Find Nearby Plumbers In Austin, Texas

Radiant Plumbing and Air Conditioning receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with pricing being the single most damaging factor — dozens of reviewers describe charges that are 2x to 4x competitor rates, outright fraudulent upselling, and refusal to provide itemized receipts. Project completion is severely undermined by repeated accounts of abandoned work, failed installations requiring multiple return visits, incomplete sealing, unpermitted work, and units that failed days or weeks after installation. Professionalism scores are dragged down by poor communication, missed appointments with no notification, dismissive management, manipulative review-solicitation tactics, and at least one account of a driver behaving aggressively on the road. Experience scores reflect a pattern of technicians misdiagnosing problems, leaving caps off units, failing to blow out drains, installing wrong-sized equipment, and performing work that competing technicians described as shocking or dangerous. The small number of positive reviews — largely praising individual technicians by name (Tim the Tool Man, Logan, Juan, Justin Blair, CJ, Selso) — are genuine bright spots but are vastly outnumbered and do not offset the systemic failures documented across the majority of reviews.

• SUSPECTED REVIEW MANIPULATION: Multiple reviewers explicitly state that technicians asked them to leave 5-star reviews immediately on-site via QR code, with the technician present, and that technicians received gift cards for named 5-star reviews. This is a coercive and manipulative review-solicitation practice that artificially inflates positive ratings.
• PATTERN OF FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews for 'Tim the Tool Man' are suspiciously similar in structure and phrasing across multiple reviewers and dates (2022-12 through 2024-05), all praising the same individual for carpentry/handyman work. While some may be genuine, the clustering and similarity warrant caution.
• SYSTEMIC FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers allege deliberate misdiagnosis, price gouging, charging for services not performed, refusing itemized receipts, and in one case conducting unpermitted HVAC work confirmed illegal by a City of Austin inspector.
• GENDER-BASED PRICING CONCERN: At least two female reviewers independently allege they were charged significantly more than male customers for equivalent work, suggesting possible discriminatory pricing practices.
• RECENCY NOTE: All 75 reviews analyzed fall within the past approximately 24 months (2022-11 through 2024-11), with the majority from 2023-2024, making the data highly current and relevant.
• ABANDONED WORK / NON-COMPLETION: At least 3 reviews describe paid work that was never completed, with one reviewer explicitly seeking legal counsel for job abandonment after paying $4,500 upfront.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: Across many negative reviews, management either never called back, offered token refunds (5-10%), or actively blocked customer numbers — a pattern suggesting institutional indifference to service failures.

This WW Score of 28.1 is based on 75 reviews with a very high volume of detailed, specific, independently corroborated negative experiences across all dimensions, and should be considered highly reliable as an indicator of serious, systemic service quality problems at this company.

PipeDoctor 247 receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four dimensions, with the vast majority of the 72 reviews describing serious and repeated failures. Pricing is the lowest-scoring dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly citing grossly inflated quotes, unexplained out-of-pocket charges, fabricated modification fees, and pricing that was 3x to 10x higher than competing plumbers — a pattern so consistent it suggests a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents. Professionalism scores are also extremely low, with frequent complaints about rude technicians, staff hanging up on customers, failure to return calls, technicians leaving without completing or even attempting work, and one technician allegedly causing property damage and denying responsibility. Project completion is similarly poor, with multiple reviewers reporting work left unfinished, problems recurring within days of a repair, false 'job complete' filings with warranty companies, and outright refusal to honor callbacks. Experience scores are marginally higher only because a small cluster of positive reviews — mostly referencing a technician named Blair — describe genuinely skilled and knowledgeable work, but these are heavily outnumbered by accounts of misdiagnosis, unnecessary repair recommendations, and substandard workmanship such as improper pipe installation and failure to use basic materials like Teflon tape.

• STRONG PATTERN OF FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICES: Dozens of reviewers independently describe near-identical schemes — inflated modification charges, fabricated 'missing parts' or 'non-covered' diagnoses submitted to home warranty companies, and cash-only payment demands. This pattern is too consistent and specific across unrelated reviewers to be coincidental.
• POSSIBLE FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: The positive reviews are heavily concentrated around one technician (Blair/Blaire) and use enthusiastic, generic praise. While some positives include specific detail, the stark contrast between the volume and specificity of negative reviews versus the positives warrants caution. Positive reviews may reflect genuine outlier experiences with one employee rather than the company as a whole.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2019 through September 2024, indicating persistent and ongoing problems — not historical issues that may have been resolved. The most recent reviews (2024) continue to reflect the same complaints as reviews from 2019-2021.
• TECHNICIAN-LEVEL VARIANCE: A meaningful subset of positive reviews specifically name 'Blair' as an exceptional technician, suggesting individual technician quality varies dramatically within the company. Scores reflect the company as a whole, not any single employee.
• CASH-ONLY PAYMENT DEMANDS: Multiple reviewers report being asked to pay via Venmo, Zelle, Cash App, or cash to personal accounts — a significant red flag for consumer protection and financial accountability.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE AND NON-RESPONSE: At least three reviewers describe property damage caused by technicians (cracked ceiling, broken pipe, water damage from improper install) followed by the company denying responsibility and refusing to respond — suggesting a pattern of liability avoidance.
• ONE REVIEW FLAGGED AS NON-SERVICE RELATED: One 1-star review (Jan 2021) describes a road rage/reckless driving incident by a company vehicle driver and contains no plumbing service data. It was excluded from dimension scoring but retained in total review count as it reflects on company culture and employee conduct.

This WW Score of 28.1 is based on a large sample of 72 reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a highly reliable and damning assessment of PipeDoctor 247's overall service quality — the score reflects a company with deeply systemic problems in pricing integrity, professionalism, and job completion that have persisted consistently over at least five years.

BB Lewis Plumbing has an overwhelmingly negative review record spanning from 2015 through mid-2024, with the dominant and consistent complaint being abandonment of jobs after an initial visit — the contractor repeatedly fails to return calls, submit required documentation to home warranty companies, or complete repairs. Professionalism scores are devastatingly low, with dozens of reviewers citing no-shows, ghosting, rude behavior, and in several cases outright dishonesty including falsely reporting jobs as complete to American Home Shield. Project completion is the most critically failed dimension, with the vast majority of negative reviewers explicitly stating work was never finished, parts were never ordered, or the contractor vanished entirely after the first visit. The small cluster of positive reviews (roughly 13 out of 75) describe timely, friendly, and competent service, suggesting the contractor is capable of good work but delivers it inconsistently and unpredictably. Pricing data is sparse but the few mentions suggest fair or competitive pricing when work is actually performed, though this is largely irrelevant given the systemic failure to complete jobs.

• SYSTEMIC PATTERN — FRAUD RISK: An overwhelming majority of reviewers describe an identical scheme: contractor shows up for an initial assessment, collects or triggers the AHS service fee, then ghosts the customer and/or falsely reports the job as complete to American Home Shield. This pattern is consistent across 2015–2024 and constitutes a serious red flag for fraudulent business practices.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE REVIEWS: The 13 positive reviews are notably brief, generic, and lack the specificity seen in the negative reviews. Several use near-identical praise language ('on time,' 'professional,' 'friendly'). While not conclusively fake, their credibility is undermined by the volume and specificity of the negative reviews. Confidence in positive-review data is reduced.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are present across the entire date range (2015–2024), including 7 reviews from 2024 alone, indicating no improvement in business practices over nearly a decade. The most recent reviews (2024) are all 1-star.
• BBB STATUS: Multiple reviewers note the company is not BBB accredited and has unresolved complaints filed with that organization.
• CONTRACTOR IDENTITY CONFUSION: Reviews reference both 'Jason' and 'Jody' as technicians/owners, with both receiving negative reviews. This may indicate multiple operators under the same business name, complicating accountability.
• AHS VENDOR RELATIONSHIP: Virtually all reviews originate from American Home Shield warranty assignments. The contractor appears to operate almost exclusively through this channel, which may limit accountability and enable the alleged fee-collection scheme.

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews spanning nearly a decade with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making it statistically reliable — the score of 18.7 accurately reflects a contractor with a deeply entrenched pattern of non-completion, poor communication, and potential fraudulent billing practices, and should be treated as a serious warning to prospective customers.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent failures across all dimensions. Nine of ten reviews are 1-star ratings documenting abandoned projects, non-responsiveness, overbilling, and failure to honor commitments. Professionalism is critically compromised by repeated no-shows, ignored communications, and unethical business practices including litigation against customers. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with multiple documented cases of incomplete work, material abandonment, and refusal to refund deposits. Pricing issues include overbilling, hidden charges, and material markups. Only two positive reviews (both older, 2016-2017) mention competent work, but these are vastly outweighed by recent systematic failures and legal disputes.

• CRITICAL: 9 of 10 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints—not generic criticism. This is not a pattern of fake reviews but rather consistent documented failures.
• Multiple reviews document legal action: arbitration, small claims court, and being sued by the contractor. These are verifiable disputes.
• Temporal pattern: Positive reviews are from 2016-2017; negative reviews cluster from 2017-2018, suggesting deterioration in service quality or business practices.
• Repeated pattern of taking deposits/payments and abandoning projects or refusing refunds across multiple customers.
• One review explicitly documents overbilling verified by a third party (tile setter friend).
• Contractor appears to operate under multiple business names (Joel Dellinger, Handyman Services of San Marcos, Joel Dellinger Sr.).

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 10 reviews with extensive detail, legal documentation, and a clear pattern of systematic failure. The score accurately reflects a contractor with severe deficiencies across all dimensions and a history of customer disputes and non-completion.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe a deeply problematic contractor. Five of six reviews are 1-star and detail a consistent pattern of taking deposits or draws, failing to complete work, abandoning jobs mid-project, and refusing to answer calls — representing near-total failure in both professionalism and project completion. Pricing scores marginally above zero only because the complaints center on fraud and non-delivery rather than overcharging per se, though taking money without delivering work is effectively the worst pricing outcome possible. The single positive review praises Mike's skill as a plumber but provides no specifics about a recent job, and its age (2019) and lack of detail limit its impact on the experience score. The pattern of behavior across multiple reviewers spanning several years suggests systemic and repeated misconduct rather than isolated incidents.

• SEVERE FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple reviewers independently report Mike taking deposit or draw payments and then abandoning jobs, refusing to return calls, and in one case threatening a customer via text. One reviewer states they will file a police report for fraud.
• CONSISTENT ABANDONMENT: At least 4 of 6 reviewers explicitly state the job was never completed and they had to hire another plumber to finish the work.
• CALL AVOIDANCE: Multiple reviewers report Mike screening calls and only answering from unknown numbers, a strong indicator of deliberate evasion.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative review is from August 2023, confirming this pattern of behavior has continued through at least that date. The sole positive review is from April 2019 and is now over 5 years old.
• SINGLE POSITIVE REVIEW CONCERN: The only 5-star review contains no job-specific details, no description of work performed, and reads more as a contact-information post than a genuine service review. Its reliability as a quality signal is low.
• MATERIAL MISAPPROPRIATION: One reviewer explicitly states Mike took money allocated for materials and neither returned the materials nor refunded the funds, which may constitute theft.

This WW Score is based on a small but highly consistent and detailed set of reviews spanning multiple years; the score should be treated as a reliable warning signal — this contractor carries serious risk of non-completion, financial loss, and unresponsiveness.

All four reviews are uniformly positive (5-star ratings) with consistent praise for professionalism, responsiveness, and technical competence. Professionalism is strongly evidenced across all reviews, highlighting punctuality, communication, courtesy, and knowledgeable staff. Project completion is well-documented with timely resolution of complex sewer issues. Pricing receives limited but positive mention in two reviews describing fair and transparent estimates. However, the extremely small sample size (n=4), all from 2021 (3+ years old), and the suspiciously uniform 5-star pattern with generic praise language raises concerns about data reliability.

• CRITICAL: All 4 reviews are dated 2021 (October-November). No recent reviews provided. Current performance cannot be assessed.
• CRITICAL: All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or balanced perspectives. This uniformity is atypical and suggests potential selection bias or fake review patterns.
• CRITICAL: Sample size is extremely small (n=4). Statistical reliability is very low. Minimum 10-15 reviews recommended for trustworthy scoring.
• Repetitive praise language across reviews ('professional,' 'courteous,' 'knowledgeable') without specific technical details in some reviews suggests possible review manipulation.
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions; confidence in pricing assessment is limited.

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. The sample is too small, all reviews are outdated (3+ years old), uniformly 5-star with suspicious consistency, and lack recent performance data. Obtain current reviews and a larger sample before relying on this assessment.