews spanning six years, the dataset is too small to draw firm conclusions about consistent performance.

• Only 3 reviews total — dataset is extremely small and scores should be treated with significant caution.
• The 1-star review from 2018 describes a serious project abandonment: contractor accepted payment and failed to complete the job for over two months despite repeated promises. This is a critical red flag.
• Review recency is uneven: two positive reviews are from 2022 and 2024, while the negative review is from 2018. The older negative review may reflect past behavior that has since improved, but cannot be dismissed given the small sample size.
• No patterns of fake reviews detected, but the two positive reviews are somewhat generic in praise and lack granular detail about specific work performed.

This WW Score has very low reliability due to the extremely small review sample (only 3 reviews), a wide date range spanning six years, and a single but severe project abandonment complaint that cannot be offset by just two positive reviews.

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is significantly dragged down by three separate reviews citing failure to return calls or follow up on quote requests — a serious and recurring responsiveness problem. The two positive professionalism signals (showing up on time, completing jobs as promised) come from older reviews dated 2017 and earlier. Pricing and experience scores are more favorable but rest on very few mentions and older reviews, limiting their reliability. Project completion is mixed: positive reviews praise on-time delivery and meeting bid prices, but the responsiveness failures mean some customers never even reached the project stage. Overall, the pattern suggests a contractor that performs well for customers it does engage with, but has a notable and documented problem with initial responsiveness.

• Three out of six reviews are 1–2 star ratings specifically citing no callback or failure to respond — this is a consistent and credible negative pattern, not an outlier.
• All reviews are older than 12 months; the most recent review is from February 2019, meaning there is no data from the past several years. Current performance is unknown.
• Positive reviews lack specific detail in some cases (e.g., 'great job, highly recommend' with no elaboration), which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though they do not appear to be fake.
• Small sample size of only 6 reviews limits the reliability of all dimension scores. Treat all scores as directional estimates only.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the sample size is very small, all reviews are over 5 years old, and a recurring responsiveness failure documented across multiple independent reviews meaningfully undermines the professionalism score.

The review set presents a deeply mixed picture of Royal Flush Plumbing. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is significantly dragged down by two explicit negative accounts: one reviewer describes a rude and unprofessional response when disputing an overcharge, and another describes repeated rescheduling followed by a referral to a competitor with no prior notice. Pricing is similarly mixed — one reviewer praises good pricing and another long-term customer expresses trust around cost, but the first reviewer explicitly documents being billed $100 over the provided estimate with no satisfactory explanation, which is a serious transparency concern. Project completion is hurt by the rescheduling review, where work was never completed and the customer was ultimately redirected elsewhere. Experience scores somewhat better, with two reviewers describing Ben as skilled and trustworthy, but the small sample limits confidence.

• Three of the five reviews are older than 12 months, with two reviews dating back to 2017–2018 and one to 2019. These older reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• The most recent reviews (2022) include the most detailed negative feedback, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Recency weighting applied — negative recent reviews carry more weight.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, which supports authenticity.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews significantly limits the reliability of all dimension scores. Confidence is inherently constrained regardless of mention counts.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the sample of 5 reviews is too small to draw firm conclusions, the most recent reviews skew negative, and the score reflects genuine documented concerns around billing transparency, rescheduling, and unprofessional communication.

The review set is deeply divided, with 4 negative reviews and 2 positive ones, producing low scores across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension: multiple reviewers cite poor communication, a no-show appointment, rude responses to complaints, and an owner described as sending snarky or bullying emails to customers who left honest negative feedback. Pricing drew explicit criticism from two reviewers who described inflated charges and a $150 fee for 15 minutes of work with nothing accomplished. Project completion is mixed — one detailed 5-star review describes a large job completed on time and to spec, but this is offset by reviews describing abandoned appointments, second-rate work, and unresolved issues. Experience scores slightly higher due to one substantive positive review praising skilled, seasoned workers, but negative reviews describing flawed workmanship and unresolved defects pull the score down considerably.

• The two 5-star reviews contain notably generic and enthusiastic praise ('I can't say enough about this company', 'should absolutely be your first choice') with limited specific technical detail, which warrants mild fake review suspicion for the 2021 review in particular.
• The owner appears to respond defensively or aggressively to negative reviews based on explicit mention in one review, which is a credibility and professionalism concern.
• Review recency concern: Only 2 of 6 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023 and 2021). The remaining 4 reviews date from 2017–2019, meaning recent performance data is very limited.
• The 1-star review from 2023 references a disputed contractor response, suggesting an ongoing pattern of conflict between the business and dissatisfied customers.
• Small sample size of 6 reviews limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to the small review sample, a significant recency gap in the data, and a strongly polarized review pattern that makes it difficult to establish a consistent baseline for current performance.

The reviews present a deeply mixed picture of this contractor. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is dragged down significantly by a rude front-desk interaction, repeated unanswered messages, and a general lack of responsiveness noted across multiple reviews — though two positive reviews do highlight courteous and communicative technicians. Pricing is a notable concern, with one reviewer explicitly calling out overcharges and suspicious disposal fees, while another reviewer provided context suggesting some fees are set by home warranty companies rather than the contractor. Project completion is mixed: one job was resolved correctly and efficiently, one required an emergency plumber to fix the contractor's mistake, and one was resolved satisfactorily after following technician instructions. Experience scores moderately, with at least two reviewers praising the technician's diagnostic ability, while one reviewer explicitly questioned the plumber's certification and competence. The most recent reviews (2020 and 2022) are both 1-star, which is a concerning trend.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (2022 and 2020) are both 1-star negative reviews. The positive reviews are all from 2013–2017, meaning the contractor's recent performance appears to have declined significantly.
• ALL POSITIVE REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 6 YEARS: No positive reviews exist within the past 6 years, which substantially reduces the reliability of any positive signals in this dataset.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as directional only and not definitive.
• VERIFIED QUALITY ISSUE: One reviewer explicitly states they had to hire an emergency plumber to fix a mistake made by this contractor, indicating a documented workmanship failure.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE DOCUMENTED: Multiple unanswered messages noted in one review, and a rude front-desk interaction noted in another — both are concrete professionalism failures, not inferred.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with all positive reviews being 6 or more years old and both recent reviews being strongly negative — the score should be treated with LOW confidence and prospective customers are advised to seek more current references before hiring.