Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Louis, Missouri

O'Fallon Sewer Service has a long track record of satisfied customers who praise quick response times, courteous technicians, and fair pricing — with multiple reviewers explicitly noting competitive or below-market costs and transparent quotes. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of serious complaints: three separate reviews (spanning 2017–2023) describe rude customer service, a no-show without notification, and allegations of dishonest upselling. These are not isolated incidents and represent a consistent weakness in professionalism and reliability. Project completion scores reflect a mixed picture — most jobs were completed well, but one review describes being charged for services never performed and a no-show, which is a significant completion failure. The business demonstrates genuine technical skill from its plumbers, but office/customer-facing conduct is a documented liability.

• Three separate 1-star reviews (2017, 2018, 2023) independently describe rude customer service — this is a consistent and credible pattern, not an outlier.
• One review (2018) alleges charges for services never performed — a serious integrity concern that warrants caution.
• One review (2023) alleges dishonest upselling and recommends getting a second opinion before authorizing work.
• One review (2017) describes a confirmed no-show after a scheduled appointment with no proactive communication from the company.
• Several positive reviews lack specific detail (e.g., 'great work,' 'wonderful job') and may reflect genuine but low-information satisfaction rather than deep quality evidence.
• Recency note: The most recent negative review is from April 2023, suggesting the professionalism/honesty issues have not been fully resolved. The most recent positive review is from March 2024. The score reflects this mixed recent signal.
• Several older reviews (2014–2019) are weighted less heavily due to age; the more recent reviews (2020–2024) carry greater influence on the final score.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews spanning approximately 10 years with usable data across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence in the score's direction — the mixed result of ~68 is a reliable signal that this contractor delivers competent technical work but carries documented and recurring risks around customer service conduct, honesty, and scheduling reliability.

Classic Aire Care demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for courtesy, knowledge, and responsiveness. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—customers repeatedly report aggressive upselling, price gouging (particularly on parts like freon and capacitors), and lack of transparency in quotes. Project completion issues are substantial, with multiple reports of incomplete work, failed installations requiring callbacks, poor follow-through on warranty obligations, and communication breakdowns. While individual technicians often perform well, systemic issues around billing accuracy, scheduling reliability, and management responsiveness to complaints undermine overall trust.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple independent reviews (2018-2023) document markups of 2000%+ on parts (e.g., $350 capacitor later found for $15; $175/lb freon vs competitor $51/lb). Pattern suggests systemic price gouging, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Recurring failures include incomplete installations (missing filters, improper pitch causing water damage), failed diagnostics (misidentified parts, missed capacitor checks), and refusal to honor warranty work or make corrections. Several customers report being blocked from service after complaints.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple complaints about lack of callback from management, unresolved billing disputes, and dismissive handling of legitimate service failures. One customer reported being placed on account block after filing BBB complaint.
• ACQUISITION PATTERN: Company has acquired multiple regional competitors (Weis, Harster, Averill, Sutter, Donohue, Ryan, Faszold). Multiple reviews note service quality declined post-acquisition, suggesting integration or staffing issues.
• SCHEDULING & COMMUNICATION: Recurring complaints about inflexible scheduling windows, failure to provide advance notice despite promises, and poor coordination between call center and technicians.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY: Multiple reports of defective new installations (AC units failing within weeks, furnace failures within months, improper ductwork installation). Suggests quality control issues in installation crews.
• RECENT REVIEWS BIAS: Most recent reviews (June 2025) are uniformly 5-star with minimal detail and generic praise. Earlier detailed reviews (2018-2024) show much more critical feedback. This temporal pattern warrants caution regarding review authenticity.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE: Same company receives both 5-star 'excellent' and 1-star 'scam' ratings for similar services, suggesting high variability in technician quality or service delivery.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with moderate-to-high confidence due to the large sample size (125 reviews) and consistent patterns across multiple dimensions, but the score masks significant internal contradictions: while technician professionalism and expertise are genuinely strong, systemic issues with pricing transparency, installation quality, and management accountability create substantial customer risk. The recent clustering of generic 5-star reviews raises authenticity concerns. Prospective customers should expect competent technical work but should be vigilant about pricing, obtain multiple quotes, and document all promises in writing before engaging this company.

PK Plumbing presents a deeply split profile: a cluster of strongly positive reviews praising technician Jimmy (and occasionally others like Edwin, Tony, and Paul) for punctuality, friendliness, professionalism, and solid workmanship, contrasted sharply with a substantial body of 1-star reviews describing incompetent diagnoses, abandoned jobs, rude technicians, property damage, and complete failure to complete work. The positive reviews are heavily concentrated around a single date cluster (2024-06-09), which raises authenticity concerns and limits their individual weight. The negative reviews span multiple years and describe specific, credible incidents including a burned-out water heater caused by technician error, a broken auger blade left in a sewer line, refusal to complete jobs, and harassment of customers over invoicing. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with numerous reviews explicitly describing unfinished work, no-shows, and jobs left worse than before. Pricing scores moderately as a handful of reviews cite reasonable or transparent pricing, but others describe unexpected upcharges and non-itemized quotes.

• SUSPECTED REVIEW CLUSTERING: 28 reviews share the exact date of 2024-06-09, which is statistically anomalous and strongly suggests a bulk review submission campaign. These reviews were scored but with reduced individual weight.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Many of the 2024-06-09 reviews contain very short, non-specific praise ('Jimmy is the man', 'He's the best! That's it.', 'Jimmy was fantastic!') with no job details, consistent with solicited or incentivized reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW FLAG NOTED BY REVIEWER: One 1-star review (2018-01-20) explicitly calls out repetitive phrasing across positive reviews, suggesting awareness of a review manipulation pattern even at that earlier date.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIAN IDENTITIES: Reviews reference at least 6 different technicians (Jimmy, Steve, Larry, Paul, Edwin, Tony, Max, Peter, James). Quality appears highly inconsistent across technicians, making company-level scoring difficult. Jimmy receives overwhelmingly positive feedback; Larry and Steve receive overwhelmingly negative feedback.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are from 2013-2019, while the majority of positive reviews are from 2024. This could reflect genuine improvement in service quality, or it could reflect a recent review solicitation campaign masking ongoing issues. The 2024-07-18 and 2022-08-04 negative reviews confirm problems have not fully disappeared.
• THREE BLANK REVIEWS (no text, only 5-star ratings) were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• ONE REVIEW explicitly states it is for PK Plumbing in St. Louis, MO, not the same location as other reviews. This review was included in scoring as it could not be fully excluded, but may represent a different business entity.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE INCIDENTS: At least two reviews describe direct property damage caused by PK technicians (burned-out water heater from electrical error; broken auger blade left in sewer line), which significantly depresses the experience and project completion scores.

This WW Score of 62.1 should be treated with moderate caution: while the high mention count across all dimensions provides statistical volume, the credibility of the positive review cluster (2024-06-09) is questionable, and the negative reviews are detailed, specific, and credible enough to meaningfully drag down the score — the true quality of service likely depends heavily on which technician is assigned.

Morrison Plumbing & HVAC presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple serious incidents including a technician who ghosted a customer over a billing dispute, a tech who became verbally aggressive and menacing inside a customer's home, repeated failures to return calls from management, and a pattern of dismissive or condescending behavior toward female and elderly customers — despite a solid base of older reviews praising friendly and responsive staff. Pricing is a consistent pain point, with multiple reviewers citing dramatically inflated quotes (e.g., $8,000 to remove a bottle from a drain, $850 for a faucet repair that Moen resolved for free), hidden charges, and misleading financing claims, though some customers in earlier reviews found pricing fair or reasonable. Project completion is undermined by a failed boiler installation that did not pass city inspection, a new HVAC system that broke down within its first year, five failed repair visits on one system, and a pattern of upselling replacement over repair — though several older reviews do describe jobs completed promptly and correctly. Technical experience is called into serious question by the Moen cartridge incident (where a tech was factually wrong about basic product knowledge), the boiler installation failures, and multiple technicians unable to diagnose recurring issues even with manufacturer support, offsetting positive reviews that praised knowledgeable and skilled technicians in earlier years.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly 1-star and describe serious issues including billing disputes, ghosting, aggressive technician behavior, and upselling. Positive reviews are concentrated in 2016–2019. This suggests a possible decline in service quality over time. Recent reviews should be weighted more heavily.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe a consistent pattern of technicians pushing unnecessary replacements, inflated quotes, and high-pressure sales tactics rather than performing straightforward repairs. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• TECHNICIAN MISCONDUCT: One review (2022) describes a technician becoming verbally aggressive, raising his voice, making threatening eye contact, and slamming the door inside a customer's home. This is a serious safety and professionalism flag.
• FACTUAL INCOMPETENCE FLAG: One review documents a technician providing factually incorrect information about Moen faucet cartridges — information directly contradicted by the manufacturer — resulting in an $850 unnecessary quote. This raises concerns about technical training standards.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The cluster of 5-star reviews from 2016–2019 contains some generic praise with limited specifics (e.g., 'best company around,' 'trustworthy and prompt'). While not conclusively fake, several lack detail and may reflect a period of reputation management. Confidence in those reviews is slightly reduced.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE FAILURE: At least two reviews (2015 and 2023) describe the company failing to respond to emergency or urgent service requests despite advertising 24-hour availability.
• WARRANTY/ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe the company failing to honor implied warranties or take accountability for faulty installations, including a boiler that failed inspection and a new HVAC unit that broke down within its first year.

This WW Score of 62.1 is based on 35 reviews spanning 2015–2024 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a clear and documented decline in service quality in recent years — the most recent reviews are overwhelmingly negative and describe systemic issues with upselling, technician conduct, and accountability that are not reflected in the older positive reviews that partially support this score.

Rabbit Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most damaged dimension: multiple reviews describe rude or inappropriate behavior (making comments about food and drinks in a customer's home, hanging up on callers, getting rude when challenged), failing to return as promised, and not bringing basic tools like a plunger or extension cords. On the positive side, several reviewers praised the team as pleasant, on-time, and communicative. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers independently calling rates reasonable or affordable, though the cash-only, no-receipt transaction in one review is a red flag for transparency. Project completion is inconsistent — several jobs were completed quickly and effectively, but at least two reviews describe outright failures: one job was never finished and the plumber stopped responding, and another customer reported the problem recurred with no warranty honored. Experience scores moderately well among satisfied customers, who praised knowledge of old houses and sewer systems, but is undermined by the incidents where basic tools were missing and a job was left incomplete.

• One review describes a cash-only transaction with no receipt and no change returned — this raises concerns about business transparency and accountability.
• At least two reviews describe clear project abandonment or refusal to honor work: one plumber stopped answering calls after promising to return, and another customer was denied any guarantee when the problem recurred.
• One review (2018) describes a third-party property damage incident (broken windshield from jackhammer debris) where the company hung up on the caller and refused further contact — indicative of poor accountability.
• The review set spans from 2010 to 2021, with the majority of reviews (8 of 11) being older than 5 years and 9 of 11 older than 3 years. Only one review is from the past 3 years (2021), and it is the most negative. Recency weighting significantly reduces confidence in positive scores.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic authorship across the set.

While the mention counts are high enough to generate HIGH confidence labels across all dimensions, the score should be treated with caution due to the extreme age of most reviews, a clear downward trend in recent feedback, and documented incidents of unprofessional conduct and incomplete work.

All Service Drain has a clearly mixed track record across its review base. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple serious complaints: one technician abandoned a job mid-visit without notice, leaving a customer's water running for 7+ hours; a manager was described as rude and dismissive; and at least one no-show appointment with zero communication was reported. These are not minor grievances — they represent fundamental failures in professional conduct that offset the many positive mentions of responsiveness and friendliness. Project completion is similarly mixed: multiple reviews describe recurring drain problems within days or weeks of service, with the company failing to honor warranty callbacks or resolve issues on the first visit. Experience scores reflect a split between reviewers who praised quick diagnosis and skilled work, and those who described technicians unable to resolve basic toilet clogs over two days. Pricing received limited but mostly positive mentions, with one reviewer noting 'plumber's rates' but still expressing satisfaction.

• SUSPECTED DUPLICATE REVIEW: The 1-star review dated 2022-10-05 ('Awful Plumbers! They have no clue what they are doing. They came out two days and couldn't figure out a simple toilet clog.') is nearly identical in content and phrasing to an undated 1-star review ('Awful! Over the course of two days, they couldn't figure out a simple toilet clog.'). These appear to be the same reviewer posting twice or a copied review. One instance was treated as a single data point to avoid double-counting.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 3 reviews have confirmed dates in 2024 or 2025. The majority of dated reviews are from 2017–2019, making them 6–8 years old. Business quality and staffing may have changed significantly. The most recent dated review (2025-06-06) is positive, but a single recent review is insufficient to establish a trend.
• UNDATED REVIEWS: 18 of 28 reviews have no date. These cannot be assessed for recency and are treated with equal weight, which may distort the score in either direction.
• ABANDONMENT INCIDENT: One detailed 1-star review describes a technician leaving a job site mid-visit without notice, leaving water running and the property exposed for 7+ hours with no callback. This is a serious operational failure and was weighted heavily against professionalism and project completion scores.
• WARRANTY/CALLBACK FAILURES: At least two reviews explicitly describe the company failing to honor follow-up service after work did not resolve the issue, including one where the manager refused to prioritize a customer who had been without a kitchen sink for two days. This is a significant pattern flag.
• ONE REVIEW FLAGGED AS NON-SERVICE REVIEW: The review stating 'This company no longer works for thumbtack and needs to be removed from your website' contains no usable service data and was excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the high mention counts across dimensions provide statistical grounding, but the large proportion of undated reviews, a confirmed near-duplicate negative review, and a concentration of dated positive reviews from 2017–2019 introduce meaningful uncertainty about the contractor's current performance level.