Find Nearby Plumbers In Conroe, Texas

Bradbury Thornton Plumbing presents a deeply split picture: field technicians are consistently praised for professionalism, courtesy, speed, and technical competence, while the company's pricing structure and office practices draw sharp, repeated criticism. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with multiple reviewers citing a $49 diagnostic fee, high labor charges, and a water heater quote described as three times the market rate. The merger with Bradbury appears to be a turning point noted by a long-term customer, who describes a decline in service culture and the introduction of a paid membership club that creates a two-tier customer experience. Project completion scores moderately well because jobs that were started appear to have been finished, but the overall trust in the company is undermined by the perception that the office prioritizes revenue over customer relationships.

• Pricing complaints are severe and consistent across multiple independent reviewers — this is a genuine pattern, not an outlier.
• A long-term customer (since 1987) explicitly documents a post-merger decline in service quality and pricing fairness, suggesting a structural business change rather than isolated incidents.
• The $49 diagnostic/show-up fee is mentioned negatively in two separate reviews, indicating a systemic policy issue.
• All reviews are dated between 2016 and 2017 — all reviews are older than 7 years. No recent data is available. Current service quality and pricing cannot be reliably inferred from this dataset.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews contain specific names, dates, dollar amounts, and detailed narratives consistent with genuine customer experiences.
• Small sample size (7 reviews) limits statistical reliability despite HIGH confidence labels on individual dimensions.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to a consistent and specific review set, but should be treated with caution given that all reviews are over 7 years old and the sample size of 7 is too small to be fully representative of the company's current performance.

J Star Services exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile. While technicians frequently demonstrate solid technical skills and punctuality when they arrive, the company is severely hampered by chronic professionalism failures—particularly a pattern of rude, dismissive, and unprofessional office staff who consistently fail to communicate, answer phones, or honor commitments. Project completion is inconsistent, with numerous reports of incomplete repairs, abandoned work, and failure to follow through on callbacks. The company's pricing appears fair when work is completed, but the overwhelming volume of negative professionalism mentions (78 out of 100 reviews) creates a trust deficit that dominates the overall score.

• CRITICAL: Severe polarization detected—approximately 40 reviews are 5-star with generic praise, while 50+ reviews are 1-star with detailed, specific complaints. This suggests potential fake positive reviews or two completely different customer experiences.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Office staff (particularly female receptionist/office manager, named variously as Amy, Annie, Angie) is mentioned in 25+ negative reviews with consistent complaints of rudeness, hanging up on customers, refusing to communicate, and unprofessional behavior. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Recurring theme across 30+ reviews—customers report not being called back, not being scheduled properly, receiving vague appointment windows (9am-6pm), and being left hanging without notification.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews (15+) report technicians leaving jobs unfinished, broken equipment not repaired, or requiring multiple visits for single issues.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: At least 10 reviews explicitly mention failure to honor callback appointments or follow-up commitments.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2018-2021 and June 2024, while most positive reviews are from May-June 2025. The recent positive cluster (May-June 2025) contains suspiciously similar language ('Texas heat,' 'above and beyond,' 'highly recommend') across multiple reviews, suggesting potential review manipulation.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Reviews from 2025-05-26 (6 reviews) and 2025-06-02 (2 reviews) contain nearly identical phrasing and structure despite different reviewer names. Examples: 'prompt, polite, and went above and beyond,' 'Texas heat,' 'highly recommend Jim and his crew.' This pattern is inconsistent with authentic independent reviews.
• WARRANTY COMPANY COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews mention American Home Shield, Landmark, and Fidelity warranty companies—all report J Star as problematic contractor. One review notes AHS stated they have 'numerous complaints' and are considering dropping J Star.
• LEGAL/POLICE INVOLVEMENT: At least 2 reviews mention police being called to the office due to office manager behavior.
• BBB CONCERNS: Multiple reviews reference BBB complaints and note company is not BBB approved.

This WW Score of 52.3 should be treated with HIGH confidence in its calculation but MODERATE-to-LOW confidence in its actionability due to suspected review manipulation in the positive direction. The company demonstrates genuine technical competence but is severely compromised by systemic professionalism failures, particularly in office operations and communication. The recent cluster of suspiciously similar 5-star reviews (May-June 2025) suggests artificial inflation; removing these 8 reviews would lower the WW Score to approximately 48.0. Customers should be aware that while technicians may perform adequately, the office experience and follow-through are historically problematic based on the volume and consistency of negative feedback spanning 2015-2024.

REI Plumbing receives genuinely strong marks for responsiveness and punctuality, with multiple reviewers praising Roland's speed of arrival and professional demeanor — particularly in emergency situations. However, these positives are significantly offset by a serious and recurring pattern of pricing complaints, including allegations of price gouging, hidden charges, billing above quoted amounts, and charging thousands of dollars for short jobs. Project completion is mixed: several jobs were finished quickly and correctly, but at least three reviews describe poor workmanship, unnecessary damage caused during diagnosis, and subpar installations that required callbacks or left the customer worse off. Experience scores are dragged down by explicit accounts of incorrect diagnoses, structurally questionable pipe work, and a customer being told to 'just don't step on it' regarding an exposed PVC line — suggesting inconsistent technical quality beneath the surface-level confidence.

• PRICING MISCONDUCT PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviews across different years allege overcharging, price gouging, billing above quoted amounts, or charging thousands for minimal work. This is a significant and consistent red flag.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2020, 2019) describe poor-quality installations, unnecessary property damage during diagnosis, and dismissive responses when customers raised quality concerns.
• ALLEGED FRAUD: One reviewer (2019) explicitly alleges Roland charged more than the quoted amount and then justified it after the fact — describing this as fraud. This is a serious allegation.
• PRICE GOUGING ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2017) alleges Roland offered a service for $3,500 during Hurricane Harvey that a local plumber completed for $299, and that the price dropped to $2,900 only after the customer declined — consistent with crisis price gouging.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review is from January 2022. The majority of reviews are from 2018–2020. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 analysis date) are present, which limits current reliability.
• REVIEW POLARIZATION: Reviews are sharply split between 5-star and 1-star ratings with very few in between, which is a common pattern when a contractor performs well for some customers but exploits others — particularly those less familiar with plumbing costs or in emergency situations.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: The positive reviews contain specific details (times, job types, locations) and the negative reviews contain verifiable specifics (dollar amounts, job descriptions). No obvious fake review pattern detected.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but prospective customers should weigh the serious and repeated pricing and workmanship allegations heavily — particularly if they are unfamiliar with plumbing costs or contacting Roland during an emergency situation.

Rikman Services presents a deeply divided picture across 36 reviews spanning 2015–2024. On the positive side, numerous individual installers — Aaron, Mike, Jacob, Chase, Eric, Paul, and others — received strong praise for punctuality, courtesy, and clean workmanship, particularly on appliance installs through Lowe's. However, a significant cluster of serious negative reviews describes dangerous negligence (a cut gas line left leaking with no notification), hidden price increases, overcharged permit fees, unanswered emails and calls, rude management, and abandoned or incomplete work. Professionalism scores are dragged down heavily by repeated complaints about rude office staff and management, not just field workers. Project completion suffers from multiple documented cases of delayed installs, unresolved damage to irrigation and sprinkler systems, and failure to follow through on callbacks. Pricing receives a low score due to explicit reports of a $2,900 surprise upcharge and a permit fee inflated from $140 to $550, with no offsetting positive pricing mentions beyond one affordability comment.

• SAFETY CONCERN: One review (2023-10-13) documents a cut gas line left with an active leak and no customer notification — a serious safety and liability issue that materially lowers the project completion and experience scores.
• HIDDEN CHARGES: One review explicitly documents a $2,900 surprise price increase post-quote and a permit fee overcharge of $410 ($550 charged vs. $140 actual cost), indicating a pattern of non-transparent pricing.
• MANAGEMENT/OWNERSHIP CONCERNS: Multiple reviews independently cite rude, dismissive, or completely unresponsive management and ownership, including one review alleging the owner's daughter as COO is elusive and non-functional.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) skew heavily negative, while many positive reviews are from 2015–2021. This suggests a possible decline in service quality over time. Recent performance should be weighted more heavily.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW AUTHENTICITY NOTE: The 2020-10-27 five-star review ('your company was amazing... 10 stars') is vague, contains no specifics, and reads generically. Treated with reduced weight but not excluded.
• SPLIT PERFORMANCE PATTERN: Positive reviews almost exclusively praise individual field technicians by name, while negative reviews target company-level failures (management, communication, follow-through, billing). This suggests systemic organizational problems rather than isolated bad technicians.
• RECENCY WEIGHTING APPLIED: Reviews from 2023–2024 (5 reviews, 4 of which are 1-star) were given elevated weight per Rule 6, contributing to lower dimension scores.

This WW Score is based on 36 reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and is considered HIGH reliability overall, though the score should be interpreted cautiously given the sharp negative trend in recent reviews and documented serious safety incidents.

Dr. Rescue Home Services presents a deeply polarized review profile, with a significant cluster of highly negative reviews describing serious failures across all dimensions. Professionalism suffers from multiple accounts of no-shows, unanswered phones, technicians walking off jobs, and poor communication — offset only partially by a subset of positive reviews praising responsiveness and courtesy. Pricing is a consistent concern, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out overcharging, inflated quotes, and charges for work that made problems worse. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviews describing abandoned work, unresolved issues after payment, failed repairs, and refusal to return calls — including one case where a repair failed 14 months later. Experience scores are dragged down by accounts of incorrect diagnoses, botched tile work, overcharged refrigerant causing AC failure, and a technician who appeared to lack basic knowledge, though a handful of positive reviews do describe competent and knowledgeable technicians.

• POLARIZATION WARNING: Reviews split sharply between 1-star and 5-star with very few mid-range ratings, which is a common pattern in review manipulation.
• SUSPECTED FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are generic, brief, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Quick response and knowledge. They did and awesome job and provide good customer service'). These may be artificially inflating the positive side.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly 1-star and describe serious misconduct including scamming, no-shows, and refusal to complete work. The positive reviews are more concentrated in 2021–2022, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Multiple independent reviewers describe the same pattern — technician visits, charges a fee, fails to fix the issue, then becomes unreachable. This is a significant red flag for systemic business misconduct.
• NAMED TECHNICIAN CONCERN: Kelly David Shearer is named directly in a 2024 review as the owner/operator and accused of fraud. This is a serious allegation that warrants caution.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION REDUCES CONFIDENCE IN POSITIVE SCORES: Positive dimension scores should be treated with skepticism given the suspected inflation from low-detail 5-star reviews.

This WW Score of 42.1 is based on a substantial volume of reviews and carries HIGH data confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of review polarization, suspected fake positive reviews, and a clear pattern of serious service failures documented across multiple independent negative reviewers — particularly in the most recent 12–18 months.

The review set is extremely small at only 3 reviews spanning 2017–2019, making any conclusions highly tentative. Professionalism receives mixed signals: two reviews praise reliability, honesty, and helpfulness, while the detailed 1-star review describes a situation that implies poor workmanship and lack of accountability. Pricing is significantly dragged down by one detailed account of a job that ballooned from $350 to $2,300 for roughly 3 hours of work, with the reviewer explicitly stating they felt taken advantage of. Project completion is seriously impacted by the same review, which describes damage caused during the job — a dislodged air return duct leading to an estimated $5,660 in consequential damage — indicating a failure to complete work without causing harm. Experience is similarly mixed, with positive mentions of knowledgeability offset by the significant technical error that caused downstream HVAC damage.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated as indicative only.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (most recent: November 2019); no recent data available to assess current performance.
• The 1-star review is highly detailed and specific, describing a significant consequential damage claim ($5,660 in HVAC repairs) allegedly caused by the contractor's work in the attic. This is a serious flag.
• The two 5-star reviews are relatively brief and lack specific job details, which limits their evidentiary weight compared to the detailed negative review.
• No reviews from the past 4+ years — the contractor's current quality and practices are entirely unknown from this dataset.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 3 reviews, all dated 2017–2019, with one highly detailed negative review describing consequential property damage that significantly outweighs the limited positive feedback provided.