Find Nearby Plumbers In Wichita, Kansas

The reviews paint a consistently negative picture of this contractor across nearly all scoreable dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by multiple accounts of poor communication, no follow-up notes left after visits, a technician abandoning a job mid-service without notice, and a manager refusing to accept accountability for property damage. Project completion is also weak, with reports of unresolved station failures, a technician stating he lacked time to complete repairs, and a 2013 installation producing a leak a decade later due to substandard fittings. Experience scores low due to the use of inadequate materials during installation and an inability to source replacement parts for a repair. The sole positive review praises friendliness and routine seasonal service but lacks specific detail, limiting its weight. Pricing data was entirely absent from all reviews and could not be scored.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• Three of four reviews are 1-star with specific, credible complaints; only one 5-star review exists and it is vague and non-specific, raising mild concern about its representativeness.
• The single positive review (2018) lacks any specific detail about workmanship, pricing, or project scope — it contributes limited signal.
• Two reviews are from 2018 and one from 2019, making them 4–6 years old; only one review (2023) falls within the past 12 months. Recency weighting favors the 2023 negative review.
• A pattern of poor accountability and communication appears across multiple independent reviews, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning a wide date range, with the majority being negative and detailed — the score should be treated as directionally informative but not statistically reliable due to the very small sample size.

The review set is dominated by two highly detailed, recent negative reviews (2023) describing severe failures in communication, follow-through, and job completion — including unreturned calls, no-shows, a gas leak left unresolved, and escalating unexplained charges. These two reviews alone paint a deeply concerning picture of professionalism and project completion. A single positive review from 2021 praises experience and customer service, but it is brief, older, and outweighed by the specificity and severity of the negative accounts. Pricing concerns are also present, with one reviewer describing unexpected and escalating bills that were never clearly justified. The overall WW Score is very low, driven primarily by the strong negative evidence across professionalism and project completion dimensions.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as directional only and not fully reliable.
• The single positive review (2021) is vague and generic with no specific job details, raising minor concern about its authenticity or usefulness as evidence.
• Two of three reviews are from 2023 and are highly detailed negative accounts; these are given greater weight due to recency.
• One review explicitly describes a gas leak that was left unresolved — this is a serious safety concern and a significant red flag for this contractor.
• A pattern of unreturned calls and no-shows appears independently in both negative reviews, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• The positive review is over 2 years old relative to the negative reviews and may not reflect current business practices.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered LOW reliability — however, the two detailed negative reviews from 2023 provide strong directional evidence of serious operational problems that prospective customers should not ignore.

This contractor presents a deeply contradictory profile that prevents reliable scoring. One detailed 2020 review documents severe professionalism failures including hostile behavior, foul language, discrimination, and problematic payment practices, while five older reviews (2015–2018) contain exclusively positive praise with minimal specificity. The stark contrast between the single detailed negative review and generic positive reviews, combined with suspicious patterns in the positive reviews (vague language, lack of detail, identical 5-star ratings), suggests potential fake review activity. The 2020 complaint is recent and detailed with corroborating witnesses, making it credible, but the older positive reviews lack substantive evidence. Project completion shows mixed signals: some work was completed, but one review explicitly states the contractor refused callbacks to fix faulty work.

• CRITICAL: Suspected fake reviews — five reviews contain generic praise with no specific details (e.g., 'I prefer Tri-State Plumbing' with no context, 'unknown' text, vague statements about daughters' bathrooms). These lack the specificity of genuine reviews.
• SEVERE PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: One detailed, dated 2020 review documents hostile behavior, foul language, discrimination, refusal to accept standard payment methods, and pressure tactics. Multiple witnesses corroborate the account.
• REFUSAL TO HONOR CALLBACKS: Explicitly stated in 2020 review — contractor performed faulty work and refused to return to fix it.
• RECENCY BIAS: Positive reviews are 2–5 years old (2015–2018); the most recent substantive review (2020) is highly negative. Older reviews may not reflect current practices.
• PAYMENT PRACTICE RED FLAGS: Contractor demands cash and cashier checks only, avoiding credit cards, PayPal, and Venmo — unusual for legitimate contractors and creates no paper trail.
• DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATION: 2020 review documents discriminatory behavior toward Latino contractors on-site.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to contradictory evidence and suspected fake reviews. The single detailed, recent, and corroborated negative review raises serious concerns about professionalism and ethics that outweigh generic positive reviews lacking specificity. Extreme caution is warranted; this contractor should not be hired without independent verification and direct reference checks.

All three reviews are severely negative, with consistent complaints about professionalism failures including no-shows, tardiness, poor communication, and lack of follow-through. Two reviews explicitly mention incomplete or delayed project work spanning days or weeks beyond estimates, with unfinished electrical installations and patching. One reviewer noted questionable workmanship and costly mistakes, while another acknowledged adequate cabinet work. The oldest review is from 2021 and middle review from 2023; only one is recent (October 2024). With only 3 total reviews and all negative, this dataset is insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews total — below minimum threshold for reliable scoring
• All three reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive counterbalance
• Recency concern: Two reviews are 1-3 years old; only one recent review from October 2024
• Middle review (2023) suggests possible improvement trajectory ('may be he has straighten up'), but recent October 2024 review contradicts this with continued no-show behavior
• No pricing data available across any reviews
• Pattern of no-shows and communication failures is consistent across all reviews, suggesting systemic issue rather than isolated incidents

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=3). The overwhelmingly negative pattern is concerning and consistent, but with only three reviews and mixed recency, any numerical score would be unreliable. Do not use this assessment for high-stakes decisions without additional recent reviews.

This contractor shows severe and consistent deficiencies across critical dimensions. Two of three reviews (67%) report catastrophic project failures: one involving a toilet malfunction that required evacuation, the other a sewage line repair that left sewage under the house and property damage. Professionalism is severely compromised by non-responsiveness (multiple unanswered calls) and alleged discriminatory behavior. One positive 2017 review praises honesty, fairness, and workmanship quality, but this is heavily outweighed by two recent 1-star reviews documenting serious failures. The extreme polarization and severity of complaints suggest either dramatic service degradation or fundamental reliability issues.

• CRITICAL: Two of three reviews describe catastrophic failures with serious consequences (evacuation, property damage, non-responsiveness). This is not normal variation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The positive review is from March 2017 (7+ years old). The two negative reviews are from 2017 and 2021, suggesting persistent or worsening problems.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: 5-star vs. 1-star with no middle ground. This pattern, combined with severity of complaints, indicates either severe service degradation or fundamental reliability issues.
• RESPONSIVENESS RED FLAG: One review explicitly documents multiple unanswered calls and messages—a critical professionalism failure.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. While data quality is high, statistical reliability is limited.

This assessment should be treated with CAUTION due to small sample size (n=3), but the severity and consistency of documented failures across two recent reviews strongly suggest serious reliability and quality issues that warrant investigation before engagement.

With only 3 reviews, this dataset is too small to produce a reliable WW Score. The reviews show extreme polarization: one 1-star review detailing severe project failures (incomplete work, unresponsive callbacks, damage to customer property) and two 5-star reviews praising quality and reliability. The negative review explicitly documents poor project completion and lack of follow-through on callbacks. The positive reviews highlight strong experience and professionalism. This contradictory pattern suggests either significant service inconsistency or potential data quality issues. A meaningful assessment requires substantially more recent reviews.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient for reliable scoring. Minimum 5-10 reviews recommended.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: One 1-star vs. two 5-star reviews with no middle ground suggests either inconsistent service quality or potential review authenticity concerns.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Two reviews are from 2015 and 2017 (5-9 years old). Only one review from 2018. No recent reviews within past 12 months available.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: The 1-star review documents specific failures including property damage (hardwood floor buckling), unresponsive callbacks, incomplete work (condensation line, breaker replacement, wiring), and referral to competitor. These are explicit project completion failures.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK DETAIL: The two 5-star reviews are generic in praise and provide minimal specifics about scope or complexity of work performed.
• CONTRACTOR IDENTITY UNCLEAR: Reviews reference different names (Ron, Frank) — unclear if same business or different personnel, which affects reliability assessment.

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. With only 3 reviews spanning 9 years and extreme polarization between 1-star and 5-star ratings, no statistically valid conclusion can be drawn about contractor reliability. The serious allegations in the 1-star review (property damage, unresponsive service, incomplete work) are deeply concerning but cannot be weighted against insufficient positive data. Seek additional recent reviews or references before engaging this contractor.