Find Nearby Plumbers In Topeka, Kansas

This contractor shows mixed performance across limited review data. Professionalism is supported by two reviews praising timeliness and cleanup, but project completion is severely undermined by one explicit failure to respond and complete work. The oldest reviews (2013–2015) lack recency, and the sample size of only 3 reviews is too small to establish reliable patterns. No pricing information was mentioned in any review, and technical experience/skill level was not explicitly discussed.

• Critical: Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable scoring
• Recency concern: All reviews are 9+ years old (2013–2015); no recent performance data available
• One review explicitly documents non-responsiveness and failure to complete work (1-star rating)
• Positive reviews lack specificity and detail; cannot verify authenticity
• No pricing or experience/skill data mentioned in any review

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution due to very small sample size, age of reviews, and conflicting signals between positive and negative feedback; the score is not reliable for decision-making.

This contractor exhibits a deeply problematic pattern of taking upfront payments and failing to complete work, with multiple customers reporting non-responsiveness, excuses, and refusal to refund. While three older reviews (2020-2021) praise responsiveness and technical skill, the three recent reviews (2023-2024) describe systematic fraud-like behavior including demanding thousands upfront, abandoning projects, and ghosting clients. The stark contrast between older and recent reviews suggests either a significant deterioration in business practices or a change in ownership/management. The preponderance of evidence points to serious reliability and ethical issues that overshadow any positive historical performance.

• CRITICAL: Three recent reviews (Feb 2024, Sept 2023 x2) describe patterns consistent with fraud: demanding large upfront payments, non-completion of work, non-responsiveness, and refusal to refund. One reviewer explicitly states 'this isn't the first time he's done this.'
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are 3-4 years old (2020-2021); negative reviews are recent (2023-2024). This suggests a significant deterioration in service quality or business practices over time.
• PAYMENT ABUSE PATTERN: All three negative reviews specifically mention upfront payment demands ($1,500-$4,000+) followed by non-completion and non-refund. This is a red flag for predatory business practices.
• RESPONSIVENESS CONTRADICTION: Older reviews praise quick response times; recent reviews describe ghosting and non-responsiveness. This inconsistency warrants caution.

This score should be treated with HIGH caution due to a stark temporal divide: older reviews are positive but outdated (3-4 years), while recent reviews describe serious fraud-like patterns. The WW Score of 42.3 reflects the weight of recent evidence, but potential customers should be aware that this contractor may pose significant financial risk based on current behavior patterns.

This contractor has a mixed track record across only 3 reviews spanning several years. Two older positive reviews highlight prompt scheduling, same-day service, and professional demeanor, which partially support the professionalism and experience scores. However, the most recent review (2023) is a serious negative account describing post-service damage to a hardwood floor caused by a dishwasher leak, and the contractor's refusal to take responsibility or remedy the damage without additional charge significantly drags down the project completion score. Pricing data is limited to a single mention of a $65 trip charge under a home warranty, making that dimension unreliable. Overall, the recency of the negative review is weighted heavily and raises meaningful concern about accountability and follow-through.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with significant caution.
• The two positive reviews are from 2019 and 2020, making them 4–5 years old at time of the most recent review. The most recent review (2023) is negative and is given greater weight per recency rules.
• The 2023 review describes a contractor causing damage and refusing to remedy it without charge — a serious accountability and project completion failure.
• Positive reviews are brief and lack specific detail, which limits their evidentiary value for scoring purposes.
• Pricing score is based on a single mention under a home warranty context, which may not reflect standard out-of-pocket pricing for all customers.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with a wide date range, and should be considered LOW reliability — prospective customers should seek additional recent references before hiring.

The review set is deeply divided: one recent 5-star review praises speed and friendliness, while two negative reviews raise serious concerns across all dimensions. The most detailed negative review (2015) describes a misdiagnosis, excessive and unnecessary repairs costing $1,800, significant property damage described as 'minor,' and a rude response when the customer followed up — directly impacting professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience scores. The 2019 review adds a warranty refusal after defective work, further dragging down project completion confidence. The single positive review, while enthusiastic, lacks specific detail and cannot offset the weight of two substantive negative accounts. Scores are conservatively set to reflect the serious nature of the documented failures.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with significant caution.
• Two of three reviews are older than 12 months (2015 and 2019); only one review (2024) falls within the past 12 months. Recency weighting heavily favors the single positive review, but the older negative reviews contain far more substantive detail.
• The sole 5-star review uses enthusiastic but vague language ('miracle workers', 'no BS', 'best and fastest') with limited specific detail, which slightly raises generic praise concerns, though it does reference a specific scenario (leak resolved in 30 minutes).
• The 2015 review documents a potential misdiagnosis resulting in $1,800 in charges for unnecessary work — a serious workmanship and ethics concern.
• The 2019 review documents a refusal to honor warranty on defective work — a direct project completion and professionalism failure.
• The rude phone interaction described in the 2015 review, where the customer was dismissed after reporting an unresolved issue, is a significant professionalism red flag.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning nearly a decade and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional recent references before making a hiring decision.

This contractor's reviews present a deeply mixed and largely negative picture across a very small sample of only 3 reviews. Two of the three reviews describe serious failures: one details an abandoned project with repeated unanswered callbacks, and another describes an incomplete sewer inspection that led to an emergency issue shortly after being told the system was fine. The single positive review praises punctuality, transparent pricing, and quality workmanship on a water heater installation, which prevents the score from bottoming out entirely. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with two explicit failures including an outright abandoned job. The small review count means this score carries very limited reliability and should be interpreted with caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated as indicative only.
• Two of three reviews are 1-star with specific, credible complaints about incomplete work and poor follow-through — this is a significant red flag.
• One review is dated 2023, which is older than 12 months relative to the most recent reviews (2024); the two most recent reviews are both negative.
• The single positive review, while detailed and credible, is from January 2023 and is now over a year old — it carries reduced weight given recency rules.
• No fake review patterns detected; all reviews contain specific details and appear genuine.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — the score directionally suggests significant service quality concerns, but far more reviews are needed before any confident assessment can be made.

M S Plumbing demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Nine of ten reviews are 1-star ratings documenting failures to complete work, lack of technical competence, poor communication, and refusal to honor commitments. The company repeatedly charged customers (including warranty companies) without performing promised services, failed to diagnose or fix basic plumbing issues, and exhibited unprofessional behavior including rudeness and non-responsiveness. The single 5-star review from 2006 is substantially outweighed by nine recent negative reviews (2009–2024) documenting systemic operational failures. This score reflects a company with critical reliability and competence issues.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF FAILURE: 9 of 10 reviews are 1-star ratings with consistent complaints about non-completion of work, lack of technical knowledge, and refusal to perform contracted services.
• WARRANTY FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple reviews (at least 3) document the company accepting payment from home warranty companies (AHS, generic warranty) and then refusing to perform work or claiming inability to complete simple tasks.
• TECHNICAL INCOMPETENCE: Repeated documentation of failure to diagnose basic plumbing issues (rusty bolts, wax seals, simple clogs), refusal to use proper equipment, and misdiagnosis of problems.
• PROFESSIONALISM FAILURES: Multiple reports of rudeness, non-responsiveness to callbacks (one review documents 2.5+ days without response), and refusal to honor commitments (e.g., promised removal of old water heater never completed).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2021–2024 (recent), while the single positive review is from 2006 (18 years old), suggesting either significant deterioration or that the positive review may not reflect current operations.
• CODE VIOLATIONS: One review documents installation of water heater with multiple code violations (missing expansion tank, missing pan, improper installation) that created safety hazards.
• SINGLE POSITIVE REVIEW ANOMALY: The 5-star review from 2006 is substantially older than all negative reviews and uses generic praise language. However, it does not exhibit typical fake review markers (no identical phrasing to other reviews, specific details about 15-year relationship). Treat with caution given recency gap.

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 10 reviews with strong consensus (9 of 10 are 1-star), recent data (most from 2021–2024), and consistent documentation of specific failures across all dimensions. The company demonstrates systemic operational and competence failures that pose financial and safety risks to customers.