Find Nearby Plumbers In Baytown, Texas

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Positive reviews (7 of 10) consistently praise David/Gjin for responsiveness, fair pricing, technical skill, and quality workmanship. However, three highly negative reviews describe serious failures: two allege deposit fraud and abandonment by 'Anthony/Alejandro,' and one describes incomplete repair work with poor follow-up and rude communication. The fraud allegations are particularly damaging and suggest either multiple business identities or a pattern of deceptive practices. While technical competence appears strong when work is completed, project completion reliability is undermined by the abandonment and incomplete repair incidents.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2024-10-22) allege deposit fraud, non-appearance, and blocking contact. These describe a pattern of taking advance payment and disappearing. Names mentioned are 'Anthony' and 'Alejandro' — possible aliases or different operators under same business.
• CRITICAL: One review (2016-11-18) describes incomplete repair work, lack of follow-through on callback guarantee, and rude communication. Customer paid for work that did not resolve the problem.
• INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews reference 'David' and 'Gjin' (owner); negative reviews reference 'Anthony/Alejandro.' This suggests either multiple service providers under one business name or potential fraudulent operation using aliases.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two most recent reviews (2024-10-22) are fraud allegations. Most positive reviews are 6+ years old (2018-2019). Recent pattern suggests deterioration in service quality or business practices.
• CONFIDENCE LIMITATION: Positive reviews lack specific detail about pricing in most cases; pricing score based on only 5 mentions of 'fair' or 'reasonable' cost without concrete evidence.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While technical competence appears genuine, the recent fraud allegations and pattern of incomplete work create serious trust concerns that outweigh positive historical reviews. The apparent use of multiple names and the recency of negative reviews suggest this business may be unreliable or operating deceptively. Do not rely on this score alone — investigate the fraud allegations and verify current business legitimacy before engaging.

FYI Electrical shows highly polarized performance with a critical 1-star review from July 2024 detailing severe technical incompetence, poor workmanship, and inadequate management response, contrasted against five 5-star reviews praising professionalism, expertise, and communication. The recent negative review is particularly concerning as it documents incomplete project delivery, lack of technical knowledge, and failure to follow instructions—directly contradicting the positive historical reviews. Professionalism scores are dragged down by the documented poor attitude and lack of responsiveness to quality issues in the recent review. Pricing is flagged as expensive based on one explicit complaint. The company demonstrates inconsistent execution quality across different technicians.

• CRITICAL: Most recent review (July 2024) is a severe 1-star complaint documenting incomplete work, technical incompetence, and poor management response. This is a major red flag suggesting recent service degradation.
• POLARIZATION ALERT: Five 5-star reviews (2019-2023) versus one 1-star review (2024) suggests either significant quality decline or inconsistent service delivery across different technicians.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Four of five positive reviews are 3+ years old (2019-2021). Only one positive review is from 2023. The most recent review is highly negative.
• PRICING CONCERN: One review explicitly states $1,323.52 quote was 'on the expensive side,' suggesting above-market pricing.
• WORKMANSHIP ISSUES: Recent review documents camera installed upside down, exposed wires, and technician inability to read/follow instructions—basic competency failures.
• MANAGEMENT FAILURE: Manager 'Shawn' was reportedly equally incompetent as the technician, suggesting systemic quality control problems.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While historical reviews are positive, the recent catastrophic 1-star review (July 2024) documenting incomplete work, technical incompetence, and failed management response suggests the company may be experiencing quality decline or inconsistent technician performance. The score is pulled down by this recent critical failure, and potential customers should heavily weight the most recent experience over older testimonials.

Plumb Pro receives predominantly positive feedback across professionalism, communication, and responsiveness, with multiple reviewers specifically praising Kevin's friendliness, fast response times, and clear communication. However, one detailed 1-star review from August 2024 — the most recent review in the dataset — explicitly cites poor workmanship, failure to clean up, overcharging, and rude behavior, which meaningfully drags down scores across all dimensions. Project completion is tempered by the same negative review describing patch-work quality, and by one instance where a backflow valve had to be reinstalled due to a leak, though that callback was handled at no charge. Pricing scores moderately well given explicit mentions of fair and transparent pricing in multiple reviews, but the overcharging complaint in the most recent review introduces meaningful uncertainty. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with a generally positive track record but a notable recent negative experience that cannot be dismissed.

• One 1-star review from August 2024 is the most recent review and explicitly describes rude behavior, overcharging, and poor workmanship — this is the freshest data point and carries elevated weight under recency rules.
• Several 5-star reviews are relatively brief and generic (e.g., 'Professional, effective, and efficient!'), which slightly raises concern about authenticity, though most positive reviews do include specific details such as technician names and described scenarios.
• The ratio of 5-star to 1-star reviews (8:1) is heavily skewed positive, but the single negative review is detailed and credible, preventing full confidence in the positive pattern.
• One review notes a failed first installation (leaking backflow valve) that required a return visit — this is a minor quality flag even though it was resolved appropriately.

This WW Score is based on a small sample of 9 reviews and should be treated as a preliminary indicator only; the presence of one highly detailed and recent negative review introduces meaningful uncertainty that a larger review set would help resolve.

All four reviews speak positively across multiple dimensions, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and follow-through on commitments. Pricing is noted as fair rather than cheapest, with one reviewer explicitly comparing four companies and finding the fee reasonable, and another receiving an unexpected discount. Project completion is well-supported, with specific mentions of permitted work passing inspection and extra work completed at no charge. Experience and workmanship are praised across reviews, though specifics are limited to a water heater replacement and general plumbing work. Scores are held conservative given the small review pool and the age of all reviews, the most recent being from December 2018.

• All 4 reviews are older than 5 years (most recent: 2018-12-02, oldest: 2015-11-13). These reviews do not reflect current performance and should be weighted with caution.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present, making it impossible to assess recent service quality.
• Sample size of only 4 reviews is insufficient for high-confidence scoring. WW Score should be treated as indicative only.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings. While the review content is sufficiently specific and varied to avoid a fake review flag, the uniformity of ratings slightly reduces confidence.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review sample of only 4 reviews, all of which are more than 5 years old and therefore may not reflect the contractor's current quality or practices.

Dan the Plumber receives consistently positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and project completion, with reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, prompt response times, and fair rates. The emergency faucet repair and kitchen renovation reviews provide the most substantive detail, describing responsive service and thorough follow-through on complex work. Pricing is noted as reasonable and fair in two reviews, including a favorable comparison to a national chain. However, the total review pool is very small and most reviews are over three years old, with the most detailed reviews dating to 2020 and 2012, limiting confidence in how current this performance picture is.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews share identical text, identical rating (5.0), and identical date (2021-05-20). One has been treated as a single data point to avoid inflating scores.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only one review falls within the past 3 years (2021), and none are within the past 12 months. The most detailed reviews are from 2020 and 2012. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 3 unique, usable reviews exist after removing the duplicate. This is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation and results should be treated with caution.

This WW Score is based on only 3 unique reviews, all older than 3 years, with a detected duplicate submission — the score should be treated as a preliminary indicator only and not a reliable measure of current contractor performance.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses and individual operators all operating under or associated with the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different regions and time periods, making direct comparison difficult but revealing a deeply polarized reputation. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of explicit complaints about rudeness, no-shows, broken appointments, and dismissive customer service — including multiple accounts of technicians yelling at customers, slamming doors, and hanging up on home warranty representatives. Pricing is the single most-criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing charges 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, non-itemized invoices, and aggressive upselling tactics; a minority of reviewers — particularly those dealing with individual operators like Oscar, Jeff, and Rick — praised fair and transparent pricing. Project completion suffers from a notable pattern of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, work left incomplete for weeks or months, and instances where problems were made worse rather than fixed. Experience scores are moderate-positive, as many positive reviews do cite skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship from specific named technicians, but are offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect parts installation, and damage caused during service.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: These reviews appear to aggregate multiple distinct businesses and sole operators all using the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different U.S. regions (Georgia, New Jersey, Oklahoma, California, New York, Indiana, Tennessee, etc.). Scores reflect a blended profile and should not be applied to any single operator without filtering by location.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews — particularly those dated 2025-05-07, 2025-05-10, and 2025-05-19 with no review text — are blank ratings only and provide zero usable data. Several other 5-star reviews are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., two reviews from 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10 are word-for-word duplicates for 'Michael'). These have been excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star average.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews are near-verbatim duplicates submitted on consecutive or same dates (the 'Michael' gas line reviews dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10; the rude technician reviews dated 2023-08-09 and 2023-08-10). These were counted as single mentions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal text, while the most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2018–2024. The oldest reviews (2005–2013) skew positive but reflect a different era of the business. Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no evidence per Rule 1.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One review (dated 2021-06-07, 5 stars) references a healthcare provider ('very helpful with my daughter and son... ADHD and learning disabilities') and is clearly posted to the wrong business. It was excluded entirely.
• PRICING PATTERN: A recurring pattern of non-itemized invoices, refusal to provide cost breakdowns, and prices dropping significantly when customers push back strongly suggests systematic price gouging practices at certain franchise or affiliate locations, particularly those associated with Coolray/Mr. Plumber in the Atlanta, GA market.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe technicians starting jobs, leaving for parts, and never returning — sometimes for months. This pattern appears across different named technicians and locations, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the dataset aggregates multiple distinct businesses operating under the same trade name across different regions and time periods — consumers should filter reviews by their specific geographic location and verify the operator before relying on this blended score.