Find Nearby Plumbers In Wichita, Kansas

This review set spans multiple years and appears to cover at least two distinct business entities — 'American Plumbing Service' (associated primarily with William Llamas in the Menifee/Sun City, CA area) and 'America's Plumbing and Drains' (associated with Chris Pratt in what appears to be a Midwest/East Coast market) — as well as a third entity that handled home warranty work and generated a large cluster of extremely negative reviews centered on a rude female owner/receptionist named Chris or Christine Kastanos. The positive reviews (predominantly 2021–2025) paint a picture of skilled, punctual, honest technicians — particularly William — who deliver quality workmanship at fair prices. However, the large volume of 1-star reviews (roughly 40+ reviews) describing no-shows, rude staff, abandoned jobs, bogus charges, and outright hostile customer service interactions significantly drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing feedback is mixed: several reviewers praised fair and competitive pricing while others cited excessive charges (e.g., $630 to snake a drain, $1,400 for a garbage disposal, $1,006 for a flange and wax ring). The experience dimension scores highest because the on-site technicians — across all entities — were consistently described as knowledgeable and skilled even in negative reviews.

• ENTITY CONFUSION WARNING: Reviews appear to cover at least two or three distinct businesses sharing similar names ('American Plumbing Service,' 'America's Plumbing and Drains,' and possibly a Michigan-based entity). Scores are therefore a blended average across potentially unrelated companies and should not be attributed to any single contractor without verification.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2025-03-11, and 2025-02-09 contain multiple blank-text 5-star entries (no review body). Blank 5-star reviews with no content are a known pattern of review padding and reduce confidence in the positive score cluster.
• RECENCY SPLIT: Positive reviews are heavily concentrated in 2021–2025 (primarily for William/American Plumbing Service CA). Negative reviews span 2011–2021 and appear concentrated around a different operator or ownership period. The score reflects this full historical record; the current operator (William) may perform significantly better than the blended score suggests.
• SEVERE CUSTOMER SERVICE PATTERN IN OLDER REVIEWS: Approximately 40 reviews (primarily 2013–2021) describe an identical pattern — a rude female owner/receptionist (named Chris, Christine, or Cindy), repeated no-shows, abandoned jobs, and hostile phone interactions. This is a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents, and materially impacts the professionalism and project completion scores.
• PRICING OUTLIERS: At least three reviews cite specific charges that multiple reviewers and even a second-opinion plumber described as excessive or fabricated (e.g., unnecessary parts charges, $630 drain snake, $1,400 garbage disposal). One review explicitly documents a second plumber confirming that recommended parts were unnecessary. This warrants caution on the pricing dimension.
• ONE REVIEW explicitly states that American Plumbing Service (the CA entity) performed a water heater installation with at least 9 major code violations identified by a city inspector, requiring complete reinstallation by a competitor. This is a serious workmanship flag even though it is a single data point.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: 10+ reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were counted in total reviews analyzed but not used to score any dimension, per scoring rules.

This WW Score carries LOW-TO-MODERATE reliability as a guide to any single contractor because the review pool almost certainly blends multiple distinct business entities across different geographies and ownership periods, making it impossible to cleanly attribute the negative or positive signals to one operator without independent verification.

The review corpus spans multiple businesses operating under similar or overlapping names (All Around Plumbing, All Counties Plumbing, John's Plumbing), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — the majority of reviews praise punctuality, courtesy, and communication — but is substantially dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern of no-shows: multiple independent reviewers across different time periods report technicians failing to appear for scheduled appointments without notice, which is a critical professionalism failure. Pricing is mixed: many reviewers cite fair or reasonable pricing, but several credible negative reviews describe hidden charges, quotes that ballooned dramatically, and one reviewer alleging a $350 estimate fee followed by a quote more than double competitors. Project completion is the most concerning dimension — multiple reviews describe jobs started but never finished, deposits taken with no return, warranty claims ignored for months, and at least one case of a technician causing additional damage and abandoning the site. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, with many reviewers praising diagnostic skill, technical knowledge, and quality workmanship, though offset by at least two reviews describing incorrect or substandard work requiring remediation.

• MULTIPLE BUSINESS IDENTITY ISSUE: Reviews appear to span at least three distinct businesses — 'All Around Plumbing', 'All Counties Plumbing', and 'John's Plumbing' — with different owners (Karel, Lindell, Philip, Yohendry). Scores may conflate unrelated companies, reducing reliability.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews dated 2024-06-09 and 2025-05-10 share identical dates with no specific detail, generic praise, and no job description. Several blank reviews (rating only, no text) are present throughout. These patterns are consistent with review padding.
• REPEATED NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviewers across different years (2020, 2023, 2025) explicitly report technicians failing to appear for scheduled appointments without notification. This is a systemic reliability concern, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK / PAYMENT FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2020, 2024) describe contractors taking deposits or full payment and never returning to complete work. One review describes a contractor digging a hole, breaking a pipe, and disappearing. One review describes being billed for a job the company never attended.
• WARRANTY DISHONORING: At least one detailed review (2025-01-10) describes All Counties Plumbing refusing to honor a 3-year warranty after 1 year, ignoring calls for 2 months.
• BILLING MISCONDUCT: One detailed 2015 review describes the company attempting to collect a prior owner's debt by changing the name on an invoice, then hanging up on the customer when disputed. Owner never followed up.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but the negative reviews are distributed across all time periods including 2025, suggesting ongoing issues rather than historical problems that have been resolved.
• 35 reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• SCORE CONFIDENCE CAVEAT: Despite HIGH confidence labels (driven by mention volume), the mixed-entity nature of this review set and the presence of suspected padded reviews mean the WW Score should be interpreted with caution.

This WW Score carries LIMITED practical reliability due to the likely commingling of reviews from multiple distinct businesses, a credible pattern of fake or padded reviews inflating positive sentiment, and serious recurring negative patterns (no-shows, abandoned jobs, billing disputes) that suggest systemic operational failures at one or more of the entities represented in this review set.

A Good Plumber earns reasonably strong marks for professionalism — the majority of reviewers praise punctuality, courteous technicians, pre-arrival notifications with photos, use of boot covers, and clear communication before work begins. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this review set: a large and consistent volume of reviewers — spanning many years — explicitly describe charges as excessive, non-transparent, or outright exploitative, with multiple reviewers providing specific dollar comparisons showing significant overcharges on parts and labor. Project completion is mixed: most jobs are finished, but there are notable failures including abandoned work, a plumber leaving mid-job and not returning, a gas leak created and initially denied, an emergency service that failed to respond until morning, and at least one instance of work needing to be redone by another contractor. Experience scores moderately well — technicians are frequently described as knowledgeable and thorough — but is tempered by several reviews citing misdiagnosis, unnecessary upselling, and at least one instance of a crew that clearly lacked the skills to diagnose the problem correctly.

• PRICING PATTERN — The single most consistent theme across this entire review set is overpricing. Reviewers repeatedly cite specific examples: $597 for a 10-minute faucet repair, $91 for a $20 air valve, $291 for pipe that costs under $20, $3000+ for toilet replacement, and charges described as 30-75% above market rate. This is a structural business practice, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK — At least two reviews describe work that was not completed: one reviewer paid for an evaluation with holes cut in walls and the plumber left and never returned; another reviewer describes being told to wait a week for a master plumber while sitting without heat, hot water, or cooking gas.
• SAFETY INCIDENT — One reviewer reports a gas leak was created during installation and the company initially denied it was possible and refused to send anyone out, only responding after the customer threatened to call another plumber. This is a serious safety flag.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE FAILURE — A Diamond Club member with 7-day emergency service coverage reported calling at midnight with sewage overflow and receiving no callback until late the following morning. The company's emergency service promise appears unreliable based on this account.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES — Multiple reviews cite no-shows, last-minute cancellations (sometimes less than an hour before appointment), and calls going unreturned for days or an entire weekend. One reviewer reports calling Friday and not being called back until Monday morning.
• RECENCY NOTE — This review set spans from 2007 to 2024. Reviews older than 2020 (approximately 65+ reviews) should be weighted lower. The most recent reviews (2021–2024) are fewer in number but generally more positive, suggesting possible service improvement in recent years. However, the pricing complaints appear consistently across all time periods.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW. Reviews contain specific names (Thomas, Tommy, Warren, Jose, Bill, Dan), specific dollar amounts, specific dates, and a wide range of sentiment including detailed negative experiences. No significant fake review pattern detected. The review set appears authentic.
• GEOGRAPHIC NOTE — One reviewer notes the company does not cover Manhattan despite appearing in Manhattan search results. Another notes they moved away from the service area. These do not affect scoring but are relevant for prospective customers.

This WW Score is based on a large, detailed, and multi-year review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the persistent and well-documented pricing concerns, which represent a structural business practice rather than isolated complaints, and the serious but less frequent safety and project-abandonment incidents.

On Time Plumbing receives strong praise from the majority of recent reviewers for punctuality, friendliness, and professionalism, with many technicians named individually and commended for communication and attitude. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — primarily from 2017–2022 — documents serious failures including missed appointments, poor communication, incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and rude customer service interactions, which significantly temper the overall scores. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, but one notable complaint about a $2,700 estimate that did not adjust when the scope of work changed substantially raises transparency concerns. Project completion is the most polarized dimension: recent reviews show jobs finished well, while older reviews describe unresolved issues, incorrect diagnoses, and work left incomplete. The score reflects a business that appears to have improved in recent years but carries a documented history of significant service failures.

• 14 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A large cluster of reviews from 2021-07-16 share the exact same date with very short, generic text (e.g., 'Great!!!', 'Great service.', 'Best company around town very professional'). This pattern is consistent with potentially inauthentic or solicited reviews and has been treated with reduced confidence.
• Several older reviews (2017–2022) document serious recurring issues: technicians arriving late or not at all, incomplete diagnoses, abandoned work, rude customer service, and billing disputes. These are weighted less due to recency rules but are too numerous and specific to ignore.
• The 1-star review from 2022-06-26 describes a technician cutting a hole in a ceiling, failing to find the leak, and leaving without repair — a significant project completion failure.
• The 1-star review from 2017-11-12 alleges charging $770 for code-compliance work with no itemized receipt provided after 5 months of follow-up — a potential pricing transparency and billing integrity concern.
• Recency note: The majority of positive, detailed reviews are from 2025 and late 2024, suggesting possible service improvement over time. Negative reviews are concentrated in 2017–2022. Both periods are included in scoring per methodology, but recent trend is more favorable.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with usable text across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should note the significant split between a strong recent positive trend and a documented history of serious service failures in prior years, as well as a cluster of suspiciously generic same-date reviews that may inflate the positive signal.

A&M Plumbing receives strong praise across many recent reviews for punctuality, communication, and courteous service, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting on-time arrivals, proactive updates, and above-and-beyond behavior. However, professionalism scores are meaningfully dragged down by two older but detailed reviews describing a contractor (Matt) who gave quotes and then completely failed to show up or communicate, as well as one review citing poor communication during a job. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: there are multiple serious, specific complaints about faulty installations — including leaking dishwashers, sinks, and toilets installed incorrectly, a flooded rec room caused by an improperly secured discharge hose, and an alleged attempt to upsell unnecessary repairs — all of which represent significant workmanship failures. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by those who mention it, with several reviewers calling costs fair or reasonable, though one review describes a high-pressure upsell attempt that undermines this. The experience dimension reflects a split picture: many reviewers praise skill and attention to detail, but the documented installation failures indicate inconsistent technical execution across jobs and possibly across different technicians.

• Three reviews dated 2015–2015 contain only the word 'unknown' with no review text and 5-star ratings — these are not usable for scoring and may represent placeholder or fake entries.
• Two reviews dated 2022-09-30 contain only the word 'Excellent' with identical dates and identical text — possible duplicate or fake reviews; excluded from substantive scoring.
• The review set spans from 2008 to 2024, meaning many reviews are significantly older than 12 months. Reviews from 2013–2018 reference different named technicians (Ty, Matt, Alin) suggesting personnel or ownership changes over time, which limits the reliability of older reviews as indicators of current performance.
• The two most damaging no-show reviews (2015 and 2016) reference a 'Matt' who may no longer be associated with the business. However, they cannot be dismissed without confirmation and are included in scoring with appropriate weight reduction due to age.
• The 2020 review describing multiple simultaneous installation failures (dishwasher, sink, toilet) is highly specific and credible, and significantly impacts the project completion score.
• The 2008 review about the flooded rec room is over 15 years old and has been given minimal weight in scoring due to extreme age, but is noted as a documented workmanship failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence in terms of data volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given the wide date range of reviews, evidence of personnel changes over time, and several specific and credible complaints about installation failures that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong pattern of positive recent feedback.

Amigo Construction scores well across all four dimensions with the strongest signals coming from professionalism and project completion. Multiple reviewers explicitly praised punctuality, responsiveness, and the owner Javier's customer-focused attitude, driving a solid professionalism score. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting timely delivery, clean-up, and follow-through — though one review noted the crew left a mess that required a callback before being fully resolved, which tempers the score slightly. Experience is backed by several mentions of quality workmanship and knowledgeable crew. Pricing confidence is limited to just two mentions, so that dimension carries reduced weight in the final score.

• Two reviews contain no text at all (only a 5-star rating) and contribute no usable data — these were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Several reviews are generic and brief (e.g., 'They did a great job and I would highly recommend them') with no specific details, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual data points.
• The majority of reviews (11 out of 13) are dated between 2020 and 2020, with only one review from 2023. Recency is limited — most data is over 3 years old. The 2023 review was given additional weight where applicable.
• No clearly fake review patterns detected, but the high concentration of 5-star ratings with minimal detail warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is moderately reliable — it is based on 11 reviews with usable content, most of which are older than 3 years, and while the scoring dimensions are reasonably well-supported, the limited recency and sparse pricing data mean the score should be treated as a directional indicator rather than a definitive assessment.