Find Nearby Plumbers In O'Fallon, Missouri

Acorn Plumbing's review record is dominated by serious, recurring complaints that heavily drag down all dimensions. Professionalism is severely impacted by multiple documented instances of no-shows, unanswered calls, ignored warranty requests, hanging up on customers, and rude behavior — with only a small number of older positive reviews offering any counterbalance. Project completion is similarly damaged by multiple explicit accounts of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and refusal to honor 90-day warranties, including at least two cases that escalated to small claims court. Experience scores are mixed: a handful of older reviews praise clean, competent work, but more recent reviews describe botched repairs and incomplete installations. Pricing receives a modest score due to one positive mention of fair and competitive pricing, offset by a complaint about paying $89 for only a fraction of the work performed. The overwhelming weight of negative evidence, particularly from more recent years, makes this a contractor profile with serious reliability concerns.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2006–2018, while the most recent reviews (2018–2019) are almost exclusively 1-star with serious complaints. The contractor's performance appears to have deteriorated significantly over time.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: At least three separate reviewers explicitly state the contractor refused to honor his own 90-day warranty, which is a critical pattern of bad faith business practice.
• LEGAL ESCALATION: At least one reviewer reports winning a small claims court case against this contractor, and multiple reviewers mention filing or intending to file BBB complaints.
• ONE USELESS REVIEW: The review dated 2014-02-13 contains only a period ('.') with a 5-star rating and was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• POSSIBLE FAKE/INFLATED POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several older 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Everything went smoothly and he did an excellent job') with no specific details, which may inflate the positive side of the record.
• DEBT/FINANCIAL THREAT REVIEW: The 1-star review from 2019-12-30 appears to reference a financial dispute unrelated to plumbing services and may not reflect a standard customer experience, though it does indicate unresolved financial conflicts with the business owner.
• PATTERN OF IGNORING COMMUNICATIONS: At least five separate reviewers explicitly mention being unable to reach the contractor by phone or text after work was completed, suggesting a systemic pattern of post-service abandonment.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews with usable data spanning 2006–2019, with HIGH confidence on the most heavily weighted dimensions; however, the score should be treated with caution given the stark negative trend in recent years and multiple documented legal and ethical violations that suggest the contractor's current service quality is likely worse than the blended score indicates.

Bass Plumbing's review corpus is dominated by deeply negative experiences across all four dimensions, with professionalism and project completion being the most critically damaged. The overwhelming majority of reviewers describe technicians who were rude, dismissive, and unwilling to perform work, combined with an office staff that routinely failed to return calls, missed appointments without notice, and provided no accountability. Project completion is the single worst-performing dimension: dozens of reviews describe jobs that were never finished, claims that were never submitted to warranty companies, no-shows on scheduled appointments, and customers who ultimately had to hire other plumbers at their own expense. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small but consistent cluster of positive reviews — primarily involving technicians named Raymond, Jeff, and Eddie — describe genuinely skilled and knowledgeable work, but these are vastly outnumbered by accounts of misdiagnosis, shoddy installations, and work done without proper permits or code compliance. Pricing received a slightly higher score due to a handful of reviews praising fair or reasonable rates, but this is offset by accounts of unexpected charges, bait-and-switch upselling, and a $560 charge for heating a crawlspace without resolving the underlying problem.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'DO NOT USE this company. If I could give Bass Plumbing a negative score...' (kitchen sink/dishwasher leak) appears verbatim on two different dates (2024-08-13 and 2024-07-22). This was counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Never, Ever Use them! I am a real estate agent...' appears verbatim on two different dates (2024-06-09 and 2024-05-30). This was counted once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The toilet flange review beginning 'I hired Bass Plumbing to do a few tasks for a bathroom renovation...' appears verbatim on two different dates (2021-06-10 and 2020-12-05). This was counted once for scoring purposes.
• POTENTIAL FAKE OR IRRELEVANT REVIEW: The review dated 2022-06-10 ('Great food and service, more like family') appears to be for a restaurant, not a plumbing company, and was excluded from scoring.
• POTENTIAL FAKE OR IRRELEVANT REVIEW: The review dated 2015-06-04 contains only 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: A disproportionate number of positive reviews are generic (e.g., 'Fast and efficient', 'Professional and courteous', 'Good and knowledgeable techs. Can't go wrong') with no specific details, names, or job descriptions. These may be inflated or solicited reviews and were scored conservatively.
• RECENCY NOTE: The negative review pattern is consistent and persistent across all date ranges from 2012 through 2025, indicating this is not an isolated period of poor performance but a systemic and long-standing operational failure.
• SYSTEMIC PATTERN — WARRANTY FRAUD RISK: A large number of reviews across multiple years describe the company accepting home warranty service fees, performing minimal or no work, failing to submit required reports to warranty companies, and then becoming unreachable. This pattern is consistent enough to suggest a deliberate business practice rather than isolated incompetence.
• RETALIATION FLAG: One reviewer (2024-08-27) explicitly states that after leaving a negative review, his wife received a call from Bass Plumbing that made her feel 'uncomfortable and upset.' This is a serious flag regarding the company's response to criticism.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews appear to reference a Bass Plumbing in Albany/Schenectady, NY area while the majority reference Fayetteville, NC. It is possible these are two different companies sharing a name. Scores reflect the aggregate of all reviews as provided.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on a very large sample of 117 usable reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence — the score accurately reflects a company with severe, systemic, and well-documented failures in professionalism, follow-through, and workmanship, and should be treated as a strong warning against engaging this contractor.

The review set is very small (3 reviews) and spans over a decade, making reliable conclusions difficult. Pricing is the most consistently flagged concern, with two of three reviews explicitly describing deceptive or unexpected charges — including billing for time beyond what was worked and an overtime surcharge disclosed only at the start of service. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by the billing dispute and the dismissive response from staff ('Cindy') who refused to address the overcharge. The one positive review, which noted a friendly technician and competitive pricing, is from 2011 and carries minimal weight given its age. Project completion and experience scores are modestly positive but based on very limited data.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable and directional only.
• The sole positive review is from 2011 — over 12 years old — and should be given minimal weight relative to the more recent 2023 negative review.
• Two reviews explicitly describe deceptive or surprise pricing practices, including billing for unworked time and undisclosed overtime rates. This is a significant pattern given the small sample size.
• The 2018 review is also over 5 years old, meaning only one review (2023) falls within the past 12 months.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the extremely small sample size prevents any meaningful confidence in the overall score.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 12 years and should not be considered reliable — treat it as a preliminary signal only, with strong caution warranted around pricing transparency and billing practices.

Authority Plumbing & Drain performs extremely poorly across nearly all dimensions based on the available reviews. Professionalism is the most heavily documented concern, with multiple reviewers citing no-shows, unreturned calls, rude staff, and outright dishonesty — only one review (from 2018) praised their professionalism. Pricing is a serious red flag, with two reviews describing bait-and-switch billing practices where initial quotes ballooned dramatically without authorization, and one review describing alleged predatory upselling of $9,000 in unnecessary work. Project completion is mixed: at least two jobs appear to have been abandoned or never started due to no-shows, while one reviewer reported satisfactory work and one reported the drain was cleaned but at an inflated price. Experience is difficult to assess cleanly, as the one positive review praised their workmanship, but the dishonest diagnostic in the gas line review and the disputed drain cleaning suggest inconsistent technical integrity.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The single 5-star review (2018-02-26) uses unusually effusive and generic praise ('best call I made,' 'over and over again') with no specific details about the work performed, which contrasts sharply with the specificity of the negative reviews. Confidence in this review is reduced.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are from 2015–2022. The most recent review (2022) is a 1-star no-show complaint. No reviews exist from the past 12 months relative to a 2024/2025 analysis date, meaning current service quality is unknown.
• DISHONESTY PATTERN: Two separate reviews (2018 gas line incident, 2015 drain clean) describe billing that significantly exceeded quoted amounts without customer authorization, suggesting a possible systemic pattern of deceptive pricing practices.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least two reviews (2022, 2017) independently describe the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments and not returning calls, indicating a recurring reliability problem.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 reviews total. Scores should be treated with caution as a small number of reviews can skew results significantly in either direction.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review sample (6 reviews), the age of most reviews (all over 2 years old), and one suspected low-credibility 5-star review; however, the consistent and specific nature of the negative reviews across multiple independent dimensions lends meaningful weight to the low scores assigned.

The review set is small (4 reviews) and paints a deeply divided picture. Two recent 1-star reviews (2023) describe severe failures in punctuality, communication, and follow-through — including an egregious case where a 94-year-old customer was left without water for 12 days before the company abandoned the job entirely after taking a deposit. One 5-star review from 2022 offers brief praise for professionalism and knowledge but lacks specific detail. The one remaining 5-star review from 2018 describes genuinely skilled technical work on a complex septic issue, supporting a modest experience score, but its age significantly reduces its weight. Pricing was not mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored. The recency trend is alarming — both 2023 reviews are strongly negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Both most-recent reviews (May and June 2023) are 1-star with serious complaints. The positive reviews are from 2022 and 2018, suggesting possible service quality deterioration.
• ABANDONED JOB / DEPOSIT TAKEN: One review explicitly states the company accepted a 50% deposit, repeatedly failed to show up, then refused to complete the job — a significant project completion red flag.
• POTENTIAL ELDER ABUSE ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly uses the term 'elder abuse' in describing how a 94-year-old customer was treated. This is a serious reputational and ethical flag.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. Scores are based on very limited data and should be treated with caution. The WW Score is directional only.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEW: The 2022 5-star review ('always been professional and knowledgeable') contains no specific details and reads as generic praise, slightly reducing its evidentiary weight.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 5 years and should be considered LOW reliability — the small sample size, the stark negative recency trend, and the severity of the complaints in the two most recent reviews all suggest this score may still be too generous as a representation of current service quality.

This contractor's review profile is dominated by two highly detailed negative reviews from 2023 and 2024, both describing serious failures including abandoned work, refusal to refund, and significant financial loss totaling nearly $12,000. The sole positive review is from 2020 and describes a commercial flooding job handled well, but it is now over four years old and carries reduced weight under recency rules. Professionalism and project completion scores are severely dragged down by explicit accounts of incomplete work, refusal to finish jobs, and dishonest billing practices. The pricing dimension is particularly alarming, with one reviewer alleging material substitution fraud — charging for a $300 shower kit while installing $30 flat panels.

• RECENCY WARNING: The only positive review is from October 2020 — over 4 years old. The two negative reviews are from 2023 and 2024 and reflect the contractor's more recent performance.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION: Review 1 explicitly alleges material substitution fraud — contractor billed for a $300 shower kit but installed cheap flat panels (~$90 total value), and refused to provide Home Depot receipts.
• ABANDONMENT ALLEGATION: Two separate reviewers explicitly state the contractor refused to finish work and kept payment, which is a serious pattern of non-completion.
• FINANCIAL HARM: One reviewer reports a total loss of $11,884 with no shower installed, toilet not re-installed, flooring damaged and not repaired, and no refund issued.
• PATTERN OF CONCERN: Both 1-star reviews independently describe the same behavioral pattern — incomplete work, refusal to finish, and refusal to refund — suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. Score reliability is inherently limited and should be treated with caution.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be treated as preliminary; however, the two recent negative reviews are highly detailed and credible, and the pattern of alleged fraud and abandonment significantly undermines trust in this contractor.