Find Nearby Plumbers In Baytown, Texas

OneCall Houston presents a deeply polarized review profile spanning over a decade, with strong praise from satisfied customers offset by a substantial volume of serious complaints. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by repeated accounts of no-shows, missed time windows, rude technicians, and disorganized dispatching — though a meaningful number of reviewers praised specific technicians by name as courteous and professional. Pricing is the weakest dimension: numerous reviewers across multiple years explicitly called out egregious markups on parts (capacitors costing $9–$16 sold for $325+), quotes far exceeding competitors by 50–100%, and charges applied without prior disclosure — a consistent and credible pattern of price gouging. Project completion suffers from multiple accounts of abandoned work, repeat visits that failed to resolve issues, wrong parts ordered, and jobs left unfinished. Experience scores are mixed: some technicians demonstrated clear skill and problem-solving ability, while others were described as incompetent, misdiagnosing problems that cheaper competitors resolved easily.

• PRICING ABUSE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2013–2024) report nearly identical experiences of extreme parts markups — capacitors, freon, faucet repairs, and drain clearing all cited as grossly overpriced. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED/INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 4 reviews explicitly describe work that was started but never finished, or technicians who left without completing the job. This is a significant project completion risk.
• NO-SHOW / MISSED WINDOW PATTERN: At least 5 reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows or not showing up at all, with poor communication from the office.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe expensive misdiagnoses (e.g., $750–$950 panel replacement when a $10 fuse was the issue; $1,700 freon quote when $200 fixed the problem elsewhere). This suggests either incompetence or intentional upselling.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LIMITED: The most positive reviews are specific and name individual technicians, which reduces fake review concern. However, one 1-star reviewer explicitly alleges positive reviews are written by the company. No definitive conclusion, but noted.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) include both a strong positive (AC fixed quickly, affordable) and two serious negatives (no-show, disorganized generator quote process). The negative pattern has persisted across the full review timeline from 2011 to 2024 with no clear improvement trend.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe the owner Edgar as unresponsive to complaints, making promises he did not keep, and in one case engaging in a profanity-laced rant. This is a leadership-level concern.
• VULNERABLE CUSTOMER EXPLOITATION: One review credibly describes a technician charging an elderly woman $375 for a drain snake job quoted at $59 to other callers. This is a serious ethical flag.

This WW Score is based on 72 reviews spanning 2011–2024 with HIGH data volume across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable — however, the extreme polarization of reviews and documented patterns of pricing abuse, incomplete work, and misdiagnosis mean the score of approximately 52 should be treated as a genuine warning signal, not a borderline pass.

Super Plumber shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning multiple years. While recent reviews (2024) praise punctuality and professionalism, older reviews (2012–2015) reveal serious issues with no-shows, poor workmanship, unresponsive customer service, and hidden charges. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple reports of missed appointments and poor communication. Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete work, shoddy repairs, and failure to resolve underlying issues. Pricing concerns are explicit in at least one review regarding lack of transparency on service charges. The company appears to have had significant operational problems in the past, though recent activity suggests possible improvement.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 9–12 years old (2012–2015), while the single recent positive review is from 2024. This suggests either significant company improvement or potential selection bias in recent reviews.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between 5-star recent reviews and 1-star older reviews raises questions about company stability or management changes.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: Multiple reviews explicitly mention unfinished repairs, poor wall restoration, and cosmetic issues (purple glue left on drain).
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least two reviews mention failure to show up for appointments or respond to calls, indicating systemic scheduling/communication problems.
• HIDDEN CHARGES: One review explicitly states lack of upfront pricing disclosure ($112 trip charge not communicated at booking).
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews reference failure to honor callbacks or follow-up commitments.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (6 reviews) and extreme temporal disparity; the company's current reliability cannot be confidently assessed when most negative data is 9+ years old and only one recent review exists.

Duece Plumbing & Drain Services shows significant weaknesses in project completion and professionalism. Two of three reviews explicitly document failed service delivery: missed appointments without notification, no-shows, and incomplete repairs (garbage disposal and drain still non-functional after two visits). One positive review from 2022 highlights strong technical skill and communication by technician Chris, but this is outweighed by two recent critical failures (2023 and 2021). The company's inability to follow through on contracted work and poor communication practices are the primary drivers of the low score.

• Two of three reviews describe complete service failures with no follow-up or accountability
• Review from 2022 is over 1 year old; more recent reviews (2023, 2021) show deteriorating service quality
• One review explicitly states work was not completed after two service visits, indicating systemic project completion issues
• Limited review sample (n=3) reduces confidence in overall assessment; recommend collecting more recent data

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews), but the pattern of documented service failures is concerning and suggests genuine operational problems rather than isolated incidents.

IDG Plumbing exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by poor communication, missed appointments, scheduling deception, unprofessional staff conduct, and language barriers with unlicensed technicians. Project completion is undermined by abandoned jobs, incomplete work, failure to honor callbacks, and refusal to complete repairs without refunds. Experience is questionable due to unlicensed personnel, lack of technical knowledge, incorrect diagnoses, and poor workmanship that creates new problems. While 3 positive reviews (2019–2024) praise specific technicians (Nasko, Chris, Zach), they are vastly outweighed by 10 one-star reviews documenting systemic failures, scams, and contractor misconduct. The company appears to operate with inconsistent quality heavily dependent on individual technician assignment.

• CRITICAL: 10 of 13 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed allegations of fraud, unlicensed work, abandoned jobs, and deceptive practices. This is not a confidence issue but a pattern of documented failures.
• Multiple reviews allege unlicensed plumbers working on jobs, violation of Texas licensing laws, and misrepresentation of qualifications—serious legal and safety concerns.
• Repeated pattern of incomplete work, refusal to complete repairs, and charging customers for work not performed or for warranty company denials.
• Communication failures documented across multiple reviews: missed appointments, false timeframe promises, unresponsive phone lines, disconnected numbers.
• Positive reviews (3 five-star ratings) are from 2019–2024 and praise individual technicians but do not address systemic company issues evident in negative reviews.
• One review alleges the company made false accusations of racial slurs against a customer—a serious reputational and ethical red flag.
• Review dates span 2019–2024; negative reviews cluster in 2021 with some recent (Oct 2024), suggesting ongoing problems.
• No evidence of fake reviews; negative reviews are detailed, specific, and internally consistent in describing company failures.

This WW Score of 42.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is grounded in 13 substantive reviews with HIGH confidence across three dimensions, and the overwhelming majority (77%) are one-star ratings with specific, credible allegations of fraud, unlicensed work, incomplete jobs, and poor communication. This company presents significant risk to consumers.

This company exhibits severe and consistent problems across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by unprofessional behavior (leaving trash, blocking streets, harassing customers via email), poor communication, and unresponsiveness to complaints. Project completion is severely hampered by abandoned work (yard hole unfixed since July 2021), incomplete installations (meter box improperly installed), and failure to honor callbacks. Pricing integrity is undermined by bait-and-switch tactics and undisclosed fees. While three older reviews (2022) praise quick scheduling and workmanship quality, these are heavily outweighed by three recent damaging reviews (2024, 2021) documenting serious failures. The stark contrast between positive and negative reviews, combined with documented pattern of non-responsiveness and abandonment, suggests systemic operational problems.

• CRITICAL: Three reviews document serious project abandonment — yard hole unfixed since July 2021, street excavation left incomplete for 4+ weeks, meter box improperly installed requiring customer to hire landscaper for remediation.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document unresponsiveness and avoidance — customers report being hung up on, calls not answered, promises to repair never fulfilled.
• CRITICAL: Pricing integrity issues — documented bait-and-switch (quoted lower price, then charged higher), undisclosed credit card fees, lack of transparent communication about costs.
• TEMPORAL CONCERN: Positive reviews are from August 2022 (2+ years old); negative reviews are recent (June 2024, October 2021). Recency strongly favors negative assessment.
• PATTERN CONCERN: Negative reviews show consistent themes of poor communication, unprofessional behavior, and failure to follow through — suggests systemic rather than isolated issues.
• QUALITY CONCERN: Even completed work shows poor execution (meter box sticking up, creating tripping hazard and curb appeal damage).

This WW Score of 42.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on six reviews with clear, specific documentation of failures across all dimensions, particularly recent reviews with concrete evidence of abandonment, non-responsiveness, and deceptive practices. The company should be approached with extreme caution.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply mixed and concerning picture. The most recent review (2023) describes a severely negative experience including tardiness, suspected impairment, lack of proper supplies, dishonesty, and an incomplete job — all critical failures across multiple dimensions. The 2021 review offers a positive counterpoint with praise for the crew and reasonable pricing, but it is now over three years old. The 2019 review is neutral-to-positive in tone but reveals a notable equipment gap (no leak detection tools), which limits the contractor's technical capability. With only three reviews spanning four years, confidence in any dimension score is low, and the single recent data point is strongly negative.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated with caution.
• The most recent review (2023) is the only review within the past 12 months and is severely negative (1-star), which is given the most weight per recency rules.
• The two positive reviews are from 2021 and 2019 respectively — both are more than 3 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• The 2019 reviewer gave 5 stars despite noting the contractor lacked necessary equipment — this rating inflation reduces the reliability of star ratings as a signal.
• Alleged dishonesty and possible impairment noted in the 2023 review are serious red flags that cannot be dismissed given the lack of contradicting recent evidence.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with significant age gaps and a strongly negative most-recent review, making it LOW reliability — prospective customers should seek additional references before hiring.