Find Nearby Plumbers In Topeka, Kansas

Snake N Rooter shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning 2014–2024. Recent positive reviews (2018, 2024) highlight excellent professionalism, fair pricing, and strong technical execution, with technicians praised for appearance, communication, and follow-through. However, older reviews (2014–2019) reveal serious failures in project completion (incomplete diagnostics, missed callbacks, no-shows after 24+ hours), questionable pricing practices (100% markups, lack of transparency), and poor customer service responsiveness. The company appears to have undergone ownership/rebranding (Koehler acquisition), which may explain the quality variance, but the pattern of critical failures in completion and communication significantly undermines overall trustworthiness.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 5–10 years old (2014–2019); most recent reviews (2024, 2018) are positive. This suggests possible improvement over time, but older failures are severe and documented.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews emphasizing professionalism/fair pricing and 1-star reviews citing incomplete work, missed callbacks, and billing disputes. This is not random variation—it suggests systemic issues that may have been partially addressed.
• OWNERSHIP/REBRANDING: One review explicitly notes the company acquired Koehler Plumbing and continued advertising under the old name without disclosure. This raises questions about transparency and business practices.
• CRITICAL FAILURE: 2019 review documents a major project completion failure (incomplete drain diagnosis, sewage backup, missed callback to property manager despite multiple prior contacts). This is a serious professional lapse.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviews cite lack of upfront pricing discussion and high markups (100% on parts). Recent positive review mentions 'fair price' but does not detail pricing transparency.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews suggest improvement, the company's documented history of incomplete work, missed callbacks, and billing disputes (2014–2019) is severe. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects this mixed record; however, if the company has genuinely reformed, older data may overweight current performance. Recommend requesting detailed written estimates and checking recent references before engaging.

H&R Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2011–2014. Positive reviews praise attentiveness, communication, fair pricing, and diagnostic skill; however, negative reviews document serious failures in project completion (incomplete work, poor cleanup), workmanship quality (multiple leaks, sloppy installation), and transparency (unexpected charges despite bid assurances). The two lowest-rated reviews (2.0 stars) describe incomplete toilet replacement, inadequate cleanup, and structural damage requiring drywall repair. This pattern suggests either inconsistent execution or deteriorating service quality over time. The WW Score reflects the drag of critical failures in completion and experience dimensions, which carry the highest combined weight (55%).

• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are 10+ years old (2011–2014). No recent data available to assess current service quality or whether issues have been resolved.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews (praising service) and 2-star reviews (documenting serious failures). This suggests either highly variable execution or different crews/time periods.
• QUALITY DEFECTS: Review from 2012 explicitly documents multiple pipe leaks and poor installation quality—a critical technical failure for a plumber.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Review from 2011 documents abandoned work (toilet removed but not replaced) and inadequate cleanup, both serious project completion failures.
• HIDDEN CHARGES: Review from 2012 reports unexpected extra charges despite bid assurances, indicating transparency issues.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews), age of data (10+ years), and conflicting evidence suggesting either inconsistent service quality or significant changes over time; current performance may differ substantially from these historical reviews.

D & J Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for professionalism across multiple reviews, with customers noting punctuality, friendliness, and clean work habits. Pricing feedback is limited but generally favorable, with one reviewer pleasantly surprised by a bill coming in well under estimate. However, the single most recent review (2020) is a serious negative outlier, describing poor workmanship, failure to follow manufacturer instructions, leakage issues, and a complete lack of accountability — this materially drags down project completion and experience scores. The bulk of positive reviews are dated between 2009 and 2018, meaning the most current data point available is the damaging 2020 complaint, which raises legitimate concerns about current service quality. Scores have been conservatively adjusted to reflect this recency imbalance.

• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review (July 2020) is a 1-star complaint describing serious workmanship failures, leakage, and no accountability. All other reviews are from 2009–2018, making the 2020 review the most current signal of service quality.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are more than 5 years old, with several exceeding 10 years. The WW Score may not reflect current business performance.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIER: The 2020 review explicitly describes a contractor knowingly installing a tub without a proper trim kit, ignoring manufacturer instructions, and refusing to stand behind their work — this is a significant project completion and experience failure.
• DATA VOLUME: Only 8 reviews total. Score reliability is limited by small sample size and wide date range spanning over a decade.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability due to a small review sample, a wide date range spanning 11 years, and a critical recent negative review that stands in sharp contrast to older positive feedback — prospective customers should seek more current references before hiring.

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning a decade. Professionalism is severely compromised by one extremely negative 2022 review detailing aggressive behavior and privacy violations, offsetting two positive experiences. Pricing is consistently praised as reasonable and fair. Project completion is undermined by a 2015 review documenting failed work and an unfulfilled refund promise, though two other reviews report successful job completion. Technical skill appears mixed, with one review praising quick resolution but another documenting failed sewer line clearing. The company ownership change noted in 2015 may explain some inconsistency, but recent data is limited.

• CRITICAL: One 2022 review documents severe professionalism issues including verbal aggression, profanity, and privacy violations (sharing customer addresses). This is a major red flag.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE: 2015 review indicates ownership transfer to new owner with noted credibility issues and broken refund promise. Company may have changed significantly.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Only one review from past 5 years (2023). Most data is 8-11 years old, limiting current reliability.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total. Confidence in overall score is inherently limited.
• UNRESOLVED COMPLAINT: 2015 review indicates promised refund was never delivered and customer could not reach owner due to call forwarding issues.

This score should be treated with caution due to very limited review volume (4 reviews), significant time gaps in data, and one severe professionalism incident that heavily influences the overall rating. The 2022 incident suggests serious personnel or management issues that may or may not have been addressed.

The review set is small (4 reviews) and spans several years, limiting reliability. Professionalism is mixed: two older positive reviews praise Chris's attitude and friendliness, but the most recent review (2022) describes poor communication, repeated rescheduling, showing up despite being told no one would be home, and ultimately cancelling the job without explanation — a serious professionalism failure. Project completion is similarly split: the 2022 reviewer's job was never completed and the engagement was abandoned, while the 2019 reviews describe completed work. Pricing received two positive mentions calling rates reasonable and the best in town, but both are older reviews with limited detail. Experience scores moderately based on positive workmanship mentions in older reviews, though the 2022 incident raises questions about follow-through on complex jobs.

• Very small sample size (4 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional.
• Three of the four positive reviews are from 2019–2020 and may not reflect current service quality.
• The most recent review (2022) is a detailed 1-star complaint describing abandoned work, poor communication, and rude behavior — this is a significant negative signal that outweighs older praise in recency weighting.
• Two of the positive reviews use generic superlative language ('Best plumber in town', 'Best experience we have had') with minimal specifics, which slightly raises fake review concern for those entries, though the third positive review is detailed and credible.
• Recency warning: The only review from the past 3 years is a 1-star review. No reviews exist from 2021 or 2023 onward.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to only 4 reviews, a 3-year gap in recent feedback, and a stark conflict between older positive reviews and the most recent negative experience — prospective customers should seek additional current references before hiring.

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.