Find Nearby Plumbers In Omaha, Nebraska

Burton's review corpus is deeply polarized: a large cluster of recent, brief, and largely positive reviews from 2025 contrasts sharply with a substantial body of detailed, older negative reviews stretching back to 2011. Professionalism scores moderately because individual technicians are frequently praised for friendliness, punctuality, and communication, but the company-level experience is repeatedly marred by poor scheduling follow-through, rude customer service staff, and failure to return calls. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with dozens of independent reviewers describing bait-and-switch advertising, wildly inflated quotes for simple repairs, undisclosed dispatch fees, and estimates that were two to ten times higher than competitors — this pattern is too consistent and specific to dismiss. Project completion suffers significantly due to multiple accounts of abandoned or incomplete work, failed inspections, safety hazards left unresolved (gas leaks, improper venting, sewage flooding), and refusal to honor callbacks or warranty obligations. Experience scores in the middle range because some technicians demonstrate genuine skill and thoroughness, while others are described as incompetent, unable to diagnose basic issues, or deliberately misrepresenting findings to upsell unnecessary replacements.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: A large block of reviews dated 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-08 appear to be exact duplicates of one another — the same review text appears verbatim on multiple dates (e.g., the 'Franky is a complete asset' review, the 'ON TIME AND LISTEN' review, the 'Zach did a great job' review, and the 'Mike is a professional service tech' review each appear at least twice with identical wording). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or system duplication errors. These duplicates were counted once per unique text for scoring purposes.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PRICING PATTERN: At least 20 independent reviewers across multiple years describe the same pattern — a low advertised price ($89–$99) used to dispatch a technician, followed by dramatically higher on-site quotes with no transparency. This is a systemic business practice concern, not isolated incidents.
• SAFETY HAZARD INCIDENTS: Multiple reviews describe serious safety failures including a gas pipe left leaking after water heater installation, a furnace exhaust venting into an attic for over a year causing potential carbon monoxide exposure, and a sewer line flooding a basement during a routine cleaning. These are not minor service complaints.
• INCOMPLETE AND ABANDONED WORK: Several reviews describe work that was left unfinished, with the company subsequently placing a construction lien on a customer's property rather than completing the job, and another instance of a heat pump installation that was never properly configured despite multiple callback attempts.
• UPSELL AND MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Numerous reviewers across many years independently describe technicians recommending full system replacements for issues that were subsequently fixed by competitors for under $200 — including a $13,000 AC replacement that needed a $150 capacitor, a $3,500 water heater replacement that needed a $20 thermocouple, and a $2,000+ furnace repair that needed new batteries in the thermostat. This pattern is too consistent to be coincidental.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The majority of positive reviews are from 2025 and are very brief (often just a technician's name or a single sentence), while the majority of detailed negative reviews span 2014–2025. The positive reviews carry less informational weight due to lack of specifics.
• 45 reviews contained no text and only a 5-star rating — these were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of review manipulation through duplicate entries, a deeply entrenched and well-documented pattern of predatory pricing practices, and multiple serious safety and workmanship failures that suggest systemic rather than isolated quality problems.

This contractor presents a deeply polarized review profile: a large cluster of recent, brief, and largely positive reviews sits alongside a substantial body of detailed, credible negative reviews spanning multiple years. The pricing dimension is the most damaging, with dozens of reviewers independently reporting quotes 2x to 10x above competitors, hidden fees, bait-and-switch tactics, and allegations of outright dishonest upselling — including fabricated diagnoses to push new system sales. Project completion suffers significantly from repeated accounts of no-shows, missed appointments, incomplete work that left problems worse than before, and failed callbacks. Professionalism scores moderately because many individual technicians are praised as courteous and knowledgeable, but this is undercut by aggressive sales behavior, intimidation tactics reported by multiple reviewers, and poor office/scheduling communication. Experience is mixed: skilled technicians are frequently praised in positive reviews, but numerous negative reviews describe misdiagnoses, incorrect parts, botched installations, and work that required correction by competitors.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR DUPLICATED REVIEWS: At least 10 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on consecutive dates (e.g., the 'Tech was on time / thermostat' review appears verbatim on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; the 'blatantly lied to' review appears verbatim on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; the 'Service was prompt and courteous but repair cost were excessively high' review appears verbatim on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; the 'Phil came out and look at my garbage disposal' review appears verbatim on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; the 'I had a great experience with the work they did to fix my AC' review appears verbatim on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; the 'I had Douglas come to my house' review appears verbatim on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04). These duplicates have been counted only once each in scoring.
• HIGH VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating (all 5-star). These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. This pattern is consistent with review padding.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2014–2025) describe a consistent pattern of low introductory offers followed by dramatically higher on-site quotes, suggesting a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• FRAUDULENT DIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviewers across different years independently report being told equipment needed replacement or expensive repair, only for a second-opinion technician to find little or nothing wrong. This pattern is highly consistent and spans HVAC and plumbing services.
• AGGRESSIVE SALES TACTICS: At least two reviewers describe high-pressure or intimidating sales behavior, including one reviewer who states a technician refused to leave their home until a sales appointment was made.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) skew heavily positive but are also the reviews most likely to be duplicated or blank. The most detailed and credible negative reviews span 2014–2024, suggesting a long-standing pattern of issues that may be obscured by recent review activity.

This WW Score of 42.1 carries HIGH data confidence given the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously due to strong evidence of duplicate and blank review padding that artificially inflates the positive signal — the underlying pattern of pricing complaints, dishonest diagnosis allegations, and project completion failures is highly consistent across many years and independent reviewers.

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning 16 years. Two recent positive reviews (2017, 2008) praise professionalism, speed, and fair pricing, but three older reviews (2012, 2013, 2009) document serious failures: incomplete work (unhooked sprinkler system), property damage (scratched tile, dented threshold), safety oversights (forgotten gas ground line), and alleged dishonest upselling. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with explicit evidence of incomplete work and damage. The extreme age of most reviews and conflicting quality signals make this score unreliable for current decision-making.

• CRITICAL: Severe recency bias — 75% of reviews are 11+ years old (2008–2013); only 1 recent review from 2017. Historical performance may not reflect current operations.
• CRITICAL: Extreme quality variance — two 5-star reviews vs. two 1-star reviews with documented safety and workmanship failures (forgotten gas line, property damage, dishonest practices).
• Safety concern flagged in 2012 review: water heater installation with forgotten gas ground line connection — potential hazard.
• Integrity concern flagged in 2009 and 2013 reviews: alleged deliberate upselling and unnecessary work (unhooked sprinkler system to charge more).
• Property damage documented in 2012 review with no mention of remediation or accountability.

This score should NOT be trusted for current hiring decisions. The overwhelming majority of data is 11+ years old, and the contractor's track record shows serious inconsistencies including safety oversights, property damage, and alleged dishonest practices. A single recent positive review cannot offset documented failures and the extreme age of the dataset. Request recent references and verify current licensing/insurance before engaging.

The professionalism score is significantly dragged down by a 1-star review describing two unanswered phone calls over two weeks, which is a direct and serious responsiveness failure. The two positive reviews mention friendly attitude and straight-shooting communication, but these are from 2016 and 2018, making them over five years old and of limited relevance to current performance. Pricing received a modest positive mention in one older review, and project completion is supported by two reviews describing successfully finished work, though the sample is very small. Experience scores conservatively given only two reviews with any workmanship detail and no recent evidence of technical skill.

• All three reviews are older than 1 year — the most recent is from October 2020, over 4 years ago. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• Two of the three positive reviews are from 2016 and 2018, making them 6–8 years old and carrying very low relevance weight.
• Sample size of 3 reviews is at the absolute minimum threshold for score calculation. Results should be treated as highly provisional.
• The unanswered calls review represents a direct, specific complaint about responsiveness and should not be discounted despite the small sample.

This WW Score has very low reliability due to only 3 reviews, all of which are outdated, and a meaningful responsiveness complaint that materially impacts the professionalism dimension.

Omaha Drain's review set is dominated by strongly negative experiences across all four dimensions, with pricing being the single most consistent complaint. Numerous reviewers explicitly describe deceptive pricing practices, bait-and-switch advertising, and charges far exceeding competitor rates or initial quotes. Project completion is severely damaged by two detailed accounts of multi-week abandoned or botched jobs, failed city inspections, and unresolved damage left at customer properties. Professionalism scores are pulled down by accounts of a technician damaging property and being dismissive, chronic no-shows, and near-total communication breakdown on escalated issues. A small number of positive reviews do exist — praising specific technicians like Travis, Jesse, and Steven for punctuality, courtesy, and competence — but these are heavily outnumbered and insufficient to offset the volume and severity of negative reports.

• PRICING DECEPTION PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers describe being quoted one price and charged significantly more, or being misled by website advertising (e.g., '$99 drain special' applying only to main sewer lines). This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED/INCOMPLETE WORK: At least two detailed reviews describe jobs left unfinished for weeks, including a hole left open in a yard for 4+ weeks and standing water still entering a home after a 6-week project. These are serious project completion failures.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: One reviewer reports a technician backing into their home and damaging gutters, then being dismissive about it. Another reports a snake chewing through pipes causing basement water damage.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews describe management and project managers refusing to return calls or answer phones once money has been collected or a problem needs to be resolved.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) are predominantly negative (1-star), suggesting conditions have not improved. Positive reviews are older (2018–2021) with one exception in late 2023 and one in late 2024.
• POSSIBLE AUTHENTIC POSITIVE OUTLIERS: The positive reviews (Travis, Jesse, Steven) include specific names and details, suggesting they are likely genuine — but they represent a small minority and do not reflect the dominant customer experience.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in language, detail level, and rating. No coordinated fake review pattern identified, positive or negative.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews with strong data coverage across all four dimensions and HIGH confidence ratings throughout, making it a reliable reflection of customer experience — the score of approximately 34 accurately signals serious and recurring problems with this contractor.

The reviews for 402 Plumbing Services paint a deeply concerning picture across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by a recurring pattern of no-shows, unanswered calls, ignored texts, and in one case harassing messages sent to a customer who filed a BBB complaint. Project completion is the weakest area, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, unresolved leaks, a contractor who disappeared after payment, and one allegation of outright fraud involving thousands of dollars. While a handful of positive reviews praise responsiveness and friendly service, these are heavily outweighed by detailed, credible negative accounts. Experience scores are also low, with documented instances of improperly installed faucets, a broken toilet, and a drain issue that a separate plumber resolved in five minutes after 402 Plumbing failed.

• FRAUD ALERT: One reviewer explicitly alleges being scammed out of thousands of dollars, with payment taken and contractor never returning. A police report and small claims court action were mentioned.
• ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe the contractor taking payment or making appointments and then becoming completely unreachable — a consistent and serious pattern across 2022–2023.
• HARASSMENT FLAG: One reviewer reports receiving harassing calls and texts after filing a BBB complaint, which is a significant red flag for business conduct.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Two 5-star reviews were posted on the exact same date and time (2022-12-27) with nearly identical scenarios (frozen/burst pipes over Christmas weekend) and very similar phrasing. These may not represent independent customers and have been weighted with reduced confidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023) are both 1-star and include the most serious allegations. The positive reviews are older (2021–2022), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• KEY RETENTION: One reviewer noted the contractor still had their house key after going no-contact following a paid job — a serious safety and trust concern.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews with strong cross-dimensional coverage and is considered HIGH confidence overall; however, the score should be treated as a serious warning given the volume, specificity, and severity of the negative accounts, including credible fraud allegations and a documented pattern of post-payment abandonment.