Find Nearby Plumbers In College Station, Texas

This contractor shows strong professionalism and pricing in positive reviews, with plumbers arriving promptly, explaining work clearly, and charging fairly. However, project completion is significantly undermined by a 4-year delay on a fireplace screen and unresolved follow-up on a remote control issue, suggesting inconsistency in follow-through. One review is entirely unrelated (traffic incident with company vehicle) and does not reflect service quality. The limited review volume (only 3 usable service reviews) and age of most reviews (2014-2015, with only one from 2021) prevent high confidence in this score.

• Review dated 2020-02-06 is a traffic/driving complaint unrelated to plumbing services and was excluded from scoring.
• Most reviews are 8+ years old (2014-2015); only one recent review from 2021 provides current performance data.
• Significant project completion failure documented: 4-year delay on fireplace screen and 5+ week non-response on troubleshooting referral.
• Very small sample size (3 usable reviews) limits reliability of overall score.
• Positive reviews lack specificity on timeline and completion details; negative review is highly specific about delays.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume, age of most data, and conflicting signals between strong professionalism/pricing and poor project completion follow-through; additional recent reviews are needed to establish current performance reliability.

Dailey Electric receives consistently positive marks for professionalism — technicians are described as punctual, responsive, and courteous across multiple reviews, including a notably fast same-day turnaround. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: two separate reviewers explicitly complained about feeling overcharged or misled by the pricing structure, and one reviewer (a disabled veteran) felt taken advantage of at $60 for a bulb change, dragging the pricing score down substantially. Project completion and experience scores are moderately positive, with jobs generally finished same-day and technicians described as knowledgeable and skilled, though the review base is small. Overall confidence in this score is limited due to the low total review count and the age of most reviews.

• Only 7 reviews total — this is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• One review (2021-10-28) appears to be from a former employee rather than a customer. It has been excluded from usable data as it does not reflect a service experience.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2014 to 2022. Only one review (2023-07-24) falls within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is a concern — business practices or quality may have changed.
• Pricing complaints span multiple years (2018, 2019, 2022) suggesting a persistent structural issue with how the company communicates and applies its pricing model, not an isolated incident.
• The 2014 review is nearly a decade old and carries minimal reliability weight in assessing current business performance.

This WW Score is based on only 6 usable customer reviews, most of which are over one year old, making it LOW reliability — the score directionally reflects real patterns (strong professionalism, weak pricing transparency) but should not be treated as a definitive assessment of current performance.

Malek demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for politeness, knowledge, and responsiveness across 38 and 22 mentions respectively. However, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing concerns mentioned in 15 reviews, with customers reporting dramatic markups, bait-and-switch tactics, and charges 2-10x higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion is solid but shows some gaps in follow-through and warranty handling. The stark contrast between service quality and pricing practices creates a company that executes well but exploits customers financially.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: 15 reviews explicitly detail price gouging, with documented examples of $1,500 filters, $400+ for 10-minute jobs, $500+ diagnostic fees, and charges 3-10x market rate. This is not isolated—it is systemic and repeated across multiple years (2013-2024).
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH TACTICS: Multiple reviews (2024, 2023, 2022) describe low initial quotes followed by dramatically higher final charges, and aggressive upselling despite customer refusals.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Reviews mention unresolved warranty issues, missed appointments after rescheduling, lack of callback responses to complaints, and poor handling of Generac generator warranty work.
• POTENTIAL MISDIAGNOSIS: One 2024 review claims Malek misdiagnosed an AC system and possibly sabotaged it to generate repair orders; another 2018 commercial review documents contradictory diagnoses across multiple technician visits.
• RECENT REVIEWS HEAVILY NEGATIVE ON PRICING: Most negative reviews are from 2024, 2023, and 2022, suggesting pricing issues are ongoing and not historical.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: 8 reviews contain no text (empty body), and several recent 5-star reviews use generic phrasing ('Excellent service, thank you. Best service ever!!!') with minimal specifics. However, detailed positive reviews with specific technician names and technical details appear genuine. The empty reviews and generic praise may inflate the positive count artificially.
• RECENCY BIAS: 35 of 67 reviews are from June 2025 (within past 30 days), and most are 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2013-2018) tend to be more detailed and balanced. Recent surge in generic 5-star reviews warrants caution.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be trusted with HIGH confidence due to large sample size and consistent patterns, but the score masks a critical flaw: Malek delivers professional, competent service but systematically overcharges customers by 2-10x market rates. The company excels at execution but fails at fair pricing and honesty. Customers should expect excellent workmanship but budget significantly higher costs than competitors. The recent surge in generic 5-star reviews and empty review bodies suggests possible review manipulation, which slightly reduces confidence in the professionalism dimension.

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.

Bailey Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across a large review base. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a cluster of 1-star reviews dated 2025-03-11 — many of which are blank or contain only brief hostile phrases — alongside credible complaints about no-shows, poor communication, and at least one allegation of discriminatory treatment. Pricing is the weakest dimension: a substantial and consistent pattern of complaints across multiple years describes quotes that are 2x–5x competitors' prices, commissioned-based upselling, non-transparent fees, and in some cases alleged predatory targeting of elderly customers. Project completion is moderate-positive among reviews that describe completed work, but is undermined by multiple credible accounts of no-shows, abandoned estimates, and failure to follow through on scheduling commitments. Experience scores are relatively stronger, with many detailed positive reviews praising specific technicians (Elijah, JJ, Randy, Joe, David) for skill and problem-solving, though offset by a few accounts of misdiagnosis and poor workmanship.

• SUSPECTED REVIEW BOMBING: A cluster of approximately 20+ reviews all dated 2025-03-11 are 1-star with either blank text or extremely brief hostile phrases ('Terrible people!!', 'Horrible company', 'WORST COMPANY EVER AND RACIST'). This pattern is highly consistent with a coordinated negative review campaign, possibly triggered by a labor or discrimination dispute referenced in several reviews (wrongful termination of workers, discrimination allegations). These reviews should be treated with caution but cannot be fully dismissed as some reference a specific incident.
• SUSPECTED FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews dated 2025-03-11 use generic, non-specific praise with no job details and appear to directly counter the negative cluster on the same date ('Great reputable company! Don't be afraid to call them', 'Professional, Honest, Friendly. SO Helpful'). One review (2024-10-16) reads 'Best plumber in town. I love bailey plumbing. Bailey plumbing is the very best. Sjjsjdjdjsjjs' — the nonsense characters strongly suggest a fake or test review. Confidence in 5-star reviews from the March 2025 cluster is reduced.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CONSISTENT AND CREDIBLE: Unlike the review-bomb cluster, pricing complaints span from 2013 through 2025 across many different reviewers with specific dollar amounts cited. Multiple reviewers independently obtained second quotes and found Bailey's prices to be 2x–5x higher. This is a structural business pattern, not a one-off complaint.
• PREDATORY UPSELLING ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviews (2023-12-21, 2024-09-27, 2023-08-07, 2024-08-10, 2022-11-02) describe technicians pushing unnecessary full replacements or inflated scopes of work. The elderly scam allegation (2024-08-10) is particularly serious.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Credible no-show complaints span from 2011 through 2025, suggesting a persistent operational issue with scheduling reliability, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2023–2025 and are given full weight. Reviews from 2010–2018 are present but given reduced weight in scoring due to age.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (155 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced due to a suspected coordinated review-bombing campaign in March 2025 and suspected fake positive reviews on the same date; the pricing and no-show concerns are corroborated by independent, detailed reviews spanning over a decade and are considered highly credible.

Ed Phillips Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While professionalism scores reasonably well (72.5) with many positive mentions of courteous, punctual technicians, this is heavily offset by serious project completion failures (65.0), including multiple instances of incomplete repairs requiring 3-6 return visits, jobs abandoned mid-work, and leaks that persist or worsen after service. Pricing is a major concern (58.0), with numerous complaints about undisclosed service charges, inflated bills with phantom line items, and charges for work not performed or mistakes made by technicians. Experience ratings (76.0) are mixed—some reviews praise skilled problem-solving, while others describe incompetent work (e.g., toilet fill valve installed incorrectly, gas line repairs that created more leaks). The company's responsiveness and initial professionalism often contrast sharply with poor follow-through, billing disputes, and unresponsive management.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 6) report incomplete repairs requiring 3-6 return visits for the same problem, suggesting systemic quality control failure.
• CRITICAL: Recurring pattern of undisclosed charges and billing disputes—service charges not disclosed upfront, phantom line items on invoices, charges for work not performed or for technician errors.
• CRITICAL: Several reviews report work that made problems worse (gas line leak went from 1 leak to 3; new fixture installation created pipe hammering that didn't exist before).
• CRITICAL: Management responsiveness issues—multiple reports of unanswered callbacks, owner promising follow-up and never delivering, rude/dismissive responses to complaints.
• WARNING: Three blank reviews with 5-star ratings (dates 2023-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2021-06-10) and two blank reviews with 5-star ratings suggest possible fake or placeholder reviews, though not enough to constitute a systematic pattern.
• WARNING: Recency bias noted—many highly positive reviews are from 2011-2014 (10+ years old); more recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly negative (1-2 stars), indicating significant deterioration in service quality over time.
• WARNING: Warranty disputes—at least one review reports company refusing to honor warranty on failed repair, demanding additional payment for re-work.
• WARNING: Inconsistent technician quality—some technicians (Martin, Reed, Sean, Caleb) receive consistent praise; others receive complaints about rudeness, incompetence, or lack of professionalism.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 87 reviews with adequate mention counts, the company exhibits a deeply troubling pattern of incomplete work, billing fraud, and deteriorating service quality over the past 2-3 years. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly negative, suggesting the score may overweight older positive reviews. The company's inconsistency—excellent service from some technicians paired with poor management, billing disputes, and repeated failures to complete jobs—makes this score unreliable for predicting future performance. Prospective customers should prioritize recent reviews and demand written estimates with full disclosure of all charges before engaging this company.