Find Nearby Plumbers In Tulsa, Oklahoma

The review set is small (4 reviews) and deeply mixed, making any score inherently uncertain. The single 5-star review praises professionalism, cleanliness, and technical knowledge, but it is outweighed by three highly critical reviews. Pricing is a serious concern, with two reviewers explicitly describing feeling ripped off — one citing $2,000 for 2.5 hours of work and another alleging $150/hr per plumber for debris hauling. Project completion is significantly undermined by a detailed account of an incorrectly installed toilet that caused thousands of dollars in downstream water damage, as well as a complete failure to respond to a prospective customer over 24 hours. The owner's alleged refusal to take responsibility or apologize further damages the professionalism and integrity scores.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and unreliable for decision-making.
• The sole 5-star review uses generic praise ('clean, professional, respectful, knowledgeable') with no specific job details beyond 'water line repipe' — possible fake or incentivized review cannot be ruled out.
• The 1-star reviewer from 2022-04-05 explicitly suggests the 5-star reviews may be from people close to the owner, indicating possible review manipulation concern.
• Two reviews are from 2022 and may not reflect current business practices; only two reviews are from 2024 and should be weighted more heavily.
• A serious workmanship failure (incorrectly installed toilet causing structural water damage) was reported and allegedly not remediated by the contractor — this is a significant liability and quality red flag.
• Complete non-responsiveness to a prospective customer (no callback after 24+ hours) was explicitly reported, indicating possible systemic communication issues.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with a highly polarized distribution and should be considered LOW RELIABILITY — do not use this score as a confident indicator of contractor quality without seeking additional independent references.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies in professionalism and project completion. Four reviews explicitly cite unprofessional behavior including dishonesty, poor attitude, rude conduct in public, and aggressive driving. Three reviews document critical project completion failures: incomplete callbacks, broken promises to return, and failure to show up for scheduled work. Only one positive review exists, which lacks specific detail and appears isolated against overwhelming negative evidence. No pricing information was mentioned across reviews, and technical experience was not evaluated.

• Severe pattern of non-completion and broken commitments across multiple reviews from different time periods
• Multiple reports of unprofessional personal conduct and attitude issues
• One isolated 5-star review with generic praise ('fantastic job') lacks specificity and contrasts sharply with 4 detailed 1-star reviews describing concrete failures
• Reviews span 2019-2024; negative pattern is consistent over time, not isolated incident
• Customer explicitly warns others: 'don't pay him until the job is complete' — indicates systemic trust issues

This score is reliable and should be trusted. The WW Score of 28.3 is supported by consistent, detailed negative evidence across multiple independent reviews spanning several years, with specific examples of broken commitments and unprofessional behavior.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture dominated by severe communication and reliability failures. Three of four reviews explicitly describe unreturned calls, no-shows, and chronic rescheduling, driving professionalism and project completion scores to critically low levels. The one positive review from 2022 praises technical skill and reasonable pricing, but it is the oldest review in the set and is heavily outweighed by the pattern of recent negative experiences. Project completion is particularly alarming, with multiple reviewers describing paid work left unfinished and promises to return that were not honored. The single positive data point on pricing and experience is insufficient to meaningfully offset the dominant negative trend.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The only positive review is from September 2022, making it the oldest review analyzed. All three negative reviews are from 2023–2024, suggesting a possible deterioration in service quality over time.
• RELIABILITY CONCERN: A 2024 reviewer questions whether the business is still operating, citing inability to get return calls — this may indicate the business is inactive or in decline.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. Scores carry limited statistical reliability and should be interpreted with caution.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with a strong recency skew toward negative experiences, making it a LIMITED confidence assessment — the score directionally reflects serious concerns but should not be treated as statistically definitive.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe a deeply problematic contractor. Professionalism is the most-cited dimension and is catastrophically low, with dozens of reviewers documenting verbal abuse, harassment via text and phone, condescension, misogyny, no-shows, and threatening behavior toward customers including elderly and disabled individuals. Project completion is nearly as damning, with repeated accounts of abandoned jobs, flooded homes, unfinished bathrooms left for months, and work that had to be redone by other contractors. Experience scores are similarly poor, with multiple reviewers describing unlicensed work, code violations, incorrect installations, and botched repairs that worsened the original problem. Pricing receives a marginally higher score only because a small number of positive reviewers noted reasonable rates, but this is heavily offset by numerous accounts of overbilling, hidden charges, demands for more money mid-job, and charging for hours not worked. The handful of positive reviews (roughly 18 out of 72) are insufficient to meaningfully offset the volume and severity of negative experiences documented across more than a decade.

• UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly state that Stan Selig is not licensed to perform plumbing work in Vermont. The Better Business Bureau is also cited as having an alert on file for this business regarding lack of licensure. This is a critical safety and legal concern.
• PATTERN OF HARASSMENT: Numerous reviewers across multiple years describe being harassed via repeated phone calls and text messages after declining services or raising complaints. This pattern is consistent and spans from 2012 to 2025.
• SUSPECTED FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific detail (e.g., 'Outstanding!!', 'Very helpful and friendly', 'Stan is fast and efficient. Also a funny guy!'). Some positive reviews reference different named workers (Robert, Peter, Clayton, Nick, Brian) rather than Stan, raising questions about whether they pertain to the same business or operator. These reviews appear inconsistent with the dominant pattern and may not reflect the primary operator's work.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Had a kitchen sink plumbing issue, that called for a quick response' appears twice with identical text — once dated 2023-06-10 (rated 5 stars) and once dated 2022-10-02 (rated 1 star). The 1-star version is treated as the authentic sentiment given its narrative conclusion. This duplication is suspicious.
• ABANDONED WORK AND CODE VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviewers describe work left incomplete, installations not up to code, sewer vents left open into living spaces, and gas installations done incorrectly — some discovered years later during home inspections.
• ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR TOWARD VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS: At least two reviews describe Stan targeting or mistreating elderly or disabled customers, including a 93-year-old woman and a senior amputee. One review also describes sexually harassing text messages.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2012 through May 2025, indicating this is not an isolated historical pattern. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) continue to document the same behaviors, suggesting no improvement over time.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Five reviews contained no text and only a star rating (all 1-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence — the score of 18.9 is a reliable reflection of a contractor with severe, consistent, and well-documented deficiencies across all four dimensions, compounded by credible reports of unlicensed operation and predatory behavior.

Air Comfort Solutions receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four dimensions, with the review corpus representing one of the most consistently poor contractor profiles analyzable. Pricing is the single most-cited concern, with dozens of reviewers documenting quotes 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, systematic upselling to full system replacements when minor repairs were needed, and undisclosed or disputed service fees. Project completion is severely penalized by repeated accounts of unfinished work, failed repairs requiring multiple return visits, abandoned follow-through on wall repairs and city inspections, and jobs that were left in worse condition than before service. Professionalism scores reflect a pattern of no-call no-shows, broken appointment windows, rude office staff, technicians arriving unprepared, and management that routinely fails to return calls. Experience scores reflect numerous documented instances of misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, damage caused during service, and work that failed within days or weeks, with competitors consistently resolving the same issues quickly and cheaply. The small number of positive reviews (approximately 10 out of 100) describe responsive service and professional technicians, but these are vastly outweighed by the volume and specificity of negative accounts.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED POSITIVE REVIEWS: The approximately 10 positive reviews are notably generic in praise ('very professional', 'great job', 'highly recommend') and lack the operational specificity seen in negative reviews. Several positive reviews mention technician names and specific scenarios but contrast sharply in tone and detail density with the negative majority.
• SYSTEMATIC FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: A large number of independent reviewers describe an identical sales tactic — a low-cost or free tune-up or service call followed immediately by a diagnosis of total system failure and a quote for a full replacement costing $10,000–$25,000. Multiple reviewers confirmed via second opinions that no such replacement was needed. This pattern across dozens of unrelated customers strongly suggests a deliberate and systemic deceptive sales practice.
• PREDATORY TARGETING FLAGGED: Multiple reviewers explicitly state that elderly, disabled, or financially vulnerable customers (including a 97-year-old WWII veteran, a cancer survivor, a widow on Social Security, and a person on home oxygen) were targeted with inflated quotes or unauthorized charges.
• UNAUTHORIZED FINANCIAL ACTIONS REPORTED: At least two reviewers report that ACS opened a credit card in their name without consent, and one reports an unauthorized credit card charge after cancellation of a service plan.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2013 through October 2024, with the most recent reviews (2024) continuing to describe the same patterns of overpricing, no-shows, and incomplete work. There is no evidence of improvement over time.
• BBB ACCREDITATION REVOKED: Multiple reviewers note that Air Comfort Solutions lost its Better Business Bureau accreditation, which corroborates the pattern of complaints documented in this review set.
• SABOTAGE ALLEGATION: At least one reviewer credibly alleges that a technician deliberately cycled their AC unit on and off repeatedly during a service visit, after which the motor failed within 15 days. This is a serious allegation that, if accurate, would constitute intentional property damage.

This WW Score of 18.7 is based on a large sample of 100 reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a highly reliable and conservative assessment of this contractor's performance — the score accurately reflects a business with deeply systemic issues in pricing integrity, workmanship, follow-through, and customer treatment.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply negative picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of late arrivals, no-call-backs from management, a service manager yelling and cursing at a customer, and technicians requiring Facetime guidance from supervisors to perform basic work. Pricing is a dominant complaint across six of seven reviews, with customers reporting no upfront quotes, bills far exceeding expectations, and parts marked up four to five times retail price. Project completion is also critically poor, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, work left unfinished, and a customer being dropped from the schedule days before a long-awaited appointment. The one positive data point — a follow-up review where the company made amends after a complaint — slightly lifts the score above the floor but does not meaningfully offset the volume and severity of negative feedback.

• No fake review patterns detected — reviews are highly specific, varied in detail, and span multiple years, lending credibility to the negative feedback.
• RECENCY WARNING: The most severe and detailed negative review is from May 2024, indicating problems are ongoing and not historical. The majority of negative reviews fall within the past 2–3 years.
• PATTERN FLAG: Multiple independent reviewers describe the same specific failure modes — no upfront quotes, excessive labor charges, parts marked up 4–5x retail, and management refusing to respond to complaints. This consistency across unrelated customers strongly corroborates systemic business practice issues rather than isolated incidents.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT FLAG: At least two reviews describe the owner or manager being unreachable or refusing to engage with billing disputes, and one review describes a service manager verbally abusing a customer in the office.
• SAFETY FLAG: One review describes technicians accidentally setting insulation on fire inside a customer's home due to incompetence, which is a serious liability and safety concern.
• The single 5-star review is a follow-up update from a previously dissatisfied customer and reflects conflict resolution rather than a genuinely positive service experience. It should not be interpreted as evidence of consistent quality.

This WW Score is based on 7 reviews with strong internal consistency and specific, credible detail across multiple reviewers; the score is considered moderately reliable and almost certainly reflects genuine systemic issues with this contractor's business practices.