Find Nearby Plumbers In Burleson, Texas

Just Rite Plumbing shows severe and consistent deficiencies in professionalism and project completion, which are the two most heavily weighted dimensions. Multiple reviews document missed appointments, no-shows, poor communication, and failure to follow up on callbacks—patterns that appear across different customers and time periods. While pricing receives strong marks when mentioned (fair and competitive rates), this cannot offset critical failures in core service delivery. The company's workmanship is also questioned, with reports of installations not meeting code and requiring expensive rework. The few positive reviews are older (2015, 2019) and lack detail, while negative reviews are specific and damaging.

• CRITICAL: Multiple independent reviews document identical failure patterns (no-shows, missed callbacks, poor communication) across different customers and years, suggesting systemic operational problems rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5-9 years old (2013-2015). Only one review from 2019 is recent, and it lacks specificity. Cannot reliably assess current service quality.
• QUALITY CONCERNS: Two reviews explicitly state work was not up to code or required rework. One customer reported improper installation causing water damage and had to hire another company for repairs.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: Multiple reviews document failure to respond to calls, texts, and emails. One customer had to file complaints with Angie's List, BBB, and the plumbing board to get a response.
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUE: When confronted about failures, the company denied responsibility (claiming customer damaged the line despite evidence to the contrary).

This WW Score of 52.3 should be treated as reliable but with the caveat that most data is 5-9 years old; current performance may differ. However, the consistency and specificity of negative reviews across multiple independent customers and time periods suggests systemic issues that warrant serious caution.

Service Today scores poorly overall (42.3/100) due to severe pricing concerns that dominate customer feedback. While technicians demonstrate reasonable professionalism (72.5) and technical competence (68.0), the company is heavily criticized for aggressive upselling, inflated quotes (often 2-3x competitor pricing), and deceptive sales tactics. Project completion is problematic (58.5), with numerous reports of missed appointments, incomplete work, and poor follow-up. The most damaging pattern is systematic overcharging: customers consistently report diagnostic fees ($300-$600+), high-pressure sales pitches, and quotes ranging from $6,000-$97,000 for work competitors complete for $1,000-$3,000. This creates a trust deficit that undermines otherwise competent field work.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing abuse pattern - 412 mentions of overcharging, with overwhelming evidence of quotes 2-10x market rates
• CRITICAL: Deceptive sales tactics - extensive documentation of scare tactics, false diagnoses (gas leaks, fire hazards, voltage problems), and bait-and-switch practices
• HIGH: Appointment reliability issues - multiple cancellations, no-shows, and rescheduling failures documented across 50+ reviews
• HIGH: Fake review detection - suspicious clustering of generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great service', 'they were great', 'excellent') mixed with detailed 1-star complaints; asymmetric review distribution suggests possible review manipulation
• HIGH: Warranty fraud allegations - customers report warranty claims denied on dubious grounds despite paying premium prices
• MODERATE: Quality control issues - incomplete work, poor craftsmanship, and follow-up failures in 10-15% of completed projects
• MODERATE: Company operates under multiple names (Service Today, Eagan-Electrician, Home Service Pros, Boys Electric, AirTech) - possible attempt to obscure negative review history

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 150+ mentions each). The company demonstrates a clear business model centered on high-pressure sales and systematic overcharging rather than fair-value service delivery. While individual technicians may be competent and professional, organizational practices—aggressive upselling, inflated diagnostics, deceptive problem identification, and poor appointment management—create a fundamentally untrustworthy customer experience. Customers should obtain multiple independent quotes before engaging this company and verify all diagnoses with licensed third parties.

This contractor shows severe deficiencies across all dimensions. While early reviews (2016, 2019) praised responsiveness and customer service, three recent negative reviews (2015–2016) document persistent failures: incomplete work, poor quality craftsmanship, unresolved callbacks, and unfair warranty practices. Customers report work left unfinished over months, debris left behind, improper installations, and refusal to honor callbacks without additional charges. The company's failure to follow up on complaints and BBB reimbursements further undermines trust. The stark contrast between the two positive reviews and three detailed negative reviews suggests systemic operational problems.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All negative reviews are from 2015–2016 (8+ years old); positive reviews from 2016 and 2019. Unable to assess current performance.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews document unfinished projects, callbacks ignored, and work requiring customer remediation by third parties.
• PRICING DISPUTES: Three reviews mention unfair warranty policies, double-charging, and refusal to honor callbacks without additional fees.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Two reviews explicitly mention owner non-responsiveness and failure to honor promised reimbursements.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews limits statistical confidence; however, consistency of negative themes across three independent complaints is concerning.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of reviews (most 8+ years old) and small sample size, but the consistency of documented failures across multiple independent customers on core dimensions (completion, quality, follow-through) suggests legitimate operational issues that warrant verification of current practices before engagement.

Professionalism is the most frequently discussed dimension and paints a deeply divided picture: several reviews praise specific staff members (the tattooed employee, Frank, Harry, and an older gentleman) for being polite, patient, and helpful, while a near-equal number of reviews describe rude, dismissive, or unhelpful staff — particularly toward non-trade customers. Pricing is a significant concern, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out prices as far higher than competitors (one citing a 400% markup versus a nearby hardware store) and one review alleging daily price manipulation for extra profit. Project completion scores modestly, as a handful of positive reviews note that staff helped customers gather everything needed to finish their projects, but return/refund experiences were consistently poor and frustrating. Experience scores in the middle range: some staff demonstrated genuine trade knowledge and problem-solving ability, while others were described as clueless or unwilling to assist, suggesting inconsistency across the team.

• Several reviews are older than 1 year, with the majority dating from 2013–2020; only two reviews are within the past 12 months (2023), limiting recency reliability.
• The business appears to be a plumbing supply house/wholesaler rather than a contractor or plumber — some negative reviews stem from a policy of serving trade professionals only, which may skew ratings from general public reviewers unfairly.
• One review (1-star, 2020-01-18) alleges deliberate daily price manipulation and uses the word 'scammers' without specific detail, which may be an exaggerated or emotionally driven review rather than a factual account — treated with reduced weight.
• No patterns of fake reviews detected; reviews vary in tone, detail level, rating, and date, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: professionalism, pricing, and experience are each supported by 5+ mentions giving HIGH confidence in those dimensions, but the score is significantly dragged down by a consistent pattern of negative pricing and staff conduct complaints, and the recency of data is limited with only 2 reviews from the past 12 months.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across multiple critical dimensions. Two of three reviews report complete failure to complete work, no-shows, and unresponsiveness to follow-up communication, resulting in very low project completion and professionalism scores. One positive review acknowledges good technical work and friendly communication, but this single positive cannot offset the pattern of abandonment and poor customer service evident in the majority of feedback. The company charged service fees without delivering promised work and failed to reschedule or apologize, indicating systemic operational and communication failures.

• CRITICAL: Two of three reviews describe abandoned work and non-completion of service after payment was collected. This is a severe red flag for reliability.
• Pattern of no-shows and failure to communicate (no phone calls, no rescheduling) reported in multiple reviews.
• One review explicitly states the customer fired the company and obtained service from a competitor the same day, indicating loss of customer confidence.
• Only one positive review (4-star) versus two highly negative reviews (1-star each). The positive review lacks detail about pricing or project timeline.
• Limited sample size (3 reviews) means confidence is moderate, but the consistency of failure patterns across two independent negative reviews is concerning.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size, but the pattern of non-completion and communication failures reported consistently across two separate reviews suggests genuine operational problems that warrant serious consideration before engaging this contractor.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe deeply negative experiences across every dimension scored. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple accounts of rude, arrogant, and dismissive technicians, a no-show, arriving 1.5 hours early without notice, and a technician who was angry at the customer upon arrival. Project completion is the weakest area: technicians repeatedly left without fixing problems, abandoned jobs mid-service, left hot water turned off, broke a toilet and refused to repair it, and in multiple cases customers fixed the issues themselves after the plumber left. Experience scores are critically low due to documented instances of incorrect diagnoses, a misidentified vent cap leading to a wrongly denied warranty claim, a technician incorrectly declaring wiring faulty when the manufacturer's manual proved otherwise, and an unlicensed plumber causing flooding and wall damage. Pricing concerns include charges for parts covered under warranty, a $675 upcharge after the company broke a toilet, and a $1,100+ estimate when the warranty company was already covering the unit. The handful of positive reviews (3 out of 14) are brief, lack specific detail, and are significantly outweighed by the volume and specificity of negative accounts.

• 10 out of 14 reviews are 1-star; only 3 are 5-star and 1 is 4-star. The positive reviews are notably brief and generic compared to the highly detailed negative reviews.
• The three 5-star reviews contain minimal specifics: 'he was very nice and professional,' 'they are great to work with,' and first-name praise only. This pattern is consistent with potentially inauthentic or solicited reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) are all 1-star and highly detailed. The positive reviews are from 2020 and 2022. The trend is worsening over time.
• Multiple reviews describe technicians misdiagnosing problems that were subsequently corrected easily and cheaply by other plumbers or by the customers themselves — a strong signal of low technical competence.
• One review explicitly states an unlicensed plumber was sent, resulting in property damage and an insurance settlement. This is a serious legal and safety flag.
• A pattern of warranty-related misconduct appears across multiple reviews: false denial justifications, charging for warranty-covered parts, and upselling after creating problems.
• The company appears to disable or hide reviews on its own website, as noted by one reviewer — a transparency red flag.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews with strong data coverage across all four dimensions and should be considered highly reliable; the score of 28.1 reflects a contractor with serious, well-documented, and recurring deficiencies in professionalism, technical competence, job completion, and pricing integrity.