Find Nearby Plumbers In Arlington, Texas

The review pool is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans over a decade, making any conclusions highly unreliable. The two positive reviews are vague and generic, offering no specific details about the work performed, which raises concerns about their authenticity. The most substantive and credible review is a 2-star complaint detailing a hidden billing practice — charging labor time from the moment the plumber leaves a prior job without disclosing this upfront — which significantly drags down the pricing dimension. Project completion and experience receive modest scores based on limited positive signals, but these are tempered by the lack of specificity in those reviews.

• SUSPECTED LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: The two 5-star reviews use highly generic, non-specific language ('amazing plumbers,' 'so wonderful,' 'no more mismanagement') with no details about the actual work, plumber names, job type, or timeline. These may be fake or incentivized reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All three reviews are older than 3 years, with the most recent dating to 2020 and the oldest to 2012. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current performance cannot be assessed.
• HIDDEN BILLING PRACTICE FLAGGED: One credible review explicitly describes undisclosed travel-time billing, which constitutes a transparency and pricing integrity concern.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews are available. The WW Score is calculated but should be treated as highly unreliable due to the small sample size.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 3 reviews spanning over a decade, suspected generic or fake positive reviews, and a notable pricing complaint — consumers should seek more current and detailed feedback before making a hiring decision.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 3 reviews, making any conclusions highly tentative. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by a detailed and credible 1-star account of a complete no-call/no-show after multiple failed communication attempts, which is a serious red flag. The two positive reviews mention timely arrival and good follow-through, but they lack the specificity needed to fully offset the documented failure. Project completion is similarly split — one reviewer never received service at all, while the other two report successful job completion. Experience scores modestly based on two reviews mentioning quality work and a 2-year warranty, but the sample is far too small to draw reliable conclusions.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.
• The 1-star review (2023-03-25) describes a complete no-call/no-show with failed communication — a serious professionalism and project completion failure that is highly credible due to its specificity and detail.
• The two 5-star reviews are relatively brief and lack granular detail, though they do include some specific context (vacation deadline, warranty documentation) that reduces fake review suspicion.
• All three reviews are from within a narrow 2-month window (Feb–Mar 2023), which limits insight into long-term consistency.
• No reviews are available from the past 12 months relative to a current evaluation — recency of data is a concern.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use it as a primary basis for hiring decisions without seeking additional references or more recent reviews.

The reviews for this contractor paint a predominantly negative picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by multiple accounts of rude behavior, dismissive attitudes, and a boss (Tommy) who defended charging for no work performed. Pricing is a major concern, with repeated complaints about inflated quotes, undisclosed service charges, failure to honor senior/veteran discounts, and charges for estimates or visits where no work was done. Project completion is critically damaged by one detailed review in which the plumbers left without fixing anything after charging $187.50, and their diagnosis was later proven entirely wrong by another plumber. The two positive reviews do mention courteous service and good workmanship, but they are heavily outweighed by five detailed, specific negative accounts spanning multiple years.

• Five of seven reviews are 1–2 star ratings with highly specific, detailed complaints — this pattern suggests genuine negative experiences rather than fake reviews.
• The two positive reviews (5-star) are relatively brief and generic compared to the detailed negative reviews, which may indicate the positive reviews carry less evidentiary weight.
• One review (1-star, 2020-11-02) appears to be a contractor response to a customer complaint rather than a customer review — it should be treated with caution as it does not represent an independent customer perspective.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (5 of 7 reviews are from 2018–2020); only one review is within the past 12 months (2024-03-11). The single recent review is positive, but insufficient to override the weight of older negative evidence.
• A complaint was filed with the Texas State Licensing Board and a BBB complaint was referenced — these are serious external red flags beyond the review content itself.
• Pattern of charging service/diagnostic fees without performing work or providing agreed-upon estimates is a recurring theme across multiple independent reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the negative dimensions are supported by HIGH confidence (5+ mentions each) with specific, credible detail, but the score is somewhat limited by the small total review count of 7 and the fact that most reviews are more than 12 months old.

Durham Contractor LLC demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by repeated no-shows, failure to communicate, rudeness, and missed appointment windows. Project completion is the most damaging area, with multiple customers reporting abandoned work, incomplete jobs, and failure to honor commitments—particularly egregious in large projects where substantial payments were collected before work ceased. Pricing concerns emerge from customers reporting non-delivery of services despite significant payments ($17k–$18k). Only 2 of 11 reviews are positive, both from 2020, while 9 reviews document serious failures. The company shows a pattern of taking payment and then failing to perform.

• CRITICAL: 9 of 11 reviews are 1-star negative ratings. Only 2 positive reviews exist (both from 2020). This is an extremely poor review distribution.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Multiple reviews (reviews 4, 5) describe work stoppage after receiving large mid-project payments ($17k–$18k), suggesting potential predatory billing practices.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Repeated mentions of no-shows without notification, unanswered phones, and failure to keep appointment windows (reviews 1, 6, 9).
• QUALITY & COMPETENCE ISSUES: Reviews describe incorrect installations, incomplete work, damaged property, and technicians lacking knowledge of assigned tasks (reviews 2, 5, 11).
• PROFESSIONALISM VIOLATIONS: One review explicitly describes a rude, disrespectful technician who was asked to leave (review 10).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2019–2021. The 2 positive reviews are from early 2020. No recent positive reviews to suggest improvement.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Review 1 explicitly mentions that negative reviews from other customers 'mysteriously disappeared' after the reviewer left their 1-star rating, suggesting possible review manipulation by the company.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 11 reviews with consistent, explicit evidence across all dimensions. The overwhelming majority of reviews document serious failures in professionalism, completion, and competence. This contractor presents significant risk to consumers.

All four reviews are 1-star and describe severely negative experiences across every dimension scored. Professionalism is nearly nonexistent — multiple reviewers describe being ghosted after payment, with communication ceasing entirely once money was collected. Pricing is a major concern, with reviewers describing quotes that escalated dramatically mid-project, cash-only requests, and charges that appear to have been fabricated or inflated. Project completion is the most damning dimension: in every case the work was either abandoned, left in a failed inspection state, or never completed despite full or near-full payment — one reviewer is 3.5 months in with no resolution and another has open ditches in their yard for months. Experience is marginally above zero only because some work was physically attempted, but misdiagnosis and pump burnout suggest serious technical deficiencies.

• SEVERE PATTERN WARNING: All 4 reviews are 1-star and describe a consistent pattern of taking payment upfront, escalating costs mid-project, and then abandoning or failing to complete the work — this is consistent with fraudulent or predatory business practices.
• FINANCIAL HARM REPORTED: Reviewers collectively report losses exceeding $50,000 across these four reviews alone. One reviewer has engaged legal counsel.
• CASH PAYMENT REQUEST: One reviewer explicitly notes the contractor requested cash payment in exchange for a lower price — a known red flag for unaccountable contractors.
• PERMIT FAILURE: One reviewer reports the contractor pulled permits but failed city inspection twice and then abandoned the project before obtaining a passing inspection.
• RECENCY NOTE: All four reviews are from 2023 (August–September), making them recent and highly relevant. The clustering of complaints in a short timeframe strengthens the credibility of the pattern.
• NO POSITIVE REVIEWS PRESENT: There are zero positive or neutral reviews in this dataset. While this may reflect a selection bias in the data provided, the scores reflect only what was submitted for analysis.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all of which are 1-star and recent; while the small sample size limits statistical confidence, the consistency and specificity of the complaints across all dimensions make the extremely low score highly credible and the contractor should be considered high-risk.

This contractor presents a highly polarized review profile with extreme contradictions that prevent reliable scoring. Two 5-star reviews praise professionalism, pricing, and quality work, while two 1-star reviews allege predatory practices including overcharging seniors, unnecessary work, and property damage. The severity of allegations (elder financial exploitation, deliberate pipe damage, charges 3x market rate) combined with the stark rating split suggests either fabricated reviews or fundamentally unreliable service. The small sample size (4 reviews) and conflicting narratives make any aggregate score meaningless.

• CRITICAL: Extreme polarization detected — 2 five-star and 2 one-star reviews with no middle ground. This pattern is atypical and suggests either fake reviews or severe service inconsistency.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Two reviews contain specific accusations of elder financial exploitation, deliberate property damage, and predatory pricing. These are not minor complaints and warrant investigation regardless of authenticity.
• REVIEW AGE: All reviews are from 2019-2020 (4-5 years old). No recent reviews available to assess current service quality.
• SUSPICIOUS POSITIVE REVIEWS: The two 5-star reviews lack specific detail and use generic praise language ('Highly recommended!!!!!!', 'Absolutely amazing'). One mentions only that pricing was 'a little low' without specifics.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: With only 4 reviews and extreme contradictions, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. Additional recent reviews are essential before making any business decision.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to extreme polarization, serious unresolved allegations, review age (4-5 years), and insufficient sample size. Do not use this data for decision-making without independent verification and recent reviews.