Find Nearby Plumbers In Arlington, Texas

Pearson Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by repeated complaints about no-shows, missed appointments, failure to communicate delays, rude technicians, and one instance of a plumber behaving unprofessionally on-site. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing overcharging, lack of upfront estimates, billing for unrendered services, and one quote described as four times higher than competitors — though a handful of positive reviews praise fair or below-estimate pricing. Project completion is inconsistent: several reviews praise fast, thorough work, but others describe jobs left incomplete, problems not diagnosed, and follow-through failures including one case escalated to the Texas state plumbing board. Experience scores moderately, with positive reviews citing skilled diagnosis and complex jobs handled well (slab leaks, tankless heaters, sewer tie-ins), but offset by reviews describing failed diagnoses and poor-quality parts. The overall picture is a contractor with capable plumbers on staff but serious and recurring operational and customer service problems.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on the same date — including two identical 1-star billing complaints (2023-06-10), two identical 1-star appointment complaints (2019-06-11), two identical 5-star generic praise reviews (2021-06-10), two identical 5-star 'Best plumbers out there!' reviews (2020-06-10), three identical 5-star reviews about a toilet installation (2018-06-01), two identical 5-star Bryan sprinkler reviews (2018-06-11), two identical 5-star 'Save yourself some trouble' reviews (2018-06-11), and two identical 5-star 'If you want good Plumbing Service' reviews (2019-06-11). Duplicates were counted only once per unique review in scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15 reviews contain no text — only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent substantive reviews (2022–2024) skew negative, with complaints about billing for unrendered services, inability to get appointments, and no-shows. The positive reviews with detail are predominantly from 2013–2021. This suggests a possible decline in service quality in recent years.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews consist of only one or two generic sentences with no specifics ('Best plumbers out there!', 'Great & fast service. Highly recommended', 'If you want good Plumbing Service call Pearson's Plumbing'). These appear across multiple duplicate pairs and add no verifiable signal. Confidence in the positive side of the score is reduced accordingly.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERN: At least three independent reviews describe being billed or quoted for work that was not performed or not agreed upon. One reviewer was told an estimate was impossible and then billed anyway. Another was billed with no services rendered. This is a significant red flag for pricing transparency and business ethics.

This WW Score is based on a substantial number of reviews with usable text, but reliability is moderately reduced due to a high volume of duplicate reviews, numerous blank 5-star entries, and a clear pattern of recent negative reviews suggesting service deterioration — prospective customers should weight the post-2022 negative reviews heavily.

Do Rite Plumbing shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While some customers report excellent professionalism and workmanship (particularly in older reviews from 2008-2012 and recent positive reviews), a substantial cluster of negative reviews from 2017-2021 reveal serious problems with communication, project completion, and pricing practices. Multiple customers report incomplete work, lack of follow-up, poor communication, and aggressive upselling tactics—particularly when working through warranty companies like AHS. The company appears to have struggled with consistency across technicians and project management, with some technicians (Demetrius, Mark, Eric, Phillip) receiving specific complaints about rudeness and unprofessionalism.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (2017-2021) describe similar issues with warranty company work: incomplete jobs, aggressive upselling, inflated charges for basic materials, and poor communication. This suggests systemic operational problems rather than isolated incidents.
• TECHNICIAN INCONSISTENCY: Named technicians receive vastly different feedback. Demetrius appears in both highly positive reviews and severely negative reviews describing incomplete work and poor communication. This suggests either inconsistent performance or different customer expectations.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Six reviews explicitly mention overcharging, padding invoices, and inflated material costs. One customer with 20 years of industry experience stated the company 'preys on unsuspecting customers.' Multiple customers report being charged $600+ for work that should cost $30-50.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster between 2017-2021. Recent reviews (2023) are positive, but sample size is very small (1 recent positive review). Older reviews (2008-2012) are uniformly positive but lack detail and may not reflect current operations.
• INCOMPLETE PROJECT COMPLETION: Review from 2021 documents a 5-month project (January-June) with multiple incomplete items, unresolved plumbing issues, and lack of follow-up on promised work.
• WARRANTY COMPANY PATTERN: Multiple reviews mention American Home Shield (AHS) dispatch. Customers report the company may prioritize warranty company billing over customer satisfaction, with implications of misrepresenting policy to customers.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the score of 54.8 reflects genuine data from 17 reviews, the company exhibits extreme inconsistency across time periods and technicians, with a troubling pattern of complaints about pricing practices and incomplete work during 2017-2021. The recent positive reviews are too few to confirm improvement. Customers should request specific technicians, get detailed written quotes, and verify all charges independently before engaging this company.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews. Professionalism is a critical weakness, with multiple customers reporting poor responsiveness to inquiries, cancelled appointments, and lack of written communication. Pricing appears competitive and fair based on available feedback. Project completion is mixed—some jobs were completed on time and to satisfaction, but at least one major remodel (bathroom) was completed with poor workmanship quality. Experience ratings are polarized: some reviews praise versatility and skill, while one detailed review documents significant deficiencies in tile and paint work. The contractor's name inconsistency across reviews (Randy vs. Andy) and the presence of suspiciously generic praise raises concerns about review authenticity.

• FAKE REVIEW ALERT: Two reviews (2019-11-13 and 2019-11-09) use nearly identical generic praise ('Handy randy is the most user friendly and professional contractor', 'Prices are un-beatable', 'can do literally anything') with no specific project details. These appear fabricated.
• NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference both 'Handy Randy' and 'Handy Andy'—unclear if this is the same contractor or different entities.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2015–2019 (5+ years old). Recent reviews (2020–2023) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality has declined or negative experiences are more recent.
• SEVERE PROFESSIONALISM ISSUES: Multiple recent reviews document non-responsiveness to calls/texts and cancelled appointments—pattern suggests systemic communication problems.
• WORKMANSHIP QUALITY CONCERNS: One detailed review documents poor tile and paint work on a major bathroom remodel, contradicting generic praise in older reviews.

This score should be treated with caution. While based on 6 reviews, the presence of likely fabricated reviews, significant recency bias favoring older positive reviews, and a clear pattern of recent negative experiences suggest the contractor's current reliability is lower than the calculated score indicates. Recent reviews (past 2 years) are predominantly negative and specific, while older positive reviews are generic and potentially inauthentic.

Precise H2O shows a deeply mixed track record across all dimensions. On the positive side, earlier reviews (2014–2018) consistently praise fair and transparent pricing, punctual arrivals, and quality workmanship that provided lasting solutions. However, multiple reviews — spanning 2015 through 2022 — document serious failures in responsiveness and follow-through, including no-shows, unreturned calls, and an abandoned warranty obligation. The most recent review (2022) describes a significant technical failure involving incorrect piping materials that caused a city work stoppage, which heavily weighs down both the experience and project completion scores. The pattern suggests a contractor who may have performed well historically but has demonstrated a troubling and recurring decline in reliability and professionalism over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (2022) is a serious 1-star complaint involving incorrect materials and a city-ordered work stoppage. The majority of positive reviews are from 2014–2018, making them 6–10 years old and significantly less reliable as indicators of current performance.
• DECLINING TREND: Multiple reviewers across different years (2015, 2016, 2017, 2022) independently noted no-shows, unreturned calls, or abandoned warranty work — suggesting a systemic and worsening reliability problem rather than isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY FAILURE: One reviewer explicitly noted that Edgar refused to honor a warranty on a fill valve installed less than a year prior, which is a significant professionalism and project completion concern.
• SUBCONTRACTING RISK: The 2022 complaint involved Edgar working as a subcontractor, which may indicate reduced accountability in that context, but the technical failures noted (wrong pipe materials, missing condensation drain) reflect directly on his workmanship.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing patterns were identified.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews spanning 8 years, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution due to a clear negative trend over time — the most recent and relevant reviews are predominantly negative, and the positive reviews are largely outdated.

DAZ Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with severe deficiencies in professionalism and pricing practices. Multiple customers report no-shows, poor communication, missed callbacks, and unresponsiveness from office staff (particularly 'Leann'). Pricing concerns are substantial—customers report being quoted inflated prices, charged for incomplete diagnostics, and experiencing significant price discrepancies between initial quotes and actual charges. Project completion is inconsistent; while some jobs were completed satisfactorily, others left customers with unresolved issues, unfilled promises (dirt removal after 3 months), and incomplete work. Technical experience appears to be the strongest dimension, with customers acknowledging the owner's hands-on involvement and technical competence, though this does not offset systemic operational failures.

• SEVERE PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2020, 2021, 2022) document chronic no-shows and communication failures. This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple customers report being misled or overcharged. Review from 2022 explicitly calls owner 'a scammer' after $2,500 charge for incomplete diagnosis. Review from 2020 mentions $5,000 quote for work another plumber completed in 10 minutes.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: 2021 review documents 3-month failure to return excavated dirt despite owner's promise; phone numbers subsequently became non-functional.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2020-2022. Two recent positive reviews (2023, 2024) exist, but one 2024 negative review reports same diagnostic incompetence as earlier complaints, suggesting problems persist.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between owner-led jobs (positive reviews) and staff-led jobs (negative reviews) suggests quality control and training issues.
• DIAGNOSTIC INCOMPETENCE: Multiple reviews (2024, 2022, 2018) report technicians unable to properly diagnose issues or providing incorrect diagnoses, undermining the 'experience' score despite technical skill.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution. While based on 15 reviews with substantial mention counts, the extreme polarization (7 one-star, 5 five-star) and documented systemic failures in communication and follow-through suggest this company is operationally unreliable despite technical competence. The WW Score of 48.2 accurately reflects a business that cannot be trusted for consistent, professional service delivery.

Williams Home Maintenance receives a critically low WW Score of 38.2, driven by severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is particularly weak (28/100), with multiple reviews documenting rude staff, argumentative behavior, unprofessional conduct (spitting in yards, feet up in trucks), and poor communication. Pricing is equally problematic (22/100), with customers reporting deceptive quotes, hidden charges, unauthorized billing continuation, and excessive fees for minimal work. Project completion scores 35/100 due to incomplete diagnostics, failed repairs requiring callbacks, and lack of follow-through. Experience shows modest technical capability (42/100) but is undermined by misdiagnosis, parts replacement claims later proven false, and inconsistent workmanship. The company demonstrates a pattern of customer mistreatment, billing disputes, and defensive management responses.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2019, 2015, 2015) document unauthorized continued billing and difficulty canceling service—suggests systemic billing abuse
• CRITICAL: Two independent reviews report technicians providing false repair assessments later contradicted by competing companies, indicating either incompetence or deliberate deception
• CRITICAL: Owner behavior documented as defensive, argumentative, and dismissive of customer complaints in multiple reviews
• Pattern of unprofessional conduct: rude dispatchers, argumentative technicians, disrespectful behavior on customer property
• Significant recency concern: Most negative reviews are 6-9 years old (2015-2016), but the most recent review (May 2024) is equally damning, suggesting ongoing problems
• Positive reviews (2016, 2018, 2018) are generic and lack specifics; older positive reviews may not reflect current operations
• No evidence of service improvement over 9-year review span

This WW Score of 38.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 12 reviews with consistent negative patterns across all dimensions, supported by HIGH confidence in professionalism and pricing dimensions. The company demonstrates systemic issues with customer treatment, billing practices, and technical integrity that span nearly a decade.