Find Nearby Plumbers In Bossier City, Louisiana

This contractor shows a stark divide between older positive reviews (2009–2017) and recent negative experiences (2023–2024). The two most recent reviews detail serious concerns: inadequate warranty coverage (90 days vs. competitor's 1 year), work that failed within 4 months, and alleged dishonest sales tactics including false claims about equipment condition and inconsistent pricing. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by older testimonials praising punctuality and work quality, the recent failures in project completion and pricing transparency significantly undermine overall trustworthiness. The recency and specificity of the negative reviews suggest a material decline in service quality or business practices.

• CRITICAL: Two recent detailed negative reviews (Feb 2024, Sept 2023) describe failed repairs, inadequate warranties, and alleged dishonest sales practices. These are specific, credible complaints with corroborating evidence (competitor quotes provided).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 7+ years old (2009–2017). Only 2 recent reviews exist, both 1-star with serious allegations. This suggests either a decline in service quality or a shift in business practices.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews from 2014–2016 are generic, vague, and lack specific details ('unknown' text, generic praise). Combined with their age and contrast to detailed recent complaints, these may not reflect current operations.
• WARRANTY ISSUE: 90-day warranty is significantly below industry standard (1 year typical). Customer had to pay again for same repair 4 months later.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple pricing inconsistencies reported in Sept 2023 review (tech quoted one price, office quoted another). Competitor completed same work for 69% less cost ($402 vs. $1,300).

This score should be treated with caution due to conflicting data: older reviews suggest competent work, but two recent, detailed, and credible complaints describe serious failures and questionable business practices. The WW Score reflects this conflict, but the recency and specificity of negative reviews warrant significant weight in decision-making. Recommend requesting recent references and clarifying warranty terms before engaging.

This contractor's review record is deeply split between a cluster of strongly negative recent reviews and a set of older positive reviews, with the negative reviews carrying significantly more recency weight. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by multiple accounts of no-shows, a screaming receptionist who hung up on a customer, rude supervisors, workers complaining about management on job sites, and a failure to return complaint calls — offset only partially by older reviews praising promptness and courtesy. Project completion suffers from documented accounts of abandoned service calls, sloppy new construction work, misplaced pipes, unsecured gas lines, and a sewer repair left unresolved for weeks, though older reviews describe timely and thorough work. Pricing is mixed: one reviewer was charged over $350 for a minor repair padded by unnecessary travel time, another noted the company is 'very expensive,' while one older reviewer praised a plumber who actually charged less than quoted. Experience scores modestly above the other dimensions due to one standout older review of a plumber who solved a problem three others could not, but is undermined by documented construction errors and sloppy workmanship in newer reviews.

• RECENCY WARNING: All 4 negative reviews are from 2016–2018; all 5 positive reviews are from 2007–2013. The most recent reviews are uniformly negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Positive reviews should be weighted with caution.
• PATTERN WARNING: The five positive reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'very good,' 'very nice,' 'very excellent service'). While not conclusively fake, their vagueness and age reduce their evidentiary value.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT FLAG: One review documents a receptionist screaming at a customer and repeatedly hanging up on callbacks — this is an extreme professionalism failure that materially impacts the professionalism score.
• BILLING CONCERN: One detailed review documents a customer being charged for a technician's unnecessary round-trip drive time without prior disclosure, and a supervisor who was rude when questioned about the charge — suggesting possible deceptive billing practices.
• NEW CONSTRUCTION QUALITY FLAG: Two independent reviews cite defective new construction work including pipes set in wrong locations in concrete and unsecured gas lines in the attic, indicating potential safety and workmanship concerns.

This WW Score has MODERATE overall reliability: the mention counts are sufficient to calculate a score, but the extreme age gap between positive and negative reviews — with all recent reviews being strongly negative — means the score likely overstates current performance, and prospective customers should treat the negative 2016–2018 reviews as the most predictive signal.

The single review available is a 1-star account describing a failed service call where the contractor was unable to clear a clogged sink after several hours of work, lacked necessary equipment such as a videoscope, and charged $300 for no result. The reviewer explicitly describes the contractor as 'old school' and lacking modern tools, indicating poor technical capability and workmanship. Project completion is scored near zero as the core job was not completed at all. Pricing is scored very low given the $300 charge for an unresolved problem, representing extremely poor value. With only one review, all scores carry very limited confidence and should be interpreted cautiously.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from May 2021, which is over 3 years old — recency is low and contractor performance may have changed.
• Reviewer also references a third party (septic tank installer) and a friendship dynamic, which may introduce some subjectivity, though the core complaint about the plumber's failed service and charge appears specific and credible.
• No positive reviews exist to balance this assessment — the score is based entirely on one negative data point.

This score is based on a single review from 2021 and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall quality — significantly more review data is required before any confident assessment can be made.