Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Charles, Missouri

Every single review across all five submissions is a 1-star complaint, painting a consistently negative picture of this contractor. Professionalism is the most heavily evidenced dimension, with all five reviews citing rudeness, unresponsiveness, or dismissive behavior toward customers — including during quote requests where no work had even begun. Pricing concerns are severe, with one reviewer documenting alleged overbilling of nearly $660 for a job estimated at under one hour, including charges for materials not used and tools the technician should have brought. Project completion failures are well-documented: one job was left with a damaged toilet that was never replaced despite repeated follow-up, another involved a rigged tub spout that failed after five uses, and a third involved a technician arriving without necessary tools or materials. Workmanship quality is poor across the board, with evidence of improvised repairs, lack of preparation, and failure to diagnose or resolve the original problems.

• All 5 reviews are 1-star ratings — while this could reflect genuine widespread dissatisfaction, it is an extreme pattern worth noting.
• No positive reviews are present in this dataset; the WW Score reflects only negative evidence and should be interpreted accordingly.
• The most recent review is dated 2022-07-27, and the oldest is from 2018-02-12. Three of five reviews are older than 12 months from a typical current date, reducing recency weight slightly.
• One review alleges the company pursued legal action (small claims court) against a customer who disputed an overcharge — this is a significant red flag for business conduct.
• One review explicitly states this company bought out the original Raeker Plumbing and implies a decline in quality under new ownership.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews are detailed, specific, and varied in language and complaint type, suggesting authentic experiences.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to a small but highly detailed and consistent review set; the score of approximately 11 should be taken seriously as a warning signal, though prospective customers are encouraged to seek additional recent reviews before drawing a final conclusion.

All four reviews are overwhelmingly negative and paint a deeply alarming picture of this company's conduct. Professionalism is rated near zero across the board, with reviewers describing agents hanging up on customers, speaking rudely over callers, and failing to respond to cancellation requests. Pricing and billing practices are flagged as potentially fraudulent, with reports of deceptive mailers designed to look like checks, unauthorized recurring charges, and alleged targeting of elderly individuals for thousands of dollars. No reviews mention actual contracting or plumbing work, so Project Completion and Experience cannot be scored. The pattern of complaints is consistent and specific, lending credibility to the negative accounts despite the small review count.

• FRAUD ALERT: Multiple reviewers allege deceptive marketing practices, including mailers designed to mimic official notices or checks, targeting elderly and vulnerable individuals.
• POTENTIAL UNLAWFUL CONDUCT: One reviewer states the company is under active fraud investigation by a bank. Another reviewer states practices may be potentially unlawful.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: One reviewer explicitly calls out the presence of false positive reviews on the platform, suggesting review manipulation may be occurring. Positive reviews, if any exist elsewhere, should be treated with extreme skepticism.
• NO ACTUAL SERVICE REVIEWS: None of the four reviews describe any completed contracting or plumbing work. This company may be a home warranty sales/marketing entity rather than a direct service provider, making Project Completion and Experience unscorable.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Scores carry LIMITED to MODERATE confidence only.
• ALL REVIEWS RECENT: All four reviews are dated within the past 12 months (June–October 2024), suggesting these issues are current and ongoing.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and covers only 2 of 4 dimensions, but the consistency, specificity, and recency of the complaints — including allegations of fraud and elder financial abuse — make the extremely low score highly credible and should be treated as a serious warning against engaging this company.

This contractor receives overwhelmingly negative feedback across all dimensions with usable data. Professionalism is severely compromised, with multiple reviews documenting rude behavior, vulgar language, discriminatory conduct, and unprofessional attitudes from staff members. Pricing concerns are raised in one review alleging significant overcharging relative to cost. Project completion is questionable based on one review where work was not completed and another contractor had to finish the job. No reviews provide evidence of technical skill or experience quality. The consistent pattern of 1-star ratings with specific, detailed complaints suggests genuine customer dissatisfaction rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: All 4 reviews are 1-star ratings with serious allegations including discriminatory language, vulgar behavior, and unprofessional conduct. This is not a pattern of fake reviews but rather a pattern of severe service failures.
• One review is from 2017 (over 6 years old); three reviews are from 2024 (recent). Recent reviews show no improvement in service quality.
• Multiple reviews reference specific staff members by name (Kim, Amy, Rico Suave) with detailed negative interactions, suggesting credible firsthand accounts rather than fabricated complaints.
• Allegations of discriminatory behavior and use of racial slurs are serious and damaging. These are not minor service complaints.
• No positive reviews present to balance assessment. Dataset is entirely negative.

This score should be treated with extreme caution due to insufficient positive data and the severity of allegations, but the consistency and specificity of complaints across multiple independent reviews suggests genuine and serious service quality issues that warrant investigation before engaging this contractor.

This contractor received overwhelmingly negative feedback across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. Two detailed 1-star reviews from 2017 and 2022 document serious failures: unauthorized work without proper authorization, billing double the quoted price without communication, poor callback responsiveness, and dismissive customer service from ownership. A single generic 5-star review with no specifics cannot counterbalance these substantive complaints. The pattern of accountability avoidance and communication failures is consistent across multiple years.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 total reviews analyzed — sample size is extremely small and insufficient for reliable scoring
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2017 and 2022 (2-7 years old); only one recent review from 2024
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: The single 5-star review (2024) is generic with zero specifics ('Great service', 'highly recommend') and reads like a placeholder or fake review, contrasting sharply with two detailed, specific 1-star reviews with names, dates, and documented incidents
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Multiple documented failures including unauthorized work, billing fraud (100%+ overages), non-responsive callbacks, and dismissive/hostile customer service from ownership
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUE: Owner described as 'narcissistic' and unwilling to take responsibility for errors; pattern of broken promises regarding callbacks

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. With only 3 reviews (below the 3-review minimum threshold for reliability), one of which appears potentially fabricated, and two substantive complaints spanning years, there is insufficient credible data to produce a valid WW Score. The contractor shows a consistent pattern of serious professional and ethical failures, but the tiny sample size and age of most reviews prevent confident generalization.

Only one review (from 2017) contains usable service-related data, describing the contractor as helpful and thorough with accurate quoting. The remaining two reviews are not customer service reviews at all — they are written by what appears to be a competing business owner alleging harassment, unethical behavior, and fraudulent review activity by the contractor. These reviews contribute to the professionalism score negatively due to the serious behavioral allegations made, but provide no data on actual plumbing work performed. The extremely small and conflicted review pool makes any scoring highly unreliable. The sole positive review is over 7 years old, further reducing its relevance.

• Two of three reviews appear to be written by a competing business ('Able Rooter'), not actual customers. These reviews allege harassment, late-night price-shopping calls, and retaliatory fake review activity by the contractor. This is a serious professionalism concern but does not constitute standard customer feedback.
• The only genuine customer review is dated 2017-07-28 — more than 7 years old. It carries very low recency weight.
• With only 1 usable customer review, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably. Output marked as null per insufficient data rules.
• Allegations of non-sober behavior, harassment via phone, and abuse of the Google review system are noted. These are unverified claims but are documented with screenshots according to the reviewers.
• Possible fake review activity flagged: the contractor is alleged to have left a 1-star review with no comment on a competitor's listing, suggesting potential manipulation of review platforms.
• Overall review volume is critically low (3 total, 1 usable) for a business claimed to have operated for 14 years. This disparity is itself a reliability concern.

This WW Score report is not reliable enough to produce a final score — only one legitimate customer review exists, it is over 7 years old, and the remaining reviews raise serious ethical and behavioral concerns about the contractor rather than reflecting service quality.

With only two reviews spanning over a decade apart, the data is extremely limited and unreliable for drawing firm conclusions. The positive review praises timely work, cleanliness, attentiveness, and skilled workers, while the negative review describes a serious installation failure causing two major water disasters and a complete lack of accountability from the owner. The negative review is particularly damaging as it describes concrete, specific harm — improper drain installation leading to flooding — rather than vague dissatisfaction. Professionalism is sharply penalized by the owner's refusal to personally respond to a serious complaint, delegating the callback to a secretary. Project completion and experience scores are dragged down significantly by the reported installation failures and denial of responsibility.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The negative review is from 2011 and the positive review is from 2023 — a 12-year gap makes direct comparison difficult and may not reflect current business practices.
• The positive review is somewhat generic ('great work,' 'highly skilled workers') with limited specific detail, which reduces its evidentiary weight.
• The negative review describes serious property damage caused by improper installation and a pattern of non-accountability, which is a significant red flag regardless of the small sample size.
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — no score can be assigned.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews spanning 12 years and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or consistency.