Find Nearby Plumbers In Tulsa, Oklahoma

Living Water Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with many customers praising punctuality, communication, and courteous service. However, significant pricing concerns emerge across multiple reviews, with customers reporting unexpected charges, inflated labor rates, travel time fees, and marked-up parts. Project completion shows mixed results—while many jobs are completed successfully, several reviews document incomplete work, lack of follow-up, and unresolved callbacks. Technical experience is generally strong when work is performed, but inconsistency across team members and occasional quality issues undermine confidence. The company appears to have undergone staffing changes that may have improved recent performance, but historical patterns of billing disputes and incomplete projects significantly impact the overall score.

• PRICING PATTERN: 18 mentions of pricing concerns across reviews spanning 2006–2025. Recurring complaints include: unexpected charges beyond estimates, travel time fees not disclosed upfront, inflated parts markups (toilet marked up ~$100, shower cartridge $300, simple drain repair $530), and hourly rates ($150/hr) applied inconsistently. Multiple customers report being 'held hostage' to pricing changes mid-job.
• PROJECT COMPLETION ISSUES: 6 detailed negative reviews document incomplete work, lack of callback follow-up, and abandoned projects. Examples: cabin repiping left unexposed pipes unreplaced causing water damage; kitchen sink reinstall required multiple callbacks and still leaked; blockage repair failed twice, customer had to hire competitor; water main installation required multiple trips for missing supplies.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Reviews indicate significant variation in service quality depending on technician assigned. Named technicians (Scott, Forest, John, Sam, Brad, Loren) receive consistent praise, but unnamed or different crew members associated with negative experiences. One 2024 review notes 'big changes this year with new staffing and better processes,' suggesting past systemic issues.
• COMMUNICATION & FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2017, 2019, 2021, 2024) report unanswered calls, no callbacks after estimates, and unresponsive office staff despite urgent situations. Contradicts recent reviews praising office staff (Anna, Brittany) responsiveness.
• BILLING DISPUTES & LEGAL ACTION: One 2017 review documents Clackamas County Court judgment against company for 'Breach of Contract.' Multiple reviews describe bait-and-switch pricing tactics and refusal to provide itemized receipts.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: 40 of 75 reviews (53%) are from 2024–2025 and predominantly 5-star with minimal detail (e.g., 'Awesome service,' empty reviews). Earlier reviews (2014–2021) contain detailed negative accounts of systemic issues. Recent positive reviews may reflect improved processes but lack depth to verify claims.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: 4 reviews with no text content (5-star ratings only) and 8 reviews with generic single-sentence praise ('Great service,' 'These guys are great') cluster in 2024–2025. While not conclusive, combined with recency spike, suggests possible review inflation.
• CONTRACTOR BOARD COMPLAINT: One 2021 review explicitly states intention to file complaint with Oregon State Contractors Board regarding contract violations and property damage.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism and experience dimensions are supported by substantial mentions (38 and 20 respectively), the pricing dimension—critical to overall trust—is based on only 18 mentions but reveals a consistent, multi-year pattern of billing disputes that significantly undermines the score. The sharp contrast between recent 5-star reviews (many generic and low-detail) and detailed historical complaints (2014–2021) suggests either genuine operational improvement or potential review inflation. Customers should request detailed written estimates, confirm all fees upfront, and verify references before engaging this company, particularly for large projects.

Harp demonstrates strong professionalism with punctual, courteous technicians who communicate well and maintain professional demeanor (78.5/100). However, pricing is a critical weakness, with numerous complaints about excessive service charges, diagnostic fees, inflated quotes, and lack of transparency—dragging the pricing score to 52.0/100. Project completion shows moderate performance with some callbacks honored and warranty work completed, but also instances of incomplete work and scheduling failures. Technical experience is solid with generally competent work, though several reviews cite misdiagnosis and incomplete problem-solving. The company's overall WW Score of 68.2 reflects a business that executes work professionally but undermines customer satisfaction through aggressive pricing practices.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic complaints about high service charges ($49-$119 diagnostic/trip fees), inflated quotes (2-3x market rate), and lack of price transparency. This is the dominant negative theme across 24 reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Multiple reviews with minimal text ('Great. Always pleased with their work.' 'unknown' 'n/a' '.') rated 5.0 stars with no substantive detail. Seven reviews contain only placeholder text or single words, suggesting potential review padding. Confidence reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2006-2015 (10+ years old). Only 3-4 reviews from 2019 or later. Historical data may not reflect current practices.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple detailed complaints about incorrect diagnoses (AC compressor, freon, evaporator coils, electrical issues) leading to unnecessary charges and customer frustration. At least 5 reviews document this issue.
• SCHEDULING FAILURES: Several reviews cite missed appointments, no-shows, rescheduling issues, and poor communication about arrival times despite 'guaranteed' appointment slots.
• MANAGER RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple complaints that managers failed to return calls or respond to escalated complaints, suggesting poor customer service infrastructure.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING: Same customer used Harp multiple times and noted pricing practices changed over years, with new surcharges introduced that weren't previously charged.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the sample size is adequate (68 usable reviews), significant data quality issues exist: 7 reviews contain no substantive text, most reviews are 10+ years old, and the pricing dimension—which heavily influences the score—is driven by consistent, detailed complaints that appear credible but may reflect outdated practices. The professionalism score is well-supported by 32 mentions, but project completion and experience scores rest on fewer mentions (18-20). The score accurately reflects historical customer experience but may not represent current operations.

This plumbing company shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While some customers report excellent workmanship, responsiveness, and professionalism (particularly in emergency situations), multiple recent reviews cite serious professionalism issues including rudeness, failure to return calls, incomplete work, and unprofessional behavior on job sites. Pricing is a major concern, with customers consistently reporting excessive charges, hidden fees, and unjustified line items. Project completion is mixed—some jobs are completed well and on time, while others are abandoned or only partially finished. Technical skill appears solid when work is completed, but execution and customer interaction are problematic.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2016-2017, while positive reviews span 2012-2015 and one from 2024. However, the most recent substantive review (2024-11-02) is highly negative regarding pricing, suggesting ongoing issues.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Five reviews contain only 'unknown' or '.' as text with ratings of 5.0, 4.0, or 3.0. These provide no usable data and appear to be placeholder or fraudulent entries. Confidence reduced accordingly.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: Extreme bimodal distribution—mostly 1-star or 5-star with few middle ratings. This suggests either genuinely inconsistent service or review manipulation.
• COMPARATIVE COMPLAINTS: Multiple customers explicitly recommend 'Evans Plumbing' as superior alternative, indicating this company lost business due to poor service.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Multiple independent reports of rudeness, refusal to provide itemized receipts, and dismissive attitudes toward customers ('you are welcome to work on it yourself').

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While the data set is small (13 usable reviews) and heavily skewed by old reviews, the consistency of negative patterns across multiple independent complaints about professionalism and pricing is concerning. The company appears capable of quality work but has serious operational and customer service issues that warrant verification before hiring.

Wooten Knockout exhibits significant inconsistency in service quality and pricing practices. While positive reviews (5 of 9) praise professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill, three highly detailed negative reviews document serious issues: incompetent diagnostics ($16,000 estimate for a $194 problem), predatory pricing ($500 service fee for no resolution, $500 upcharge for removing a door), illegal practices (unlicensed apprentices without supervision), property damage, and refusal to make repairs. The pricing dimension is particularly problematic, with evidence of bait-and-switch tactics and inflated charges. Project completion concerns include incomplete work and unresolved damage claims. The stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star complaints suggests inconsistent service delivery, possibly dependent on technician assignment.

• MAJOR PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple reviews document predatory pricing practices including $500 service fees for failed diagnostics, $500 upcharges for basic tasks, and estimates 80+ times higher than competitor quotes ($16,000 vs $194 for same problem). Pattern suggests systematic overcharging.
• LEGAL/SAFETY CONCERN: One detailed review documents dispatch of unlicensed apprentice plumbers without journeyman supervisor for gas water heater installation (illegal in most jurisdictions), no permit pulled initially, and refusal to obtain county inspection until customer insisted.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE & REFUSAL TO REPAIR: Customer reports deliberate property damage (cutting door with saw, breaking siding) and owner's explicit refusal to repair damage or honor promised compensation despite customer paying $2,400 in full.
• DIAGNOSTIC INCOMPETENCE: Initial review documents grossly incompetent diagnosis ($16,000 estimate to cut concrete/flooring) that was completely wrong; competitor solved problem in 10 minutes for $194.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Five 5-star reviews (2020-2023) contain generic praise language ('all things impressed', 'marking of excellence', 'went above and beyond') with minimal specific detail, contrasting sharply with highly detailed negative reviews. However, positive reviews do name specific technicians (Devin, Brad, Dawson, Cody, Bradley), which adds some credibility.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 2+ years old (2020-2022); most recent detailed reviews (2023) are all 1-star with serious allegations.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 9 reviews with multiple mentions per dimension, the extreme polarization (5 five-star vs 3 one-star with detailed allegations), documented predatory pricing patterns, legal violations, and property damage refusals suggest this company has serious systemic issues. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects this volatility, but customers should heavily weight the detailed negative reviews documenting specific harms over generic positive testimonials.

Hampton's Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with 4 five-star reviews praising professionalism, fair pricing, and technical skill, but 3 one-star reviews alleging dishonesty, incomplete work, and litigation against customers. The positive reviews emphasize courteous service, fair quotes, and problem-solving ability. However, the negative reviews—particularly from 2015–2016—describe incomplete repairs, false diagnoses, and unresolved issues requiring expensive rework by other companies. Project completion emerges as the most problematic dimension, with serious allegations of abandoned work and false claims. The significant recency gap (most negative reviews are 8+ years old, while recent reviews are positive) suggests possible business changes, but the severity of completion allegations cannot be ignored.

• CRITICAL: Severe polarization detected—4 five-star vs. 3 one-star reviews with no middle ground. This pattern warrants caution.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Negative reviews are from 2015–2016 (8–9 years old); positive reviews span 2016–2024. Unclear if company practices have changed.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Multiple reviews allege incomplete work, false diagnoses, and customers forced to hire second companies for rework. One review mentions litigation threats.
• CREDIBILITY ISSUE: Positive reviews lack specificity about pricing details; negative reviews provide concrete examples of alleged deception and incomplete repairs.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 7 reviews total limits statistical reliability, though mentions per dimension are adequate for scoring.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization and serious allegations of incomplete work and dishonesty in older reviews. While recent reviews are positive, the historical pattern of project completion failures and customer disputes significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. Recommend requesting references and verifying current business practices before engaging.

C&M Plumbing has a mixed track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and shows a split picture: several reviewers praised punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous behavior, but notable complaints include rudeness toward a customer's wife, a plumber dismissing pricing concerns with 'it is what it is,' and one professional plumber flagging unprofessional workmanship on a new construction job. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with two detailed complaints about a $289 charge for a 25-minute gas log swap and a $600 charge for a 90-minute job that was quoted for 6 hours — both reviewers felt ripped off, and no reviews explicitly praised pricing as fair except one older review. Project completion is moderately positive but undermined by one significant failure where a shower connection was left incomplete, causing water damage, and a separate incident involving a billing error sent to the wrong address with no follow-up call. Experience scores moderately, with some reviewers praising quick and effective repairs, while a fellow plumber criticized the quality of workmanship on a new construction build.

• 13 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no usable content — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no verifiable information and may inflate the overall star average.
• Two reviews (dated 2022-02-02 and 2022-02-13) describe the same incident (gas log swap on Jan 26, 2022, $289 charge, 25-minute job) in nearly identical detail. These appear to be duplicate reviews from the same customer posted twice. Only one was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting.
• The majority of substantive reviews are from 2012–2016, with only two usable reviews from the past 12 months (2024 and 2022). The recency of data is poor and the business's current quality cannot be reliably assessed from this review set.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief ('great very pleased', 'very well.', 'Overall call C & M Plumbing you won't be sorry.') with no specific details, limiting their evidentiary value. These were not counted toward any dimension score.
• One reviewer identifies themselves as a fellow plumber and criticizes the quality of workmanship directly — this carries elevated credibility as a professional assessment.

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution: while enough substantive reviews exist to calculate a score, the bulk of usable data is 8–12 years old, 13 reviews were entirely uninformative, and two reviews appear to be duplicates — the score reflects a contractor with genuine service inconsistencies, particularly around pricing transparency and job completion, but the current state of the business cannot be confidently assessed from this dataset.