Find Nearby Plumbers In Lawton, Oklahoma

The overwhelming majority of reviews paint a deeply negative picture of this contractor across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of technicians leaving without notifying homeowners, failing to return calls, dismissive responses to complaints, and one account of a deleted Facebook review suggesting reputation manipulation. Pricing is a consistent flashpoint, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing charges as 'highway robbery,' 'outrageously' high, and significantly above competitors' quotes. Project completion is perhaps the most damaging dimension: multiple reviews describe work that was left incomplete, faucets that still leaked after the visit, a technician unable to diagnose a problem after three hours, and a follow-up that never materialized over weeks. Experience scores marginally higher only because two positive reviews exist and one reviewer praised education about household plumbing, but the pattern of failed repairs and inability to diagnose problems substantially undermines any claim to technical competence.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The company's own Facebook page is reported by a reviewer to have had negative reviews deleted, leaving only 5-star reviews visible there. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation on that platform.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review (October 2024) is negative. Only 3 of 10 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024). The two positive reviews date from 2017 and 2021, making them significantly less reliable indicators of current service quality.
• PATTERN FLAG: The two positive reviews (2017 and 2021) are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific detail about the work performed, which reduces their evidentiary weight. They may not be fabricated but cannot be weighted heavily against the volume of detailed negative accounts.
• PATTERN FLAG: Eight of ten reviews are 1-star or 2-star ratings with specific, detailed complaints. This level of consistency across independent reviewers over multiple years strongly suggests systemic operational problems rather than isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least three separate reviews describe work that was not completed or not completed correctly, and at least two describe failed follow-through on promised callbacks or return visits — indicating a structural problem with project completion.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence in its negative assessment given that 9 of 10 dimensions across all four categories are supported by multiple detailed, independent, and time-distributed reviews consistently describing the same failures.

All four reviews are uniformly negative with 1-star ratings spanning 2014–2016. Professionalism is severely criticized across all reviews: missed appointments, poor communication, rudeness, lack of responsiveness, and disorganization. Project completion is consistently problematic—work was incomplete, problems recurred after repair, and damage occurred during service. Pricing concerns appear in two reviews regarding billing errors and lack of transparency. Experience shows mixed signals: two reviews acknowledge technical competence, but two others describe failed repairs and use of substandard parts. The extreme consistency of negative feedback and absence of any positive reviews raises reliability concerns.

• All four reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly severe criticism—no positive or mixed reviews present
• Review dates span 2014–2016 (8–10 years old); no recent reviews available to assess current performance
• Consistent pattern of complaints about missed appointments, poor communication, and incomplete work suggests systemic operational issues
• One review explicitly states parts warranty expired and same problem recurred, indicating potential use of substandard materials
• No positive counterbalance in dataset; impossible to assess if business has improved or if these are isolated incidents

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient total reviews (n=4), but the uniformly negative historical data strongly suggests serious operational and service delivery problems; however, the age of all reviews (8–10 years) means current performance may differ significantly and should be verified with recent customer references.

All three reviews are severely negative with ratings of 1.0 stars. Professionalism is explicitly criticized across all reviews: rude office staff/owner, unprofessional communication, and poor attitude toward customers. Project completion is heavily compromised in two reviews—one describes multiple no-shows and abandoned work on a burst pipe repair, while the other documents incomplete property damage repairs with excessive delays and excuses. No reviews mention pricing or technical experience/skill level. The extreme recency gap (2015, 2017, 2018) and universal 1-star pattern suggest these may be legitimate complaints, but the small sample size (n=3) prevents reliable scoring.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation per Step 4 rules.
• All three reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive mentions — suggests either severe systemic issues or potential selection bias (only dissatisfied customers reviewed).
• Reviews span 2015–2018 with no recent data — cannot assess if issues have been corrected.
• No pricing data available — cannot score Price Friendly dimension.
• No technical experience/skill data mentioned — cannot score Experience dimension.
• Professionalism and Project Completion scores are based on very limited mentions (2–3) and should be treated with caution.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=3). The available data suggests serious professionalism and project completion concerns, but with only three reviews spanning 2015–2018 and no recent feedback, this assessment should not be used for decision-making without additional current reviews.

Both available reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of serious professionalism failures, including missed appointments, no-call no-shows, and outright rude communication. Project completion is also critically undermined, with at least one reviewer left with an unresolved leaking bathtub faucet after being stood up entirely. The one dimension where partial credit is given for experience is the initial drain snaking job in Review 1, which appeared to succeed, though this is a single data point. Pricing was never mentioned in either review, leaving that dimension entirely unscored. With only two reviews available, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably, but the available signals are deeply concerning.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated in mid-2021, meaning all data is over 3 years old. Current contractor behavior may differ.
• No fake review concerns detected — both reviews contain specific, detailed, and credible negative accounts with distinct language and scenarios.
• Pattern of no-call no-shows and ghosting behavior is corroborated independently across both reviews, increasing credibility of the negative professionalism signal.
• Contractor reportedly made verbal claims about good customer relations and job completion, which were directly contradicted by his actions — potential indicator of deceptive sales behavior.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews from 2021 and should be treated as highly preliminary; while the negative signals are consistent and credible, the small sample size and age of the data mean this assessment cannot be considered a comprehensive or current picture of the contractor's performance.

With only two reviews, the data is extremely limited and no reliable WW Score can be produced. The positive review highlights punctuality, friendliness, mask compliance, and reasonable pricing for a water heater replacement. However, the negative review — which describes a $1,200 sewer line job that failed within a year, required multiple callbacks to complete basic yard restoration, and ultimately did not resolve the underlying problem — raises serious concerns across project completion, workmanship quality, and follow-through. The stark contrast between the two reviews prevents any confident assessment of this contractor's typical performance. The negative review's specificity and detail lend it considerable credibility.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The negative review describes a critical project completion failure: a sewer line replacement that failed within one year of installation, suggesting possible workmanship deficiency.
• The negative review also describes poor follow-through requiring multiple calls to complete basic site restoration after excavation work, indicating a pattern of incomplete project delivery.
• The negative review is dated 2017 and the positive review is dated 2021 — both are older than 12 months from a typical current evaluation window, reducing recency confidence.
• The two reviews are diametrically opposed (1-star vs 5-star), making any averaged score potentially misleading without more data to establish a reliable pattern.

This score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — only 2 reviews were available, both are over three years old, and they present completely contradictory experiences, making any dimension score highly speculative.

This single review paints a severely negative picture across nearly every dimension. The reviewer experienced 7 days without heat, indicating a critical failure in project completion and timely follow-through. Professionalism was rated extremely low due to reported dishonesty, poor communication, refusal to provide itemized estimates, and an inability to reach the technician by phone. Pricing transparency was flagged as a major concern, with the reviewer explicitly stating they received an 'outrageous estimate' with no breakdown of parts or labor costs. No technical skill or workmanship details were mentioned, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored. With only one review, all scores carry very low reliability.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No fake review concerns detected — review contains specific, detailed complaints consistent with a genuine negative experience.
• Review is dated 2023-01-23, which is within the past 12–24 months and carries reasonable recency weight.
• Experience/workmanship dimension could not be scored due to complete absence of relevant data in the review.

This score is based on a single 1-star review and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of overall contractor performance — far more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.