Find Nearby Plumbers In Amarillo, Texas

The review set is deeply polarized, with two recent positive reviews contrasted sharply by five negative reviews spanning 2011–2019. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a pattern of unanswered callbacks, alleged fraudulent billing practices, and high-pressure sales tactics reported by multiple reviewers. Pricing is a major pain point, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out excessive show-up fees, double-billing for two technicians on single-person jobs, and inflated labor charges — though two reviewers did find pricing reasonable or competitive. Project completion is mixed: the two positive reviewers report successful outcomes, but one reviewer describes a suspicious mid-job upsell attempt involving a 'rag in the toilet,' and another reports a completed job that failed within a year with no follow-up honored. Experience scores are moderate, as the positive reviews praise thoroughness and quick problem-solving, but the suspicious toilet incident and the recurring leak raise legitimate questions about workmanship quality.

• RECENCY WARNING: Five of seven reviews are older than 5 years (2011–2019), with only two reviews from 2023–2024. The two positive reviews are the most recent. This pattern may reflect genuine improvement, but could also reflect selective review solicitation. Weight recent reviews with caution.
• FRAUD/ETHICS FLAG: One reviewer (2012) alleges the company reported them to a credit agency for work never performed, citing paid invoices from a different company for the same work in the same month. This is a serious allegation of fraudulent billing practices.
• SUSPICIOUS INCIDENT FLAG: The 2013 review describes a scenario where a plumber claimed a rag was found inside a brand-new toilet mid-job, after initially pressuring the customer to purchase a replacement toilet from the company's own warehouse. This pattern is consistent with a potential upsell scam.
• CALLBACK FAILURE FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states a promised callback was never honored and subsequent calls went unanswered, indicating a potential pattern of post-job communication breakdown.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — LOW RISK: The two positive reviews (2023, 2024) are specific, detailed, and include named context (e.g., Peoples Gas inspection, no weekend fees). They do not appear to be fake. However, their timing — as the only recent reviews — warrants mild scrutiny.
• OVERALL PATTERN: The majority of reviews (5 of 7) are negative and describe pricing abuse, ethical violations, or incomplete follow-through. The two positive reviews are genuine but insufficient to offset the volume and severity of negative feedback.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review set (7 reviews), significant recency skew toward older negative reviews, and the presence of serious ethical allegations that, if accurate, would materially lower trustworthiness beyond what scores alone can capture.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile: two positive reviews praising speed, professionalism, and fair pricing, versus two highly detailed and serious negative reviews alleging misdiagnosis, dishonesty, broken equipment left in pipes, and predatory behavior toward vulnerable customers. The two negative reviews are significantly more detailed and specific, lending them higher credibility than the brief positive reviews. The negative reviews describe failures across every dimension — poor communication, incorrect diagnoses, deceptive upselling, and unresolved work — which heavily drags down all four dimension scores. The positive reviews are short and generic, raising mild concern about their depth of evidence, though they are not conclusively fake.

• The two positive reviews are brief and generic with minimal specifics, which limits their evidentiary weight compared to the detailed negative reviews.
• One negative review explicitly alleges dishonesty and attempted financial exploitation of a vulnerable customer — this is a serious integrity flag beyond normal service complaints.
• A negative review reports that a piece of snake equipment was broken off and left inside the customer's pipes — a significant workmanship and liability concern.
• Two of the four reviews are from 2016, making them over 8 years old. The two positive reviews are from 2021 and 2022. Recency weighting slightly favors the positive reviews, but the severity of the 2016 complaints still warrants inclusion.
• With only 4 total reviews, the dataset is very small and the WW Score should be treated with caution.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning a wide date range, with a stark positive/negative split and serious fraud allegations in the negative reviews — the score should be treated as LOW RELIABILITY and prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references before hiring.

This contractor's review record is heavily polarized, with a cluster of damning 1-star reviews citing overbilling, inflated labor hours, and incomplete or abandoned work, contrasted against a set of older 5-star reviews praising friendliness and service quality. The pricing dimension is the most severely impacted, with multiple independent reviewers explicitly alleging fraudulent hour inflation and charges for work not performed. Project completion also scores poorly, with one reviewer documenting a four-month repair ordeal, unfinished concrete work, and unpatched interior walls. The positive reviews are almost entirely from 2010–2015 and carry significantly less recency weight, while the negative reviews span 2018–2022 and suggest a deteriorating pattern of conduct over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All negative reviews (1-star) are from 2018–2022, while nearly all positive reviews are from 2010–2015. This suggests a significant decline in service quality over time. Recent performance should be weighted more heavily.
• OVERBILLING PATTERN: Four separate reviewers independently alleged that labor hours were inflated beyond what was actually worked, including one reviewer who cited security camera footage as evidence. This is a serious and consistent pattern, not an isolated complaint.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: One detailed review documents work left unfinished for four months, with concrete forms never stripped and interior wall holes never patched, indicating a pattern of abandoning jobs after payment.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION (MINOR): Three reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', 'unknown', '.') and were submitted with 4–5 star ratings. These appear to be placeholder or bot-generated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• UNETHICAL CONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly states the company attempted to charge for plumbing repairs on components that were not broken, which if accurate constitutes fraudulent billing practice.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 16 total reviews span over a decade, limiting statistical reliability. The WW Score should be interpreted cautiously given this volume.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a meaningful number of mentions across all dimensions, but the score is heavily shaped by a consistent pattern of serious misconduct allegations in the most recent reviews, and consumers should treat the low scores — particularly in pricing and project completion — as credible warnings rather than statistical noise.

This contractor's review set is small (4 reviews) and heavily negative across nearly every dimension. Pricing is the most consistently flagged issue, with three separate reviewers describing significant markups on parts — in some cases exceeding 1000% — without prior disclosure or customer consent, driving the pricing score to a critically low level. Professionalism suffers due to a documented failure to show up on time (2 days late vs. next-morning promise) and a technician damaging a customer's property without apparent remedy. Project completion is also poor, with one job explicitly requiring a return visit because the work was not completed correctly the first time, and the contractor then charged again for the repeat visit. The single positive review mentions fair pricing and quick response, but it lacks specifics and stands in stark contrast to the other three reviews, limiting its ability to meaningfully raise any dimension score.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as LOW CONFIDENCE and directional only, not definitive.
• Three of four reviews are 1-star with specific, detailed complaints; one is a generic 5-star with no specifics. The lone positive review may not be representative.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (dates range from 2015 to 2023). The most recent review (2023) is the only positive one; all negative reviews are from 2015–2018. Recency weighting slightly benefits the contractor but the pattern of past misconduct is well-documented.
• Repeated pattern of undisclosed part markups across three independent reviews (2015, 2016, 2018) suggests a systemic pricing practice rather than isolated incidents.
• One reviewer explicitly describes being charged twice for a job not completed correctly the first time — a serious project completion and ethics concern.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 8 years and should be considered directional only; the consistent pattern of pricing complaints across multiple independent reviewers does lend credibility to those concerns, but more recent and numerous reviews would be needed to assess the contractor's current standards reliably.

All three reviews explicitly address professionalism, and the picture is overwhelmingly negative. Two of the three reviews describe staff as unwelcoming, unhelpful, and dismissive, with one reviewer noting an employee refused to make eye contact and another describing a refusal to show stock. Only one review is positive, praising polite treatment during a hot water heater purchase. Pricing received a single mention — a $50 surcharge disclosed at the door — which is a transparency concern but not a hidden charge. Project completion received limited positive signal from the one positive review describing a successful hot water heater transaction. Experience scores low overall due to staff demonstrating poor product knowledge and unwillingness to assist customers.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for definitive conclusions.
• Two of three reviews are from 2015 and 2017, making them over 6 years old. Only one review is from 2018. No recent reviews are present to reflect current business performance.
• The single positive review is notably generic in its praise ('very polite,' 'always helpful') with limited specifics, though it does reference a concrete transaction (hot water heater purchase), so it is not flagged as fake.
• The $50 surcharge mentioned in the 1-star review, combined with the claim that staff said they were 'not really open' despite posted hours, suggests potential deceptive business practices worth noting.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than 6 years, and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of current business quality — significantly more recent reviews are needed before this score can be trusted.

This contractor's reviews paint a consistently negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by multiple accounts of unreturned calls, broken promises of callbacks, and an inability to schedule appointments — with only one 5-star review offering a counter-narrative. Project completion is critically damaged by one explicit account of a job that failed within 2 days, required a callback, and then failed again within a month, with no follow-through from the contractor. The single positive review praising affordability and pricing provides a small amount of favorable pricing data, but it is insufficient to meaningfully offset the pattern of failure. Experience is called into question by the documented repeat failure to clear a kitchen sink line properly.

• The sole 5-star review (2018) contains no specific job details and directly dismisses a negative reviewer without evidence, which is a pattern sometimes associated with owner or affiliate responses rather than genuine customers.
• One review (2021) describes alleged animal cruelty by maintenance staff — this is a serious character concern but is secondhand hearsay and does not directly relate to plumbing service quality; it was excluded from dimension scoring but noted here.
• Three of four reviews are from 2015–2021, making all reviews older than 12 months relative to a current evaluation; recency weighting reduces confidence further.
• Only 4 total reviews are available, which is a very small sample size. The WW Score should be treated as directional only and not definitive.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all older than 12 months, with a heavily skewed negative pattern and only one vague positive review — the score should be treated with significant caution and considered a low-confidence signal of poor service quality.