Find Nearby Plumbers In Omaha, Nebraska

Midland receives mixed signals across the three available reviews. On the positive side, one reviewer praised the technician Dave as polite and professional, noted the job was completed well, and highlighted pricing as significantly lower than a competitor. A second reviewer confirmed timely arrival and a good job outcome. However, a strongly negative review cited disrespectful behavior — specifically trucks being started at 5am and disturbing neighbors — which meaningfully drags down the professionalism score. With only three reviews spanning a wide date range (2014–2019), confidence in any dimension is low and the WW Score should be treated with caution.

• Only 3 reviews available — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as unreliable.
• All reviews are older than 5 years (most recent: April 2019) — no data from the past 12 months. Current performance is unknown.
• The negative review raises a specific behavioral concern (early morning noise disturbance) that reflects poorly on operational professionalism and community awareness.
• The positive reviews are somewhat generic and lack granular detail, though one does include a specific technician name (Dave) and a pricing comparison, which adds modest credibility.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 5 years old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a confident indicator of current contractor quality.

This contractor's record is deeply mixed, with a cluster of positive reviews praising speed, friendliness, and competent work on water heater installations offset by several severe negative reviews describing dangerous safety failures, abandoned jobs, and stolen deposits. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by multiple documented no-shows, failure to communicate, and one instance of charging a customer for a partner's training time and travel to retrieve forgotten tools. Project completion is the most alarming dimension: two separate reviewers describe the same pattern of an open gas line left in a basement — a life-threatening hazard — and one customer reports $4,300 taken with no work completed and the contractor texting that he would not return. Pricing scores moderately due to a mix of fair-pricing praise from satisfied customers and explicit complaints about inflated billing and a withheld deposit. Experience scores slightly higher than other dimensions because several reviewers do praise the quality of completed work, but the gas line incidents and the patio poured in the wrong color indicate serious competency gaps on more complex jobs.

• SAFETY HAZARD — CRITICAL: Two separate reviewers (2020-11-10 and 2020-11-16) independently report that an open/unsealed natural gas line was left in their basement. This is a life-threatening safety failure and should be treated as a serious red flag regardless of positive reviews.
• ABANDONED JOB + THEFT ALLEGATION: One reviewer reports $4,300 taken as a deposit with no completed work, contractor texting that he would not return and refusing to refund. This is a significant consumer protection concern.
• REPEATED NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least four reviews (2018-03-06, 2019-01-30, 2019-05-06, and implied in others) describe the contractor committing to appointments and failing to show up or call. This is a consistent and documented pattern, not an isolated incident.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE INCIDENT: The two 1-star reviews from November 2020 (2020-11-10 and 2020-11-16) describe nearly identical circumstances — open gas line, $4,300 deposit withheld, no work completed. These may be from the same household or the same job, which would mean they should be counted as one incident. Scored conservatively assuming they may represent the same event, but both are included as they were submitted as separate reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews are from 2022. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 analysis date) are present. The contractor's current operational status and quality level are unknown.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several short positive reviews ('Good.', 'terriffic.', 'Great it was done the same day') contain no specific detail and could reflect padding, though they are not identical in phrasing. Confidence in these reviews is low individually; they were included but weighted minimally in narrative assessment.
• BILLING MISCONDUCT: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor charged for time spent retrieving tools he should have brought, inflated travel and work time, and trained a partner on the customer's dime. This is a documented billing integrity issue.

This WW Score is based on 18 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be interpreted with caution due to the presence of serious safety allegations, documented deposit theft, and a consistent no-show pattern that represent risks no aggregate score can fully capture.

King and Sons Plumbing shows highly inconsistent performance across all dimensions. While some customers report excellent service, professionalism, and fair pricing, a substantial number of reviews document serious failures in project completion, poor workmanship, unresponsiveness, and aggressive pricing practices. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple reports of rudeness, lack of communication, failure to return calls, and unprofessional behavior. Pricing is a significant weakness, with numerous complaints about overcharging, hidden fees, and charges that appear excessive relative to work performed. Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete work, failed repairs requiring callbacks, and inability to diagnose or fix problems. Experience ratings are mixed—some reviews praise skilled technicians, while others document poor workmanship, wrong parts installation, and lack of problem-solving ability. The company shows a pattern of inconsistency that suggests quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from 2015-2018 show nearly identical complaints about water heater installation issues (lack of preparation, inadequate cleanup, extra fees for water softener removal, customer having to provide floor protection). This suggests systemic operational problems rather than isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several 5-star reviews from 2018-2019 are suspiciously generic with minimal detail (e.g., 'There pretty good at what they do', empty reviews rated 5-star). However, the majority of detailed reviews are negative and specific, suggesting fake reviews are a minor issue.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2012-2019 (older than 1 year). Only 4 reviews are from 2024-2025. Recent data is limited, making current performance assessment difficult.
• SEVERITY ESCALATION: Multiple reviews document property damage ($6,000+ in one case, flooded furnace room, broken air conditioning, damaged shop vac) and legal threats, indicating serious liability concerns.
• OWNER INVOLVEMENT: Several reviews note that owner intervention was required to resolve complaints, suggesting frontline staff and management may not be adequately trained or empowered to handle customer issues.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the sample size is adequate (51 reviews), the data is heavily skewed toward older reviews (2012-2019), limiting assessment of current performance. The company demonstrates a clear pattern of inconsistency with both exceptional and severely deficient service documented across multiple dimensions. The score of 54.8 reflects this volatility—the company is neither reliably good nor reliably bad, making it a high-risk choice for customers seeking predictable quality.

TJ Plumbing shows severe and consistent deficiencies in professionalism and project completion, which are the two most heavily weighted dimensions. Multiple reviews document poor communication, missed appointments, no-shows without notification, and unresponsiveness to callbacks—patterns that appear across different time periods. Project completion issues include incomplete work, refusal to correct mistakes, and failure to follow customer specifications. While some reviews praise technical skill and fair pricing on successful jobs, the frequency and severity of negative experiences substantially outweigh positive ones. The company demonstrates inconsistent reliability and customer service.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pattern of no-shows and missed appointments documented in at least 4 separate reviews (2020-08-28, 2020-09-14, 2020-06-10, 2020-02-06), indicating operational dysfunction rather than isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Multiple complaints about poor communication and unresponsiveness to phone calls and callbacks across different years (2016, 2020, 2021), suggesting chronic management issue.
• CRITICAL: Documented instances of work not completed as specified or to customer requirements (2023-09-27 review: shower valves placed in wrong location, tub valves installed incorrectly; 2016-12-25 review: improper duct installation, overbilling, rude response to complaints).
• CRITICAL: Refusal to correct mistakes or honor callbacks (2023-09-27: 'TJ Plumbing refused to come correct their mistakes').
• Price inconsistency flagged: One review (2018-04-11) documents rapid hourly rate increases ($80-85 to $149.95 within 9 months), raising fairness concerns.
• Several reviews lack text content (3 blank reviews with ratings), reducing data quality slightly.
• Oldest review from 2000 is likely data error and excluded from recency analysis; most negative reviews cluster in 2020-2023 period, indicating ongoing issues.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected; complaints are specific, detailed, and corroborated across multiple independent reviewers.

This WW Score of 52.3 should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. The score is driven by consistent, detailed, and corroborated negative feedback across multiple dimensions spanning several years, particularly regarding professionalism and project completion. While some positive reviews acknowledge technical competence and fair pricing on completed jobs, the systematic nature of operational failures (no-shows, poor communication, incomplete work, refusal to correct mistakes) represents a material risk to customers. This company presents significant reliability concerns and should be approached with caution.

OCB Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. On the positive side, several reviews praise responsiveness, after-hours availability, politeness, and thorough cleanup, suggesting capable and professional service when things go right. However, three significant negative reviews describe serious failures: a plumber yelling and cursing at a customer, leaving a dishwasher unmounted, and tracking mud without cleaning it up; a faulty and incorrect dishwasher installation that was not disclosed to the customer; and most critically, a contractor who accepted a bid, set a start date, then went completely unresponsive and never began the work. These failures drag down professionalism, project completion, and experience scores substantially. Pricing received limited but positive mentions, though the small sample size limits confidence in that dimension.

• One review (2021-09-09) describes a complete project abandonment after bid acceptance — contractor accepted payment terms, set a date, then became unreachable. This is a serious red flag for project completion reliability.
• One review (2021-05-27) describes aggressive, unprofessional behavior including yelling, cursing, and refusing to clean up — this is a significant professionalism concern.
• One review (2020-09-02) describes a faulty installation with visible damage that was not disclosed to the customer, raising concerns about workmanship integrity and honesty.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (most recent is August 2022, over 2 years ago). No recent reviews are available to assess current service quality. Scores should be treated with caution given the age of the data.
• The review set is small (8 reviews), which limits statistical reliability. The WW Score should be interpreted cautiously.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small but authentic and detailed review set; however, the presence of three serious negative reviews describing abandonment, aggression, and undisclosed faulty work, combined with all reviews being over two years old, means prospective customers should seek more current references before hiring.

Raven Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently discussed dimension and is sharply divided: positive reviewers praise punctuality, courtesy, and honest communication, while negative reviewers describe being forgotten after calls, unreturned messages, scheduling failures, and confrontational responses to complaints. Pricing is similarly polarized — one reviewer was charged exactly as quoted despite extra labor, and another long-term customer praised competitive rates, but a detailed 2014 review documents a billing rate nearly double what was quoted ($153.60/hr vs $96/hr), significantly dragging this score down. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: multiple reviews describe abandoned work, reversed faucet installation, drain lines that flooded a basement on first use, and the owner placing liens on customers after disputed or incomplete jobs. Experience scores reflect a contractor capable of competent routine work but with documented failures in technical execution and problem diagnosis. The majority of positive reviews are from 2011 and earlier, while negative reviews span a wider range of years including more recent ones, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY WARNING: Most positive reviews (5-star) are from 2006–2013, which is over 10 years old. The more recent reviews (2014–2020) include a mix of positive and negative, but the most detailed negative experiences come from 2013–2020. Scores should be interpreted with caution given the age of positive data.
• LIEN PATTERN: Two separate reviewers (2008 and 2013) independently report that the owner placed or threatened to place a lien on their property after disputed work. This is a significant red flag for consumer risk.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least two reviewers explicitly state the contractor left work unfinished and they had to hire someone else to complete the job.
• BILLING DISPUTE: The 2014 review contains a detailed, specific account of being charged approximately 60% more per hour than the quoted rate, with the owner refusing to resolve the discrepancy.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, length, and rating. No strong pattern of fake reviews detected, though the older 5-star reviews are somewhat generic.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review count is sufficient and dimensions are well-evidenced, but the heavily skewed age of positive reviews versus the recency of negative ones means the score likely overstates current service quality, and prospective customers should weight the post-2013 reviews most heavily.