Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Louis, Missouri

Henry Kitchen and Bath demonstrates severe deficiencies across most operational dimensions. Project completion is critically weak, with 6 of 8 reviews documenting extensive delays, missing items, wrong products, and incomplete work spanning months beyond promised timelines. Professionalism is significantly compromised by poor communication, lack of accountability, failure to apologize for errors, and unresponsiveness to customer concerns. Pricing practices are problematic, with hidden restocking fees, upselling tactics, and customers directed to purchase missing items elsewhere at higher costs. Experience and workmanship quality show mixed results—when work is completed, some customers report good product quality and design skill (2 five-star reviews from 2019), but recent reviews (2021-2023) indicate quality control failures, damaged products, and refusal to stand behind defective items. The stark contrast between older positive reviews and recent overwhelmingly negative reviews suggests significant operational deterioration.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 6 of 8 reviews are from 2021-2023; only 2 positive reviews are from 2019. This indicates a clear downward trend in service quality over time.
• PATTERN OF SYSTEMIC FAILURE: Multiple independent reviews document identical failure modes (wrong orders, missing items, delays, poor communication, lack of accountability), suggesting these are not isolated incidents but endemic operational problems.
• ACCOUNTABILITY DEFICIT: Multiple reviews explicitly note the company's refusal to apologize, take responsibility, or make customers whole for documented errors—a serious professionalism red flag.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between 2019 reviews praising specific designers (Logan, Sara, Augie) and 2021-2023 reviews describing systemic failures suggests either staff turnover, process breakdown, or location-specific issues.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong negative indicator. The score is based on 8 detailed reviews with consistent patterns of failure across multiple dimensions, particularly project completion and professionalism. The recent concentration of 1-star reviews (6 of 8 from 2021-2023) with specific, corroborated complaints about delays, missing items, poor communication, and lack of accountability provides robust evidence of serious operational problems. Customers should exercise extreme caution before engaging this company.

Professionalism is significantly dragged down by one detailed 1-star review describing three unanswered calls over three weeks with no callback whatsoever, which is a serious responsiveness failure. The two older reviews do note courteous and friendly technicians, but the non-response pattern is a meaningful negative signal. Pricing is mixed: one reviewer felt prices were high and that the company took advantage of an emergency situation, while another found pricing fair — resulting in a below-average score. Project completion data is limited to two reviews, both of which indicate the work was finished successfully, but the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions. Experience scores modestly positive based on two reviews noting knowledgeable and skilled technicians, though again the sample is very small.

• All three reviews are older than 1 year — the most recent is from December 2019 and the oldest from August 2013. No recent reviews are available, severely limiting reliability.
• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation and results should be treated with significant caution.
• The 1-star review is highly specific and detailed, lending it credibility. It describes a systemic responsiveness failure that may reflect ongoing business practices.
• The 3-star review explicitly alleges opportunistic pricing during an emergency, which is a notable ethical concern worth flagging for prospective customers.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in rating, tone, and detail, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are over 4 years old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

This contractor's review profile is dominated by severe and repeated pricing complaints, with 11 of 12 reviews explicitly mentioning charges described as dramatically above market rate — in some cases 3x to 10x competitor quotes. Professionalism is mixed: a few positive reviews praise communication and punctuality, but multiple negative reviews describe technicians arriving without notice, performing no meaningful inspection before quoting, and refusing to provide itemized bills. Project completion scores modestly because the handful of positive reviews confirm work was finished as promised, and even some negative reviewers acknowledged the job itself was done adequately — but incidents of cutting a waterline and scratching floors pull this down. Experience is similarly split, with one reviewer's father (a pipefitter) praising workmanship quality, while others describe technicians doing little to no diagnostic work before issuing inflated quotes. The overwhelming pattern across nearly all reviews is predatory or at minimum non-transparent pricing, which severely damages the overall score.

• PRICING ABUSE PATTERN: 11 of 12 reviews explicitly cite pricing as far above market rate. Multiple reviewers obtained competitor quotes at 30–75% less for identical work. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• VULNERABLE CUSTOMER TARGETING: Two reviewers independently suggest the company may be targeting senior citizens who are less likely to push back on inflated quotes. This is a serious ethical flag.
• TRIP CHARGE / INSPECTION FEE DECEPTION: Multiple reviews describe being charged a trip or inspection fee ($49–$97) for technicians who performed no actual inspection, then quoted prices so high the customer declined service. This appears to be a recurring business practice.
• NO ITEMIZED BILLING: At least one reviewer explicitly states they were denied an itemized bill and received only a lump-sum total, reducing pricing transparency.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly 1-star and focused on pricing complaints. The positive reviews are older (2016–2023), suggesting a possible decline in service quality or pricing practices over time.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 12 total reviews were analyzed. While the pattern is consistent, the small sample size limits statistical reliability of the WW Score.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Positive reviews contain specific details (named technicians, specific jobs, specific praise) and do not appear fabricated. Negative reviews are similarly specific and varied in language.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review sample (12 reviews), but the pricing dimension in particular is highly reliable given that 11 of 12 reviews explicitly and consistently describe the same overcharging pattern — consumers should treat the pricing score as a strong and trustworthy signal.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture dominated by repeated failures in communication and follow-through. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension and is severely damaged: multiple reviewers describe missed appointments with no call, unanswered phones, unreturned voicemails, and a pattern of being told callbacks were made when they were not. Project completion is similarly troubled, with at least three reviews describing work that either was never completed, failed within days, or was abandoned without resolution — offset only slightly by two positive reviews where jobs were finished satisfactorily. Pricing drew mixed signals: one reviewer found them the best bid by over $1,000, while another called them too expensive and a third paid $175 for a problem that was never resolved. Experience scores modestly above the midpoint, as the one detailed positive review praised a technician's thoroughness and knowledge, but negative reviews describe recurring issues after service that suggest inconsistent workmanship. The two positive reviews are genuine bright spots but are insufficient to offset the volume and severity of the negative experiences.

• Four of six reviews are 1-star and describe serious operational failures including no-shows, unreturned calls, and unresolved work — this is a consistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• The two 5-star reviews are notably older (2020 and 2024-02) and more detailed, suggesting they may reflect a different period of service quality or different staff.
• One review (2018) is over 5 years old and one (2019) is over 4 years old — these are outside the 12-month recency window and were weighted accordingly, though their patterns align with more recent complaints.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific dates, dollar amounts, named individuals, and detailed narratives consistent with genuine customer experiences.
• The most recent review (2024-09-04) is negative, suggesting problems have not improved over time.

This score carries MODERATE-to-HIGH reliability given that 5 of 6 reviews contain substantive, specific detail across multiple dimensions, though the small total review count (6) limits statistical confidence and the score should be interpreted as a strong early warning signal rather than a definitive long-term assessment.

Turney's Heating & Cooling shows severe deficiencies across multiple dimensions based on limited review data. While one recent review (2024) praised professionalism and customer education during an A/C installation, two older reviews (2018) document serious failures in project completion and pricing integrity. Specifically, a sewer line replacement exceeded the quoted range by $170 despite completing only partial work, and the main drain remained clogged upon job completion—indicating incomplete work. The contractor's pricing practices appear non-transparent and potentially exploitative. With only 3 reviews total and 2 of 3 being highly negative, confidence in this score is limited, but the pattern suggests systemic issues with cost management and work quality.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed—sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• Significant recency gap: 2 reviews from 2018 (6+ years old) vs. 1 from 2024; older reviews may not reflect current practices
• Two reviews document explicit failures: invoice exceeded quoted range by $170 and main drain remained clogged after completion
• One review explicitly warns customers to 'stay away' and describes work as 'unethical'
• Insufficient data to determine if negative reviews are isolated incidents or systemic pattern

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and heavy weighting of two negative reviews from 2018; however, the documented failures in pricing transparency and project completion are serious enough to warrant concern until more recent reviews provide additional evidence of improvement or continued problems.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply mixed but predominantly negative picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most consistently flagged concern, with three of five reviews describing rude behavior, a no-call no-show, or dismissive attitudes toward customers — only one review praised customer service. Pricing drew criticism for being expensive in two reviews, while one review praised reasonable pricing and another noted it was 'not too expensive,' resulting in a below-average score. Project completion is severely undermined by one review describing a no-show, another describing a misdiagnosis that cost the customer $125 for nothing, and a third describing reversed hot/cold hookups — only one review described a job completed quickly and correctly. Experience scores low due to the reversed washer hookup error, a likely false diagnosis of a collapsed drain line, and a sump pump job that was completed competently in only one review.

• Three of five reviews are older than 12 months; one review (2017) and one (2019) are significantly outdated and may not reflect current business practices.
• The most recent review (April 2024) is a 2-star complaint about rude behavior and incorrect workmanship, which is the most relevant data point for current performance.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and specifics, suggesting authentic customer experiences.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews severely limits reliability of all dimension scores despite HIGH confidence labels based on mention counts.
• One review describes a potential deceptive practice: technicians claiming a drain line had collapsed to upsell a $700 repair that a second company disproved the next day for $100 — this is a serious red flag.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small review sample (5 reviews), significant date range spanning 2017 to 2024, and a consistent pattern of serious complaints that collectively suggest meaningful quality and integrity concerns.