Find Nearby Plumbers In Corpus Christi, Texas

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning a 12-year period. Professionalism is the primary concern, with recent reviews (2024, 2021) documenting unprofessional behavior including miscommunication, no-shows, harassment, and defensive responses to criticism, while older reviews (2012-2014) praise responsiveness and courtesy. Project completion is mixed—some jobs are completed well, but no-shows and incomplete follow-through are documented. Experience and pricing are stronger dimensions, with evidence of quality workmanship and fair pricing. The stark contrast between recent negative reviews and older positive reviews suggests either significant deterioration in service quality or a change in business practices.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 10+ years old (2012-2014). The two most recent reviews (2024, 2021) are strongly negative, suggesting significant service degradation over time.
• PATTERN OF UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Multiple reviews document owner (Matt) behavior issues including no-shows without communication, harassment about payment, defensive responses to criticism, and disagreement with customers. This is a red flag for reliability.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing older reviews and damaging recent reviews suggests either fake older reviews or genuine service decline. Older reviews contain generic praise; recent reviews are specific and detailed about problems.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least one documented no-show with no communication (2021 review), indicating project completion reliability issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Reviews from 2012-2014 are suspiciously generic and uniformly 5-star with minimal specificity. One review is just a period (.). These may not be reliable indicators of current service quality.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme recency bias in the data—recent reviews paint a very different picture than older ones, and the contractor's current reliability appears significantly compromised based on 2024 and 2021 feedback documenting unprofessional conduct and service failures.

Flournoy Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2008–2014. While some customers praise quick response times and polite technicians, major concerns emerge around project completion and follow-through. Multiple reviews document unfulfilled promises (callbacks never made, cleanup never completed), poor workmanship (damaged trim, muddy carpet, incorrect installations), and misleading product information. Pricing is consistently flagged as high relative to value. The most damaging review details a year-long dispute over a faulty tankless water heater installation with electrical and plumbing code violations. Professionalism scores are dragged down by lack of accountability and respect for customer property.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2014, 2010) document repeated failure to honor callbacks and follow-through commitments—core business reliability issue.
• CRITICAL: 2012 review reveals serious code violations, misleading product claims, and adversarial customer service requiring small claims court intervention.
• Property damage pattern: Three separate reviews mention physical damage to customer homes (gouged trim, damaged carpet, driveway concrete collapse).
• Pricing complaints appear in 3 reviews; customers describe rates as 'high' and 'expensive' relative to work performed.
• Recency concern: Most reviews are 10+ years old (2008–2014); only one review from past 12 months would be needed to assess current performance, but none provided.
• Inconsistent quality: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews (quick, polite, professional) and 1–3 star reviews (negligent, deceptive, damaging)—suggests either highly variable technician quality or selective positive reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of reviews (2008–2014) and small sample size, but the pattern of documented project completion failures, property damage, and code violations is serious and consistent enough to warrant significant concern about contractor reliability and accountability.

D & J Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for professionalism across multiple reviews, with customers noting punctuality, friendliness, and clean work habits. Pricing feedback is limited but generally favorable, with one reviewer pleasantly surprised by a bill coming in well under estimate. However, the single most recent review (2020) is a serious negative outlier, describing poor workmanship, failure to follow manufacturer instructions, leakage issues, and a complete lack of accountability — this materially drags down project completion and experience scores. The bulk of positive reviews are dated between 2009 and 2018, meaning the most current data point available is the damaging 2020 complaint, which raises legitimate concerns about current service quality. Scores have been conservatively adjusted to reflect this recency imbalance.

• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review (July 2020) is a 1-star complaint describing serious workmanship failures, leakage, and no accountability. All other reviews are from 2009–2018, making the 2020 review the most current signal of service quality.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are more than 5 years old, with several exceeding 10 years. The WW Score may not reflect current business performance.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIER: The 2020 review explicitly describes a contractor knowingly installing a tub without a proper trim kit, ignoring manufacturer instructions, and refusing to stand behind their work — this is a significant project completion and experience failure.
• DATA VOLUME: Only 8 reviews total. Score reliability is limited by small sample size and wide date range spanning over a decade.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability due to a small review sample, a wide date range spanning 11 years, and a critical recent negative review that stands in sharp contrast to older positive feedback — prospective customers should seek more current references before hiring.

Texas Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance pattern with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. While technical skill and experience are consistently praised (78/100), the company struggles significantly with professionalism (52/100) and project completion (48/100). Critical failures include multiple no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication from ownership, and incomplete work requiring customer callbacks. Pricing concerns (54/100) center on lack of transparency, overcharging, and vague quotes. Recent reviews (2021-2024) show more negative patterns than older reviews, suggesting potential service deterioration.

• SEVERE RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2021-2024 (8 one-star reviews), while positive reviews are predominantly from 2016-2020. This suggests significant service quality decline in recent years.
• OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT ISSUE: Multiple reviews specifically cite owner 'Nathan' or 'Jerry Brown' for poor communication, unprofessional behavior, dismissiveness, and lack of follow-up on serious issues (gas leaks, incomplete work). This is a systemic leadership problem.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention no-shows, missed appointments, or broken promises to arrive. This is a recurring operational failure.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews document work that required customer callbacks, additional visits, or hiring competitors to fix problems (gas leak, clogged drain, faucet repair). Project completion rate is concerning.
• GENDER BIAS ALLEGATION: One detailed review from 2021 alleges the owner treats female customers poorly (ignoring calls about gas leaks, being demeaning and dismissive). This is a serious professional conduct issue.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Several reviews cite vague quoting, surprise charges, and lack of upfront cost clarity. One customer paid $712 for work they identified themselves.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LOW: The positive reviews contain specific details (names, dates, problem types, timeframes) and the negative reviews are equally detailed and credible. No obvious fake review patterns detected, though the polarization is extreme.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted cautiously: the company shows genuine technical competence but severe operational and management failures, particularly in recent years. The extreme polarization (13 one-star, 13 five-star) and recency bias toward negative reviews suggest current service quality is significantly lower than historical reputation. Customers should expect inconsistent service with high risk of no-shows, poor communication, and incomplete work, despite potential technical competence when work is actually completed.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile, with enthusiastic praise from some customers and severe complaints from others. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly describe rude office staff, unprofessional conduct, and sending unlicensed apprentices to perform work requiring a licensed plumber, while other reviewers describe polite, masked, and responsive technicians. Pricing is a significant concern, with at least three reviews calling out excessive or unfair charges — including a $400 quote for a $20 part — though two reviews describe pricing as fair or reasonable. Project completion is seriously undermined by two reviews (which appear to be related or duplicate accounts) describing flooded homes, work that had to be redone by another plumber, and refusal to issue refunds. Positive reviews highlight fast response times and effective repairs, but the volume and specificity of negative feedback prevents a higher score.

• SUSPECTED DUPLICATE REVIEWS: The reviews dated 2019-11-25 and 2019-04-19 are highly similar in content — both describe apprentices flooding the home, rude office staff, work needing to be redone, and excessive charges. This may represent the same customer submitting two reviews or coordinated negative review activity. Both were counted but treated with caution.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only 3 of 10 reviews are from the past 12 months (2021–2022). The majority of reviews are from 2014–2020, with the most positive reviews concentrated in 2014–2015. The contractor's current service quality may differ significantly from older positive reviews.
• REFUSAL TO PROVIDE SERVICE: One reviewer explicitly states the company refused to come out for a gas smell inspection, which is a safety-relevant service refusal and reflects negatively on responsiveness and professionalism.
• MIXED SIGNAL ON LICENSING: Two reviews specifically mention apprentices performing work that should require a licensed plumber. This is a potential regulatory and safety concern worth noting.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review count is low (10 reviews), the time span is very wide (2014–2022), at least one suspected duplicate review pair exists, and the extreme polarization between 1-star and 5-star reviews suggests inconsistent service quality rather than a stable performance baseline.

This contractor receives a below-average WW Score of 52.3, driven primarily by severe pricing concerns and significant project completion failures. While individual technicians often demonstrate professionalism and courtesy (13 mentions averaging 68/100), the company systematically overcharges customers—quoting double or triple market rates, charging $280 for $15 parts, and adding unexpected fees. Project completion is critically weak (48/100 across 14 mentions), with recurring patterns of multiple service calls to fix the same issue, abandoned work, missed appointments, and failure to resolve problems. Experience shows mixed results (62/100), with some customers praising workmanship but many reporting faulty installations requiring repeated callbacks. The company's business model appears to prioritize upselling expensive replacements over honest diagnostics and fair repair pricing.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (at least 8) document systematic overcharging—quotes 2-3x market rate, $280 for $15 capacitor, hidden fees added after quotes, and aggressive upselling of $11,500-$20,000 replacements when repairs would suffice. This is not isolated; it is a documented business practice.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: Recurring pattern across 6+ reviews of multiple service calls required to fix single issues (5 visits in one year, 3 visits for leak detection, 2+ visits for refrigerant leaks, repeated returns for same problem). This suggests either poor initial workmanship or deliberate service-call padding.
• APPOINTMENT/COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: At least 4 reviews document missed appointments, no-shows, failure to return calls, and scheduling incompetence. One customer waited all day in heat with no notification; another waited 45 minutes past scheduled time with no call.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews report AC units failing repeatedly within 1-2 years of installation (2016 install failing every summer through 2022; 2-year-old motor already failed; refrigerant leaks post-installation). Warranty registration issues also noted.
• REVIEW AGE DISTRIBUTION: 12 of 25 reviews are from 2020 or earlier (48% older than 4 years). However, recent reviews (2023-2024) show identical complaint patterns (overcharging, upselling, poor diagnostics), indicating problems are ongoing, not historical.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK SPECIFICITY: The 5-star reviews (7 total) are notably generic—'great service,' 'wonderful job,' 'excellent'—with minimal detail about actual work performed. Contrast with detailed negative reviews citing specific dollar amounts and failure patterns. This asymmetry is notable but does not rise to 'fake review' threshold given some positive reviews do provide specifics (Ben and Christian install, Matt's professionalism).
• SALES PRESSURE DOCUMENTED: Multiple reviews describe aggressive upselling tactics—technicians recommending full system replacement when repair possible, 'Comfort Advisors' pushing $20,000 systems, sales staff described as 'swindler' and using 'empty promises.'

This WW Score of 52.3 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 8-14 mentions each). The company demonstrates a clear, documented pattern of overcharging and poor project completion across 25 independent reviews spanning 9 years, with recent reviews confirming these issues persist. The score should be trusted as a strong warning indicator.