Find Nearby Plumbers In Dallas, Texas

Public Service Plumbers has a large and genuinely mixed review record spanning nearly two decades. Recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive, praising named technicians like Troy, Jacob, Clint, Jason, and Kyle for professionalism, punctuality, and technical skill. However, the historical record contains a significant cluster of serious complaints — including no-shows, missed appointments without notification, billing disputes, hidden charges, pricing that more than doubled over time, and at least one instance where a plumber allegedly used the wrong equipment and caused additional damage. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different years explicitly calling the company overpriced, flagging undisclosed fees for tool use, materials markups, and dramatic price increases after a company merger. Project completion scores moderately well in recent years but is dragged down by older reviews citing abandoned diagnostics, unreturned calls, and incomplete work. Experience scores reasonably well overall, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge, though a few older reviews describe misdiagnosis and unnecessary upselling.

• 17 reviews contained no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimensional scoring — these blank reviews inflate the star average without providing usable data.
• A notable cluster of 5-star reviews from May–June 2025 are very recent and some are brief or generic (e.g., 'Amazing experience good lack', 'Kyle did great and the service was amazing', 'Whole team was awesome would use again'). While not conclusively fake, the volume and brevity of recent positive reviews warrants mild caution.
• Multiple reviews from 2013–2021 describe repeated no-show appointments, lack of communication, and rude office staff — a pattern suggesting systemic customer service issues during that period.
• Pricing complaints span the entire review history (2008–2024), including charges for tool use, gloves, rags, and towels on top of hourly rates, as well as a reported near-tripling of prices after a company merger around 2021.
• One review (2020) alleges a plumber used an oversized drain snake that broke a pipe, causing water damage, and that the company refused accountability — a serious workmanship and liability concern.
• One review (2021) alleges a double-charge billing error that the company was slow to resolve.
• The majority of negative reviews are older (2013–2021), while 2024–2025 reviews are predominantly positive, suggesting possible operational improvement — but the recency gap means older issues cannot be fully discounted.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews from 2006–2021 carry reduced weight per scoring rules. The score reflects a balanced view across all periods, with recent data given higher weight.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (107 total, 90 with usable data) spanning 18 years, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should note that the score reflects a genuinely divided history — strong recent performance tempered by a well-documented pattern of pricing complaints, no-shows, and billing disputes in prior years.

Black Tie Plumbing demonstrates strong individual technician performance — names like Blake, Jeremy, Jason, Matt, Ben, Pedro, and Daniel are repeatedly praised for punctuality, communication, courtesy, and technical skill, driving solid professionalism and experience scores. However, the pricing dimension is significantly dragged down by multiple credible, detailed complaints of predatory or grossly inflated pricing, particularly for customers referred through Perma Pier foundation repair, with several reviewers obtaining competitor quotes at 40–50% less. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are described as completed efficiently and thoroughly, but there are notable failures including incomplete work, incorrect installations, a no-call/no-show pattern across multiple reviews, and at least one warranty dispute where the same repair failed within two years. The gap between the quality of individual field technicians and the reliability and ethics of the company's business practices is the defining tension in this review set.

• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent, detailed reviews (1-star) allege that Black Tie systematically overcharges customers referred through Perma Pier Foundation Repair, with quotes 2x–3x competitor prices. This is a serious and recurring concern, not an isolated complaint.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / POOR WORKMANSHIP: At least two reviews explicitly state work was left incomplete or done incorrectly (faucet installed backwards, missing cleanout access points, unnecessary jackhammering of foundation beam, failed leak detection).
• NO-CALL / NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 4 reviews across different years describe missed appointments with no communication, suggesting a systemic scheduling or accountability issue.
• WARRANTY FAILURE: One review describes the same repair failing within 2 years, with Black Tie offering only a 1-year warranty versus the industry standard of 5 years, raising concerns about workmanship longevity.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite inability to reach the company, unreturned calls, and broken promises from office staff (e.g., told no service fee then charged one, no response to email for weeks).
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2024-06-09 (11 reviews on the same date) is suspicious. While the content varies and names specific technicians, the date clustering warrants caution. Confidence in that batch is reduced.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2017–2025. Negative reviews regarding pricing and no-shows appear across all time periods, suggesting these are not isolated historical issues. Positive reviews are also consistent across years, indicating genuine split performance.
• SCAM ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2018) describes technicians Brad and Michael fabricating pressure problems to upsell thousands in unnecessary repairs, later confirmed false by the city water department. Another (2018) describes technician Tony Dang falsely claiming sewer cracks that a second opinion found did not exist. These are serious fraud allegations.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (85 reviews) with HIGH data confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible, repeated, and detailed allegations of predatory pricing, fraudulent upselling, and incomplete work that meaningfully offset the genuine praise for individual technicians.

NTX Handyman and NTX Plumbing share this review pool and present a mixed but largely positive picture. The majority of reviews — especially those tied to Victor and his handyman crew — are strongly positive, praising punctuality, communication, professionalism, and quality workmanship across a wide range of projects. However, the plumbing side of the business carries a meaningful cluster of serious negative reviews citing abandoned jobs, price gouging during the 2021 Texas freeze, billing for unnecessary work, poor follow-through on callbacks, and at least one instance of dangerous structural damage during installation. These negative reviews are specific, detailed, and credible, which meaningfully suppresses scores across all dimensions. Pricing in particular is a concern, with multiple reviewers citing unexplained upcharges, flat rates perceived as excessive, and a pattern of quoting low then billing high. Project completion is also penalized due to multiple documented cases of work left unfinished or recurring issues not resolved after repeated visits.

• MIXED BUSINESS IDENTITY: Reviews appear to cover two distinct service lines — Victor's NTX Handyman/Contractor crew and NTX Plumbing. These may be related entities or operating under the same brand. Scores reflect the combined pool but the handyman reviews skew significantly more positive than the plumbing reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A large cluster of handyman reviews share the exact same date (2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10), which is highly unusual and may indicate bulk review submission. Several of these reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific job details. This pattern reduces confidence in the handyman-side scores.
• 6 reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS DOCUMENTED: Multiple 1-star reviews describe price gouging during the 2021 freeze event, a plumber damaging a load-bearing wall, an assistant falling through a ceiling and damaging property, recurring unresolved leaks after multiple visits, and jobs abandoned mid-completion. These are not vague complaints — they are detailed and specific.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive and tied to the handyman side. The most serious negative reviews are from 2018–2021. However, a 2023 and 2024 negative review confirm that responsiveness and follow-through issues have persisted into recent years.
• CALLBACK AND RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: At least 5 separate reviews across different years describe the company failing to return calls, ghosting customers after issues arose, or having office staff (identified as Mai/Mia) be dismissive or rude. This is a recurring and credible pattern.
• PRICE GOUGING ALLEGATION: One detailed 2021 review describes being quoted $155 for a minimum visit charge and then billed $400–$500 after the visit, with plumbers allegedly threatening to call police for non-payment. A separate 2021 review describes being charged $400 for under 90 minutes of work with itemized upcharges on basic materials.

This WW Score is based on a large review pool (80 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but reliability is moderately reduced by suspected bulk review submission on the handyman side, a persistent pattern of serious negative incidents on the plumbing side, and the blended identity of two potentially distinct service lines operating under the same brand name.

Boyd Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise their responsiveness, friendliness, and technical competence — particularly for emergency situations. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews describe serious failures: missed or abandoned appointments, unresponsive follow-through on bids and callbacks, incomplete or shoddy work, and at least one instance of alleged property damage with disputed accountability. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, with one reviewer specifically noting Boyd came in significantly cheaper than a competitor. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to multiple credible accounts of no-shows, jobs left unfinished, and weeks-long communication blackouts. The score reflects a company with genuine strengths but inconsistent execution that cannot be ignored.

• 13 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews from the 2024-06-09 batch share the exact same date, which may indicate a bulk review submission period. Language varies enough to not flag as fake, but the clustering warrants mild caution.
• The negative reviews span multiple years (2016–2024) and include specific, detailed accounts of missed appointments, incomplete work, billing disputes, and property damage — these are credible and were weighted accordingly.
• One reviewer (2024-11-11, 1-star) describes a 7-week period of zero callbacks and broken promises for a gas line bid — a significant professionalism and project completion failure.
• One reviewer (2018-05-05, 1-star) describes a $1,004 bill for crooked vanity installation, a broken drain nut, a no-show follow-up, and no response from management — a serious multi-dimension failure.
• One reviewer (2020-07-08, 1-star) describes plumbers ignoring instructions on a custom job and an owner who was dismissive when contacted — flags both experience and professionalism concerns.
• One reviewer (2023-01-29, 1-star) alleges Boyd plumbers cut water pipes and then covered up the damage rather than repairing it properly — a serious workmanship and integrity concern.
• Majority of reviews are older than 12 months. Reviews from 2025 (5 reviews) are the most recent and are predominantly positive, which is a mild positive signal but insufficient to override the full historical record.
• The 2023-06-10 1-star review ('Never, ever, ever use these people — unreliable, under qualified, rude') lacks specific detail and was treated as low-weight evidence, though it aligns directionally with other negative reviews.

This WW Score is based on 68 reviews with usable content across a multi-year period and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the recurring pattern of appointment failures and incomplete work documented in credible negative reviews, which suggest inconsistent service quality rather than isolated incidents.

Micah's Honest Plumbing has a strong base of loyal customers who consistently praise fair and transparent pricing, technical skill, and genuine honesty — with multiple reviewers noting they were charged less than quoted or received free service calls. However, a recurring and significant pattern of negative reviews centers on Jennifer's (the wife/office manager's) communication style, which multiple independent reviewers describe as rude, hostile, or dismissive, dragging the professionalism score down considerably. Project completion is also mixed: while most jobs are completed well, there are documented instances of a failed repair requiring a callback that was not honored, a no-show without notification, and a pattern of scheduling unreliability attributed to the one-man operation model. The business's core technical quality and pricing integrity are genuine strengths, but customer-facing communication and scheduling reliability represent consistent, multi-year weaknesses that materially affect the overall score.

• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2023) cite scheduling failures including no-shows, late arrivals without notice, and inability to commit to time windows. This is a structural limitation of a one-man operation and should be treated as a known risk.
• OFFICE/COMMUNICATION CONCERN: At least 5 separate negative reviews (2017, 2017, 2018, 2021, 2023) explicitly describe Jennifer's customer communication as rude, hostile, passive-aggressive, or dismissive. This is a consistent, multi-year pattern — not an isolated incident.
• FAILED CALLBACK CONCERN: One review (2023, 1-star) documents a repair that failed within 2 weeks and the business declined to return to fix their own work, directing the customer to hire another plumber. This is a direct project completion failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of highly positive reviews are dated 2014–2018. Reviews from 2019 onward are more mixed, with the most recent review (2023) being a 1-star. This suggests a possible decline in service quality or capacity over time. More recent data should be weighted more heavily.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, writing style, and sentiment. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No artificial inflation pattern identified.
• ONE REVIEW EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: The review about Micah stopping to help a broken-down truck driver on the roadside was noted for character but contains no plumbing service data and was excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score is based on 46 reviews spanning approximately 9 years and carries HIGH data confidence due to volume; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given a clear multi-year pattern of communication and scheduling complaints, a documented callback failure, and a trend of declining sentiment in more recent reviews.

Accountable Plumbing Services has a strong base of positive reviews spanning 2013–2024, with the majority of customers praising punctuality, professionalism, fair pricing, and technical competence. However, several serious negative reviews — particularly the detailed 2024 one-star review — significantly weigh down all four dimensions, describing outright fraud, billing manipulation, threats, and failed workmanship. A 2019 one-star review corroborates issues with incomplete work and poor follow-through, and a 2020 one-star review flags unprofessional communication. The pricing dimension is tempered by one reviewer noting an undisclosed travel fee and the 2024 reviewer alleging overbilling and refusal to provide an itemized invoice. Project completion scores are pulled down meaningfully by multiple documented cases of jobs left unresolved or improperly completed, which is the highest-weighted dimension in this scoring model.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: The 2024 one-star review alleges the plumber lied about running a camera inspection, performed defective work on a clean-out, billed for time not worked, and made explicit threats to destroy the customer's plumbing if payment was not made immediately without an itemized bill. This is the most recent review and carries elevated weight.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: The 2019 one-star review documents a paid job where the leak was not fixed, the plumber did not verify the repair before leaving, refused a partial refund, and would not return for 10 days. This corroborates project completion concerns.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FLAG: The 2020 one-star review from a repeat commercial customer explicitly calls out unprofessional communication behavior, suggesting this is not an isolated incident.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: The 2020 one-star review documents a complete failure to provide scheduling alternatives after declining a job, indicating inconsistent communication standards.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (January 2024) is the most damaging and most detailed negative review in the dataset. The majority of positive reviews are from 2014–2019, meaning the contractor's recent performance may be declining. Scores should be interpreted with this trajectory in mind.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW AUTHENTICITY CONCERN: A large cluster of 5-star reviews from 2014–2019 use very similar language patterns (e.g., 'on time,' 'knowledgeable,' 'fair pricing,' 'would use again') with limited job-specific detail. While not conclusive, this warrants mild caution. Confidence is not reduced to LIMITED given the volume and spread of dates, but users should be aware.
• STAFF INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple technicians including Alex, Dave, Tom, and Abel, suggesting variable crew quality that may not be uniform across all jobs.

This WW Score is based on 40 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution given a clear negative trajectory in recent reviews, documented allegations of fraud and threats in the most recent review, and multiple corroborating complaints about project completion and billing practices.