Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Louis, Missouri

Tiger Plumbing, Heating, A/C, and Electrical Services receives a below-average WW Score of 42.3, driven primarily by severe pricing concerns and mixed project completion outcomes. While technicians frequently demonstrate professional demeanor and technical competence, the company is overwhelmingly criticized for extreme price gouging, with hundreds of reviews documenting quotes 3-10x higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion is inconsistent, with numerous reports of incomplete work, follow-up failures, and quality issues requiring third-party remediation. Professionalism scores are dragged down by aggressive sales tactics, pressure to purchase unnecessary services, and poor communication regarding scheduling and follow-ups.

• SEVERE PRICING ABUSE: 156 mentions of overpricing detected. Systematic pattern of inflated estimates (e.g., $9,000-$12,000 quotes reduced to $300-$750 by competitors). Multiple reviews document quotes 10x market rate.
• PREDATORY SALES PRACTICES: High-pressure upselling, scare tactics about safety/code violations, targeting elderly/vulnerable customers, and aggressive financing offers (9.99% APR) documented across 80+ reviews.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: 98 mentions reveal incomplete work, abandoned jobs, technicians not returning, broken promises, and customers forced to hire other companies to finish or fix Tiger's work.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE SCAM: Multiple reviews (15+) report $99 'diagnostic/fuel surcharge' fees charged without clear consent, with threats of liens on homes if not paid.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Documented cases of incorrect diagnoses, missed problems, broken equipment left in customer homes, damage to property (holes in ceilings/walls), and poor cleanup.
• MEMBERSHIP/CONTRACT TRAP: 20+ reviews report difficulty canceling monthly service plans ($19-$35/month), continued billing after cancellation requests, and 30-day cancellation delays.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: 40+ reviews cite missed appointments, no-shows, technicians arriving hours late, failure to call ahead, and unresponsiveness to callbacks.
• BBB RATING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews reference company's poor BBB rating (C-/2-star), 14+ complaints in 12 months, and allegations of paying customers to remove negative reviews.
• FINANCIAL COERCION: Documented cases of requiring payment before work begins, refusing refunds for incomplete/incorrect work, and aggressive collection tactics.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 120 reviews (24% of dataset) from June 2025 and May 2025 show suspicious clustering with identical phrasing ('very professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'friendly'), generic praise lacking specifics, and all 5-star ratings with minimal detail. This suggests coordinated positive review campaign to offset legitimate negative feedback.
• GENDER DISCRIMINATION: Multiple reviews allege sexist behavior, targeting women for upselling, and disrespectful treatment based on gender.
• UNLICENSED WORK: Reviews document apprentices working without proper supervision (illegal in Illinois), expired licenses, and misrepresentation of technician qualifications.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 98-187 mentions each). The score is supported by consistent, detailed, and corroborated evidence across 500 reviews spanning 2012-2025. The company exhibits a systematic pattern of overpricing, incomplete work, and aggressive sales tactics that far outweighs instances of competent service. The detected fake review campaign (24% of recent reviews) further undermines trust in positive testimonials and suggests the company is aware of its poor reputation. This score should be considered a strong warning against using this contractor.

Brian's record is heavily undermined by a persistent pattern of no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to communicate — issues raised in at least 6 of 12 reviews spanning multiple years. Professionalism scores extremely low because unreliability is the dominant theme across the review set, with multiple reviewers describing no-call/no-show incidents and last-minute cancellations. Project completion is similarly damaged, as several jobs were never started or abandoned mid-task due to his failure to return. Pricing receives a moderate score because feedback is mixed — some reviewers found him reasonable or affordable, while at least one senior reviewer felt the rate was excessive for the work performed. Experience scores somewhat better, as the positive reviews do describe competent workmanship and problem-solving ability, but this is offset by one reviewer explicitly describing the work as 'cartoonishly inept.'

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are from 2014–2019, with only one review from 2021. The most recent review (2021) is negative. No reviews exist from 2022 onward, making it impossible to assess current performance.
• PATTERN WARNING: The positive reviews (5-star) are notably sparse in operational detail compared to the negative reviews, and several positive reviews use generic praise language ('greatest,' 'a find and definitely a keeper') without specific project details. This warrants mild caution, though not a definitive fake review flag.
• RELIABILITY CONCERN: The no-show and communication failure pattern appears across reviews from 2015, 2018, 2019, and 2021, suggesting this is a chronic and unresolved behavioral issue rather than isolated incidents.
• SPLIT RECORD: 6 reviews are 1-star and 6 are 5-star, indicating a highly polarized experience. This split likely reflects inconsistency in service delivery rather than a stable quality baseline.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews with high mention coverage across all four dimensions, but the score should be treated cautiously given the age of most reviews, the chronic no-show pattern documented across multiple years, and the stark 50/50 split between 1-star and 5-star ratings with no middle-ground feedback.

Academy Air's review corpus spans roughly a decade and reveals a company that performed well in its earlier years but has experienced severe and well-documented decline across all dimensions in recent years. Professionalism is heavily dragged down by pervasive scheduling failures — including same-day cancellations, all-day wait windows with no updates, and unresponsive management — though a meaningful minority of older reviews praise individual technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous reviewers citing egregious overcharging (e.g., $9,091 for copper line work quoted elsewhere at $1,500–$3,000; $1,100 for a faucet repair; flat-rate quotes of $1,000 for simple plumbing), hidden fees contradicting quoted terms, and high-pressure upselling tactics. Project completion is critically damaged by repeated accounts of abandoned work, no-shows, jobs left incomplete or made worse after technician visits, and failure to honor service agreements or submit promised rebates. Experience scores modestly higher due to a subset of reviews praising specific technicians by name, but is substantially offset by multiple credible accounts of technicians misdiagnosing problems, damaging equipment, and in several cases allegedly sabotaging functioning units to generate sales.

• TEMPORAL DECLINE: Reviews from 2013–2016 are predominantly positive (4–5 stars); reviews from 2019 onward trend sharply negative. The score reflects the full corpus but recent reviews (2020–2024) dominate and paint a significantly worse picture. Current performance is likely worse than the blended WW Score suggests.
• POTENTIAL FRAUD/SABOTAGE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers (2021, 2023, 2024) allege that technicians deliberately disabled functioning equipment — including a manually disconnected blower motor and a working AC unit — to generate repair or replacement sales. These are serious allegations supported by corroborating second opinions from other companies.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION (POSITIVE): Several 5-star reviews from 2014–2016 use near-identical narrative structures (called in crisis, tech arrived fast, very professional, will recommend to family). While not conclusive, the pattern warrants reduced confidence in the positive review cluster from that period.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS INCONSISTENCY: A subset of reviews (2016–2018) indicate the owner personally intervened to resolve complaints, suggesting some accountability. However, reviews from 2019 onward show management refusing to honor staff quotes, dismissing loyal long-term customers, and in one case a GM described as dismissive during an in-home visit.
• HIDDEN FEE PATTERN: At least 3 independent reviews explicitly describe being quoted 'free' services and then charged upon arrival, including a documented case where a manager refused to honor a recorded staff quote.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews with usable negative data are from 2022–2024. The WW Score is pulled upward by older positive reviews that may no longer reflect current operations. Prospective customers should weight recent reviews most heavily.

This WW Score is based on 68 reviews spanning 10+ years with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically robust; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously as a blended average — recent reviews (2022–2024) consistently indicate performance well below the calculated score, and multiple reviews contain serious allegations of fraudulent practices that, if accurate, would render this contractor unsuitable regardless of score.

Merlo Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions, with negative reviews substantially outnumbering positive ones in the more recent years. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is heavily dragged down by repeated complaints about ignored emails, missed appointments, lost records of calls, dismissive staff attitudes, and failure to return calls — with only a handful of older reviews praising courteous and responsive service. Project completion is similarly troubled, with multiple accounts of no-shows, delayed work causing real financial harm, and a particularly serious case of a misdiagnosed pipe location that cost a customer thousands of dollars in unnecessary work. Pricing concerns are notable, with one review citing a $19,000 estimate that a competitor completed for $4,500–$8,800, and another describing charges for a camera inspection that produced incorrect results with no refund offered. The few positive reviews — mostly from 2011 to 2018 — describe fast response times and skilled technicians, but these are significantly outweighed by the volume and severity of negative experiences, particularly in more recent years.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2018. The most recent reviews (2019–2024) are predominantly 1-star with serious complaints. This trend strongly suggests a decline in service quality over time and recent reviews should be weighted more heavily.
• DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY CONCERN: One review (2019) describes a camera inspection that identified the wrong pipe location, leading to a customer paying for unnecessary excavation. This is a significant technical competence red flag.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe the same failure pattern — lost appointment records, unreturned calls, and dismissive responses when complaints were raised. This suggests a systemic operational problem rather than isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY/ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERN: The 2024 review describes Merlo refusing to stand behind a water heater they sold and installed that failed within 2.5 years, hiding behind manufacturer warranty to avoid labor costs. This reflects poorly on post-sale accountability.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Positive and negative reviews appear to be from genuine individual experiences with specific details, named technicians, and varied writing styles. No artificial inflation suspected.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews spanning 2011–2024 with HIGH mention counts across most dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution given the strong negative trend in recent years and the presence of multiple serious, specific complaints about core service failures.

Lemay Plumbing shows severe and consistent problems across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. Two detailed reviews from 2018-2019 document alleged deceptive billing practices (charging for time not worked, undisclosed minimums, inflated hourly rates), while a 2016 review criticizes slow bid turnaround and significantly overpriced estimates on large projects. One positive 2016 review praises technical skill and professionalism, but is heavily outweighed by multiple credible complaints of financial misconduct. The company's reputation is dominated by allegations of scamming elderly customers and deceptive pricing rather than legitimate service issues.

• CRITICAL: Two independent reviews (2018, 2019) allege deliberate billing fraud and deceptive practices—charging for time not worked and undisclosed minimum charges. These are serious allegations with specific details (iPhone timestamps, GPS discrepancies, smoking breaks).
• Pattern of overpricing: 2016 review documents bid of $6000+ for work completed elsewhere for $1800, suggesting systematic overestimation.
• Slow responsiveness on large projects: 2016 review shows bid delivered 24 hours before closing deadline, after work already completed by competitor.
• Positive review (2016) is isolated and generic; lacks specificity compared to detailed negative reviews with timestamps and evidence.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (oldest from 2016); no recent reviews to assess if practices have changed.
• Small sample size (4 reviews) limits statistical confidence, but consistency of complaints across multiple years is concerning.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, but the consistency and specificity of fraud allegations across multiple independent reviews from different years suggests genuine systemic problems with billing practices and customer treatment. The score reflects serious trust and integrity concerns that warrant investigation before engaging this contractor.

Bore's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed and concerning picture across all four dimensions. The most recent review (October 2024) is highly detailed and damaging, describing incomplete work, a cracked toilet tank installed without flagging the defect, crooked sink installation, poor caulking, and loose toilet base nuts — all pointing to serious workmanship and project completion failures. Pricing is flagged negatively in multiple reviews, including a $900 charge for repairs that did not function afterward and a $300+ charge for a drain line that was never actually cleared. Professionalism scores are pulled up slightly by a handful of older positive reviews praising courteous and prompt technicians, but the most recent and specific reviews undercut this significantly. The majority of the positive reviews are older than one year — several are from 2016–2018 — and carry reduced weight under recency rules, leaving the current picture looking substantially worse than the aggregate star rating might suggest.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most detailed and negative review is from October 2024. Three of the five positive reviews are from 2016–2018, making them 6–8 years old and of limited relevance to current service quality.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Two separate reviews explicitly describe work that was paid for but not completed or not functioning — a $900 repair leaving a non-flushing toilet and barely-running sink, and a $300+ drain clearing that did not clear the drain.
• WORKMANSHIP RED FLAGS: The October 2024 review describes a cracked toilet tank installed without disclosure, a crooked sink, poor caulking, and hand-loose toilet base nuts — indicating potential safety and quality issues.
• INCOMPLETE SCOPE: The October 2024 review explicitly states that two of the five requested tasks (third toilet and hose bib) were never completed, and the customer had to hire another company.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEWS: Two of the five-star reviews ('Excellent!! ... crew was awesome' and the condo review) contain minimal specifics and read as generic praise, slightly reducing confidence in the positive signals.
• NO RESOLUTION OFFERED: One review notes the company offered no resolution after a failed $900 repair, which is a significant customer service and professionalism concern.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small review pool of only 7 reviews, a heavy skew of positive reviews toward dates 4–8 years ago, and the most recent detailed review being strongly negative with specific, credible workmanship and completion failures — prospective customers should weight the 2024 review heavily and seek additional recent references before hiring.