Find Nearby Plumbers In Wichita, Kansas

Patriot Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback on professionalism, with multiple reviewers citing punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness. Pricing is viewed favorably by those who mentioned it, with one reviewer specifically contrasting Patriot's reasonable quote against an inflated competitor estimate. However, a detailed 1-star review from 2014 significantly weighs down the project completion and experience dimensions, describing shoddy demolition work, property damage, poor finishing, and an inadequate cleanup attempt that left the home in worse condition. The remaining positive reviews do support solid workmanship and follow-through in most cases, but the severity of the negative account cannot be dismissed. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with generally good service but a documented instance of serious quality failure.

• All reviews are older than 8 years (most recent: August 2016), making this data significantly outdated. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this dataset.
• The 1-star review (2014-08-26) describes extensive property damage including ruined carpet, destroyed trim, pitted walls, improper materials, and an inadequate remediation attempt — this is a serious quality and professionalism concern that materially impacts scoring.
• Several positive reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Professional all the way!', 'Ben has always been very professional') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual data points, though not enough to flag as clearly fake.
• Sample size of 8 reviews is small, limiting statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small and entirely outdated review set (all reviews pre-2017), a single but highly detailed negative review that reveals a significant service failure, and several positive reviews that lack sufficient specificity to fully offset that concern.

American Services has a genuinely mixed record across its review history. On the positive side, multiple detailed reviews praise punctual arrivals, courteous crews, honest estimates, and responsive communication — particularly for foundation repair and HVAC work. However, a recurring and serious pattern of non-responsiveness undermines professionalism significantly: at least five separate reviews explicitly describe unanswered calls, ignored voicemails, and failure to follow up on quotes or warranty claims. Project completion is similarly split — several jobs were completed cleanly and on time, but at least two foundation warranty situations were abandoned entirely, and one detailed HVAC duct job was independently assessed by three other contractors as substandard work that the company refused to remedy. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple reviewers noting fair or competitive quotes and honest assessments, though one reviewer paid a premium for work that required correction by others. The overall score is pulled down meaningfully by the consistent responsiveness failures and the unresolved workmanship dispute.

• Six reviews consist solely of a period '.' with no text content and all carry 5-star ratings dated 2014–2017. These are almost certainly fake or placeholder reviews and have been excluded from scoring as they contain no usable data.
• The six dot-only reviews share identical formatting and two pairs share the exact same date (2017-07-26), strongly suggesting coordinated or artificial review inflation.
• The majority of substantive reviews are older than 5 years (pre-2018), with only three reviews dated within the past 24 months (2022–2023). Recency is low and the contractor's current performance may differ significantly from historical patterns.
• A serious unresolved workmanship complaint (2022) describes ductwork condemned by three independent HVAC contractors, with the owner refusing refund or remedy — this is a significant quality and integrity flag.
• Two separate reviews (2011 and 2023) describe the same pattern: foundation warranty work ignored after new owners reported problems, suggesting a systemic policy of avoiding warranty callbacks.
• Non-responsiveness is cited in at least five distinct reviews spanning 2012 to 2023, indicating this is a persistent and ongoing operational issue rather than an isolated incident.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the volume of substantive reviews is adequate, but the score is significantly shaped by a long time horizon with most reviews being 5+ years old, the exclusion of six likely fake reviews, and a persistent pattern of responsiveness failures and at least one serious unresolved workmanship dispute that collectively prevent a higher confidence rating.

David Lies Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with punctual, courteous technicians and responsive office staff (6 mentions, HIGH confidence). However, pricing practices are problematic: one customer was charged ~$300 for a 40-minute job with questionable labor billing from dispatch call onward, while another praised competitive rates and cost savings. Experience is mixed—most jobs show competent workmanship, but a critical 2018 water softener installation was bungled by an inexperienced technician who misrouted hoses, went unresolved for a year, and received poor follow-up. Project completion shows inconsistency: simple repairs are handled well, but complex projects reveal gaps in quality control and accountability. The 2018 failure is particularly damaging given the company's failure to follow up on a serious installation error.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One 2024 review (2-star) documents aggressive labor billing practices—charging from dispatch call time rather than arrival, plus 15 minutes for paperwork. Another review praises 'reasonable and competitive' pricing. This suggests either inconsistent pricing models or selective application of fees.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: The 2018 water softener installation (1-star) reveals serious quality control issues. Technician sent was inexperienced and admitted not knowing the system. Hoses were incorrectly routed (brine and resin lines both to drain). Company failed to follow up on customer's April 30, 2018 callback for over 24 hours despite acknowledging the problem.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2020-2022 (older than 2 years). The most recent review (June 2024) is negative and documents pricing concerns. Only 1 of 8 reviews is from the past 12 months.
• EXPERIENCE VARIABILITY: Reviews mention both 'experienced plumber Bob' and an inexperienced technician sent for water softener work. Suggests inconsistent technician quality and poor job-to-technician matching.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURE: The 2018 review explicitly documents poor follow-up and lack of accountability. Company did not contact Sterling as promised and customer had to resolve the issue independently.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism scores well based on 6 mentions, the pricing dimension is undermined by contradictory evidence and one documented case of aggressive billing practices. The 2018 water softener failure is a serious red flag for project completion and experience, though it is now 6+ years old. The single recent review (2024) is negative, suggesting potential current issues. Recommend requesting references for complex projects and clarifying labor billing practices upfront before engaging this company.

Ballard Plumbing receives consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism and project completion being the most frequently mentioned. Reviewers specifically highlight punctuality, courteous communication, and follow-through on commitments — including a notable instance where the owner personally returned to resolve a post-service issue. Technical competence is evidenced by solving problems that other plumbers could not diagnose, and one reviewer praised the quality of a full re-pipe under their home. Pricing transparency is mentioned in only one review, where the contractor clearly explained costs upfront, but this is too limited a sample to score with confidence. The overall picture is positive, but the small review pool and age of most reviews (the most recent being from 2022) limit how much weight this score should carry.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable. A minimum of 8–10 reviews is recommended for moderate reliability.
• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings. While the reviews contain specific details and varied narratives that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformity of ratings warrants mild caution.
• Three of the four reviews are older than 3 years (2017, 2020, 2021), and the most recent is from 2022. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• Pricing dimension is based on a single mention — score should be treated as highly uncertain and given minimal weight.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review sample (4 reviews), the absence of any reviews from the past 12 months, and the fact that all reviews are 5-star, which limits the ability to identify weaknesses or inconsistencies in service quality.

All five reviews mention professionalism in some form, consistently praising courteous, friendly, and timely behavior, which drives the strongest dimension score. Experience and workmanship are positively noted across multiple reviews, including a notable example of proactive problem-solving to meet city code compliance. Project completion scores are tempered by one reviewer explicitly noting the contractor became less prompt toward the end of a larger project, which is a meaningful flag against an otherwise positive pattern. Pricing data is thin, drawn from only two reviews — one noting a best-bid selection and one noting no charge for an additional small task — making that dimension score low-confidence. The overall WW Score is moderately positive but should be treated cautiously given the small review pool and the age of all reviews.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY OUTDATED: The most recent review is from March 2017, and the majority are from 2011–2015. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total. This is above the minimum threshold of 3 but far too few to draw strong conclusions about consistent contractor behavior.
• ONE NEGATIVE SIGNAL ON PROJECT COMPLETION: The 2011 review explicitly states the contractor became less prompt near the end of a larger project, which is a meaningful quality concern that prevents a higher completion score.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in detail, tone, date, and rating (one 4-star present), which suggests authentic responses. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing flagged.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review pool of only 5 reviews, all of which are between 8 and 13 years old, making it impossible to assess the contractor's current quality or consistency.

All four reviews are positive and paint a consistent picture of a professional, honest, and fairly priced plumbing operation. Professionalism is the most consistently mentioned dimension across all reviews, with specific praise for communication, politeness, and going above and beyond (e.g., drafting a letter for a realtor, offering multiple solutions before starting work). Pricing is highlighted strongly in the detailed slab-leak review, where the contractor's price was described as a fraction of a large chain competitor's quote. Project completion is supported by two reviews that describe jobs being seen through to full resolution, including a multi-visit slab leak repair. Experience is evidenced by the technical problem-solving described in the slab-leak review and the honest, knowledgeable approach noted in others. However, the small sample size and the age of most reviews significantly limit confidence in these scores.

• Only 4 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about consistent contractor performance.
• Three of the four reviews are from 2016–2019, making them 5–8 years old. Only one review (2020) is within the past few years, and none are from the past 12 months. Recency is a significant concern.
• Two reviews (2019-09-19 and 2019-04-12) are brief and generic with limited specifics, which slightly reduces their evidentiary value, though they do not appear to be fake — they name a specific plumber (Charles) or reference a specific context.
• The detailed 2016 review is highly specific and credible, but its age reduces its weight in the current scoring context.

This WW Score should be treated as LOW RELIABILITY due to the very small number of reviews (4) and the fact that the majority of reviews are 5–8 years old, providing little insight into the contractor's current performance.