Find Nearby Plumbers In Tulsa, Oklahoma

All Britton Plumbing has a deeply troubled review profile dominated by serious, specific complaints across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers describing the owner as belligerent, foul-mouthed, verbally abusive, and unresponsive — including one account of the owner appearing intoxicated on the job. Project completion is nearly as problematic, with documented cases of abandoned work, unfinished jobs, a court judgment for damages, and a bench warrant issued after a no-show. Pricing transparency is also a concern, with one reviewer describing a price increase from $1,200 to $6,000 mid-project. The handful of positive reviews — mostly from 2017–2018 — describe prompt, courteous, and fairly priced service, but these are significantly outweighed by the volume and severity of negative experiences, several of which are recent (2023–2024).

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly negative and describe serious misconduct, suggesting conditions may have worsened over time. Older positive reviews (2017–2018) should be weighted less heavily.
• LEGAL/SAFETY FLAG: One reviewer obtained a court judgment against this contractor for flooding damage and reports the contractor failed to appear in court, resulting in a bench warrant. This is a significant red flag beyond typical service complaints.
• CONDUCT FLAG: Multiple independent reviewers describe the owner as verbally abusive, threatening legal action when confronted about poor work, and using profane language in front of children. This pattern across unrelated reviews adds credibility to the complaints.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: At least two separate reviews describe work being started and not completed, with the contractor refusing to return or finish the job.
• POSITIVE REVIEW SCRUTINY: The five positive reviews are generic in some cases ('honest and hardworking, very satisfied') and cluster heavily in 2017–2018. While not definitively fake, they lack the specificity and recency to meaningfully offset the documented negative pattern.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews with strong mention coverage across all four dimensions, making it a HIGH confidence assessment — the low score of 34.2 is well-supported by consistent, specific, and independently corroborated negative experiences, and should be taken seriously by any prospective customer.

The review set is heavily dominated by negative experiences spanning multiple years, with serious recurring complaints across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down sharply by documented incidents of rudeness, sexist remarks from a technician, failure to return calls, and unprofessional appearance, offset only slightly by a handful of older positive reviews praising politeness and punctuality. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: multiple reviews describe abandoned work, unresolved repairs, ignored warranty callbacks, and jobs left incomplete — including a raw sewage pit left unaddressed and a hot water heater improperly installed. Pricing concerns include a charge of $125 for an unrequested repair that diagnosed the problem incorrectly, and a $220 charge that left a customer still without water. Experience scores reflect a mixed but mostly negative picture, with one technician documented as needing phone guidance during a job and another failing to locate an accessible clean-out that the homeowner found via a quick internet search. The two positive reviews — one from 2024 and two from 2012–2013 — provide some upward pressure but are insufficient to offset the volume and severity of negative evidence.

• The majority of reviews are older than 1 year; most negative reviews cluster in 2017–2018, with only one positive review from 2024 and two positives from 2012–2013. Recency weighting limits how much the older positive reviews can improve the score.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, specificity, and rating — this appears to be an authentic review set.
• Multiple reviews describe the same systemic failure pattern: work left incomplete, no follow-up contact, and voicemail that goes unreturned. This suggests an organizational or operational problem rather than isolated incidents.
• One review documents a technician making a sexist comment to a female customer during a dispute. This is a serious professionalism flag.
• One review describes a misdiagnosis that cost the customer $125 for an unrequested repair, while a competing plumber correctly identified the problem at no charge — raising concerns about diagnostic integrity and possible upselling pressure.
• The 2024 positive review is the only recent data point. It is encouraging but represents a single data point and cannot be treated as evidence of sustained improvement.

This WW Score carries MODERATE-to-HIGH reliability given 9 reviews with usable data across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously due to the wide date range of reviews and the possibility that business quality may have changed since the 2017–2018 period when the most severe complaints were recorded.

Solid Plumbing demonstrates severe and consistent problems across all dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by missed appointments, poor communication, and lack of courtesy callbacks. Pricing is a major complaint with multiple reviews citing bait-and-switch tactics, double-charging, and quotes that are 2-3x higher than promised. Project completion is critically weak, with incomplete jobs, abandoned work, and unnecessary demolition causing customer harm. While a few positive reviews mention politeness and acceptable work quality, the overwhelming pattern of financial dishonesty, failed appointments, and incomplete projects creates a deeply problematic service record.

• CRITICAL: Strong pattern of pricing fraud across multiple independent reviews (2016, 2021, 2020) — customers report being quoted one price and charged significantly more, suggesting systemic dishonesty rather than isolated incidents
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document incomplete or abandoned work — garbage disposal not installed, bathroom repair left unfinished after unnecessary tile removal, creating customer liability and property damage
• CRITICAL: Appointment reliability failure — customer scheduled for 3:30 PM Friday, received no service and no courtesy notification despite multiple follow-up calls
• Age concern: 4 of 10 reviews are from 2012-2016 (8+ years old); only 3 reviews from 2021 or later, limiting recency assessment
• Positive reviews (3 five-star ratings) are notably generic and lack specific detail, while negative reviews are highly detailed and specific — suggests possible review manipulation or that satisfied customers leave minimal feedback while dissatisfied customers provide extensive documentation

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data and small sample size, but the consistency and specificity of fraud allegations across multiple independent reviews from different years suggests the low score reflects genuine systemic problems rather than isolated incidents; the company's pattern of pricing deception and incomplete work represents significant financial and property risk to customers.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by chronic communication failures, late arrivals, and unprofessional conduct (tool theft accusations, unavailability). Project completion is the most damaging area, with multiple reviews documenting incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and defects requiring complete rework by other plumbers. Experience/workmanship is questioned directly, with one reviewer noting work so poor another plumber questioned if they were licensed professionals. The single positive review praising fair pricing and responsiveness is heavily outweighed by four 1-star reviews spanning multiple years documenting systemic failures. The WW Score of 32.8 reflects a contractor with fundamental operational and quality problems.

• CRITICAL: Four of six reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed complaints of incomplete work, communication breakdown, and quality failures. Pattern is consistent across multiple years (2017-2023), suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are older (2017, 2019, 2022), but the most recent review (Feb 2023) is also 1-star with identical complaints (communication failure, incomplete work, refusal to resolve issues). This suggests problems persist.
• CREDIBILITY: The two 5-star reviews (2022, 2022) are generic in praise and lack specific detail, while the 1-star reviews are highly detailed with specific failures. The positive reviews appear less substantive.
• PATTERN ALERT: Multiple reviews mention identical failure modes: communication breakdown/unavailability, incomplete work requiring rework by other plumbers, and refusal to follow up. This consistency across independent reviewers strengthens credibility of complaints.

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted. The score is based on consistent, detailed negative feedback across multiple years from different customers describing identical failure patterns (communication, incomplete work, poor quality), balanced against minimal positive feedback lacking specificity. The contractor demonstrates systemic operational failures that warrant serious caution.

Dale and Lee's receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with only 3 of 14 reviews being positive (ratings of 4–5 stars). Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple accounts of rude staff, condescending phone interactions, a reported physical assault by an employee, and one owner allegedly retaliating against a customer by posting their private address online. Pricing is a major recurring complaint, with customers citing massive overcharges on Freon, bogus service call fees, and quotes for unnecessary repairs costing thousands of dollars. Project completion is poor, with multiple instances of incomplete work, no-shows, and jobs requiring multiple return visits to finish correctly. Experience scores are dragged down by technicians misdiagnosing problems, failing to identify obvious issues, and recommending expensive replacements for components that did not need replacing — with at least two reviews confirming a second-opinion company found simple, cheap fixes that Dale and Lee's missed entirely.

• The 3 positive reviews (2016, 2018, 2019) are significantly outnumbered by 11 negative reviews and are all older than 5 years. No positive reviews exist from 2020 onward.
• One review alleges a company employee (Jordan) physically struck a customer's family member after a vehicle accident and fled the scene — this is a serious conduct flag beyond normal service quality.
• One review alleges the business owner (Brent DeBoer) retaliated against a negative reviewer by publicly posting the customer's home address online and refusing to remove it unless the review was deleted — this is a significant ethical and legal concern.
• Multiple reviews independently describe technicians recommending expensive part replacements (coils, full units, flanges) that second-opinion contractors confirmed were unnecessary — this pattern suggests either systemic incompetence or deliberate upselling fraud.
• Freon pricing discrepancy flagged explicitly: one customer was charged $69/lb versus a competitor's $13/lb — a 430% markup that was not disclosed upfront.
• The single 5-star review from 2019 mentions specific names (Doug, Brent) and commercial/residential use, which adds some credibility, but it stands in stark contrast to the volume and specificity of negative reviews.
• Most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to show the same patterns of poor communication, overcharging, and rude staff, suggesting no improvement over time.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews with strong cross-dimensional coverage and HIGH confidence across all dimensions; the score of 28.1 is considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's service quality, and the volume and specificity of negative reviews — spanning 7+ years — make the low score credible rather than anomalous.

This contractor's reviews paint a consistently negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by reports of extreme tardiness, poor communication, unresponsiveness, and one account of the owner calling a customer a liar. Project completion is the weakest area, with multiple reviews describing incomplete work, jobs not delivered as quoted, and one instance of workers digging the wrong line entirely. Pricing is rated poorly by most reviewers, with multiple customers describing the service as overpriced relative to the quality and completeness of work delivered. Experience scores are low due to accounts of incorrect installations, failure to diagnose problems correctly, and sloppy workmanship — though one reviewer did note the plumbing work itself was done adequately. The sole positive review, which is also the oldest (2017), provides a modest counterweight but is insufficient to meaningfully lift the scores.

• Four of five reviews are rated 1 or 2 stars, indicating a strong pattern of customer dissatisfaction.
• The only 5-star review (2017) is the oldest review in the set and predates all negative reviews by at least two years; it should be weighted less under recency rules.
• All negative reviews are from 2017–2021; no recent reviews (within the past 12 months of a typical analysis window) are present, limiting recency confidence.
• The 5-star review lacks specific detail about any particular job or interaction, making it less substantively useful than the detailed negative reviews.
• One review explicitly alleges the owner engaged in gaslighting and called the customer a liar — a serious professionalism red flag that warrants caution.
• A pattern of unresponsiveness (unanswered calls, no follow-up) appears in multiple independent reviews, suggesting a systemic communication problem rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 2017–2021, which limits statistical reliability, but the consistency of serious complaints across all dimensions across multiple independent reviewers gives moderate-to-high confidence that the low score reflects genuine service quality issues.