Find Nearby Plumbers In Shreveport, Louisiana

Service Experts demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, friendliness, and knowledge. However, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing concerns—customers repeatedly report markups of 300-800% on parts, diagnostic fees that seem excessive, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is mixed, with many reports of incomplete work, multiple callbacks, and scheduling failures. The company's Advantage Program lease model is particularly controversial, with numerous complaints about predatory terms and hidden costs. While individual technicians often perform well, systemic issues with sales practices, pricing transparency, and follow-through significantly undermine customer satisfaction.

• STRONG PATTERN OF PRICING COMPLAINTS: Approximately 287 reviews explicitly mention overpricing, with customers reporting parts marked up 300-800% above retail, diagnostic fees of $99-$175 for simple issues, and labor rates of $150-$300+ per hour. This is the single most consistent complaint across the entire review set.
• PREDATORY ADVANTAGE PROGRAM: Multiple reviews describe the lease-based Advantage Program as a scam, with customers paying $140-$300/month for 7-10 years, totaling $12,000-$36,000 for equipment worth $5,000-$8,000. Customers report being misled about ownership, early termination penalties of 50-94% of original cost, and liens placed on homes without clear disclosure.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING AND SALES TACTICS: Approximately 180+ reviews describe high-pressure sales tactics, including sending salesmen without customer consent, recommending unnecessary replacements, and using fear tactics about system failure. Technicians appear incentivized by commission to recommend expensive upgrades.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY AND MULTIPLE CALLBACKS: Approximately 120+ reviews report technicians returning multiple times to fix the same issue, incomplete work, incorrect diagnoses, and poor workmanship. Some customers report 3-6 visits for single problems.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW ISSUES: Approximately 95+ reviews report missed appointments, no-shows without notification, late arrivals, and poor communication about delays. Several customers report waiting 4+ hours with no contact.
• DISHONEST DIAGNOSTICS: Approximately 85+ reviews describe technicians making false diagnoses (claiming units need replacement when only minor repairs needed), deliberately breaking equipment during service, or misidentifying problems. Multiple customers report getting second opinions that contradicted Service Experts' diagnosis.
• POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE AND UNRESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT: Approximately 110+ reviews report difficulty reaching management, unanswered callbacks, refusal to honor warranties or service agreements, and dismissive treatment of complaints.
• ADVANTAGE PROGRAM HIDDEN TERMS: Multiple reviews describe discovering liens on homes, inability to refinance, non-transferable leases, and surprise charges after signing. Customers report being told one thing verbally and finding different terms in fine print.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 40-50 reviews from June 2025 and June 2006 contain nearly identical phrasing ('Hays/Hayes was on time, professional, friendly...', 'Ali came over...genuine, efficient, knowledgeable...'), suggesting possible review manipulation. These appear clustered by date.
• INSTALLATION DEFECTS: Multiple reviews report incorrect installations, wrong equipment sizes, improper wiring, missing permits, failed inspections, and equipment that failed within days of installation.
• MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FAILURES: Approximately 60+ reviews describe maintenance contracts that were not honored, services not performed despite payment, and inability to use contracted services within specified timeframes.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be treated with HIGH confidence due to the large sample size (1,000 reviews) and consistent patterns across multiple dimensions. However, the score masks a deeply problematic company: while technicians are often professional and knowledgeable, systemic issues with pricing, sales practices, and contract terms create significant customer harm. The pricing dimension (38.2) is particularly reliable and represents the company's most serious weakness. Potential customers should be aware that low individual technician ratings are frequently contradicted by complaints about company-level practices, hidden fees, and aggressive sales tactics. The presence of potential fake reviews in specific date clusters slightly reduces confidence in the overall rating distribution, but does not materially affect the validity of the core findings about pricing and sales practices, which are corroborated across hundreds of independent reviews.

Southern Air exhibits highly inconsistent performance across all dimensions. While some reviews praise exceptional professionalism, technical expertise, and timely service (particularly from named technicians like Tommy, James Brown, and Seth), numerous recent reviews document serious failures: no-shows without communication, unprofessional behavior, incomplete work, and safety hazards (leaking gas lines). Pricing complaints are frequent and severe, with customers reporting surprise billing, overcharges, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is undermined by abandoned work, unfinished installations, and failure to honor callbacks. The company's motto—'fixed right or it's free'—is explicitly contradicted by multiple customers. Recent reviews (2023-2024) are predominantly negative, suggesting deteriorating service quality.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2023-2024 (recent), while positive reviews cluster in 2015-2022. This indicates significant service degradation over time.
• SAFETY HAZARD REPORTED: Multiple reviews mention dangerous conditions—leaking gas lines, water heater near explosion, incomplete work creating hazards. This is a critical red flag.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Several reviews allege unauthorized recurring charges, surprise billing, and aggressive upselling (e.g., $8,000 water heater quote). Pattern suggests systemic pricing abuse.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 3 reviews document technicians failing to arrive at scheduled appointments without communication. This is a recurring professionalism failure.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews describe unfinished installations (shower/tub with exposed drywall, missing screws, fence not replaced, condensation line misplaced). Suggests quality control breakdown.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY BY TECHNICIAN: Reviews frequently praise specific named technicians (Tommy, James Brown, Seth, Chris Martin) while criticizing others. Suggests highly variable training/oversight.
• CONTRADICTORY MESSAGING: Company warranty/guarantee claims are contradicted by customer experiences. One review explicitly states the 'fixed right or it's free' guarantee is 'a bold face lie.'
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: One review documents expletive-laden conversation in background during customer call, suggesting workplace culture issues.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 28 reviews with adequate mention counts, the dramatic divergence between older positive reviews and recent negative reviews, combined with allegations of safety hazards, billing fraud, and systemic no-shows, suggests the company's current performance is significantly worse than the overall score indicates. Recent reviews (past 12 months) should be weighted more heavily than this score reflects—a customer considering this company should prioritize 2023-2024 feedback, which is predominantly negative.

Giglio Plumbing shows a deeply polarized customer base with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. Positive reviews (2024, 2018) praise professionalism, responsiveness, technical skill, and fair pricing, while negative reviews (2021, 2017) cite unresponsiveness, hidden charges, invoice padding, and abandoned work. The company demonstrates strong technical capability and willingness to stand behind work when engaged, but professionalism and pricing transparency are severely compromised by documented instances of poor communication, non-responsiveness to callbacks, and undisclosed billing practices. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects this volatility—strong execution when work is completed, but significant trust and reliability issues that undermine overall confidence.

• CRITICAL: Highly polarized review pattern suggests systemic operational inconsistency. Positive reviews cluster in 2018 and 2024; negative reviews cluster in 2017-2021, suggesting possible management or operational changes, or inconsistent service delivery.
• Multiple independent complaints (2021, 2017) document non-responsiveness and failure to return calls—this is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• Pricing transparency issues documented in detail: undisclosed travel charges, invoice padding (charging for invoice writing time), and hourly rates ($171/hour) not disclosed upfront. One customer explicitly states charges began without customer authorization.
• One review (2021-01-13) references BBB complaints and describes company as 'shady' and unresponsive to formal complaints—suggests pattern of poor complaint resolution.
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews are 3-7 years old (2017-2021), but one detailed pricing complaint is from 2021. Most recent review (2024) is positive, which may indicate improvement, but insufficient recent data to confirm.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected; reviews contain specific, detailed complaints and praise with contextual detail.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization and temporal clustering of reviews. The score reflects real documented issues with responsiveness and pricing transparency, but the 2024 positive review and absence of recent negative reviews suggest possible operational improvement. Recommend requesting recent references and explicit written pricing terms before engaging.

This contractor's review profile is deeply mixed and spans over two decades, making reliable assessment difficult. Recent reviews (2023–2024) include serious allegations: one reviewer claims the contractor is unlicensed and overcharges for poor work, another accuses the company of fabricating a plumbing problem to extract nearly $3,000, and a third documents late arrivals, price discrepancies, and dirty workmanship. These are offset by several genuine-seeming positive reviews praising punctuality, politeness, and fair pricing — most notably a long-term customer of 10+ years. Pricing is a particular concern, with multiple independent reviewers citing overcharging or bait-and-switch pricing tactics. Project completion also has documented failures, including a contractor who abandoned a gas installation job out of anger and workers who left job sites dirty and unfinished.

• SERIOUS CREDIBILITY CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor is not a licensed plumber (2024-07-06). This is a significant red flag that could not be verified from reviews alone but warrants independent verification before hiring.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION: A 2024-01-10 review accuses the company of fabricating a plumbing problem to charge $2,600 for unnecessary work. The reviewer states a second plumber resolved the issue with a simple snake. This is a serious allegation.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple independent reviewers (2023-04-12, 2024-01-10, 2024-07-06) cite overcharging, hidden fees, or prices that changed after the job. This pattern across unrelated reviews is a meaningful signal.
• RECENCY CONCERN: A significant portion of positive reviews are from 2003 or earlier (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2007), which are over 20 years old and carry very little weight in assessing current service quality. These were included in mention counts but given minimal scoring weight.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-ENTITY REVIEW MIX: Reviews reference multiple named individuals (Cale, Gary, Guillermo, Eric Brown) and appear to describe different contractors or companies. This suggests the review pool may aggregate reviews for more than one business, reducing the reliability of any composite score.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several older reviews (2000–2003) are written in all-caps with generic praise and no specifics. While this may reflect the review platform style of that era, they add little evidentiary value and were treated with reduced confidence.
• ABANDONED WORK DOCUMENTED: A 2018 review documents a contractor (Cale) refusing to complete a gas installation job because a different plumber had finished the water portion — a clear project completion failure.
• WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT: A 2023 review documents workers leaving job sites dirty, arriving late, and rushing work due to scheduling pressure from the company.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while mention counts are high enough to generate scores, the review pool spans 24 years, likely covers multiple contractors or business entities, and contains serious unresolved allegations of unlicensed work, fraud, and price manipulation that materially drag down trustworthiness.

Payne Mechanical shows a deeply mixed track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is dragged down significantly by multiple reviews citing rude office staff, technicians on personal phones during paid work hours, no-shows, and poor communication — though several older reviews praise courteous and prompt technicians. Pricing is a notable concern, with multiple reviewers describing billing disputes, charges exceeding quoted amounts, and unexpected costs, though a few reviews describe pricing as reasonable or fair. Project completion is inconsistent: some jobs were finished efficiently and callbacks were honored, but there are documented cases of abandoned work, multi-day delays without resolution, and a 7-week claim processing failure. Experience scores moderately, with several reviewers praising knowledgeable technicians who diagnosed problems correctly, but offset by at least one case of a misdiagnosis by a competing tech and recurring AC failures suggesting inadequate repairs.

• Several reviews from 2011–2013 are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'I give them an A for everything,' 'I had no problem with them at all,' 'I am very satisfied with them') with no specific details — these may be low-quality or solicited reviews and were given reduced evidentiary weight.
• One review is marked 'unknown' with no text content and was excluded from scoring.
• The majority of reviews (approximately 15 of 21) are older than 1 year, and most are older than 5 years. Only 2 reviews are from 2023, both rated 1-star. Recency weighting suggests recent performance may be worse than the historical average.
• The two most recent reviews (2023) are both 1-star and describe systemic issues with warranty claim processing and recurring repair failures, indicating possible decline in service quality over time.
• Billing dispute pattern noted across multiple reviews from different years (2011, 2014, 2023), suggesting a persistent administrative/billing problem rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while mention counts are sufficient for HIGH confidence on all dimensions, the heavy skew toward older reviews (most pre-2018), the presence of several suspiciously generic 5-star reviews, and a clear negative trend in the two most recent 2023 reviews all suggest the score may overstate current service quality.

Oswalt's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested area: multiple reviews praise responsiveness, kindness, and communication, but two reviews describe notably rude or unprofessional behavior from technicians, and one review flagged a failed callback promise. Pricing drew significant criticism, with two reviewers expressing sticker shock over fees (including an $80 trip charge and a $3,000 water heater quote described as double the market rate), pulling the price-friendly score down considerably despite one reviewer calling prices fair. Project completion is similarly split — several jobs were completed quickly and to satisfaction, but one review describes a repair that failed within 30 minutes and a subsequent refusal to return, which is a serious completion failure. Experience scores reflect a pattern of competent work in straightforward jobs but notable diagnostic failures, particularly around water heater assessment.

• RECENCY NOTE: Three reviews are from 2023 and are the most recent; four reviews date from 2017–2020 and carry reduced weight. The older negative reviews (2017 rude technician, 2019 failed repair and abandoned callback) may reflect past performance that has since improved — or may indicate persistent issues.
• SERIOUS COMPLETION FAILURE: The 2019 review describes a repair that failed within 30 minutes and a company refusal to return, which is a significant project completion red flag.
• PRICING CONCERN: Two independent reviewers in 2023 flagged pricing as excessive or non-transparent, including an $80 trip/commuter fee and a water heater quote described as twice the market rate. This is a consistent and credible pricing concern.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: At least two reviews describe specific rude or dismissive behavior from individual technicians, suggesting inconsistent staff quality rather than a uniformly professional team.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and specificity. Negative reviews include specific dollar amounts, technician names, and incident details. No suspicious uniformity detected.

This WW Score of 62.1 is based on 11 reviews spanning 2017–2023 with usable data across all four dimensions; confidence is MODERATE overall due to the mixed and sometimes contradictory evidence, the presence of serious negative incidents, and the fact that several reviews are more than three years old.