Find Nearby Plumbers In Dallas, Texas

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent responsiveness and communication across multiple reviews. Pricing appears fair and transparent based on available feedback. However, project completion is significantly impacted by one severe 1-star review detailing dangerous workmanship on a staircase with safety hazards, which substantially lowers confidence in consistent job quality. The remaining positive reviews praise timely work and good outcomes, but the safety incident creates material concern about reliability and attention to detail.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2021-09-30) alleges serious safety violations including exposed nails and uneven boards on staircase construction, with contractor allegedly dismissive of safety concerns. This directly contradicts the pattern of 5-star reviews and suggests inconsistent quality or potential skill gaps in structural work.
• Review date distribution is heavily skewed toward older reviews (5 of 8 reviews are from 2019-2021). Only 2 reviews are from 2023 or later, limiting recency confidence.
• The positive reviews, while detailed in some cases, show some generic praise language ('knows what he's doing', 'fine job at fine price'). However, several reviews provide specific project details (roof penetrations, hurricane supplies, dryer setup), reducing concern about fabrication.
• The severe safety allegation in the 1-star review is specific and detailed with claims of photographic evidence, making it difficult to dismiss as fake despite the overwhelming positive sentiment elsewhere.

This score should be treated with caution due to the significant contradiction between predominantly positive reviews and one detailed allegation of dangerous workmanship and safety negligence. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects this conflict, but potential customers should investigate the staircase incident independently before engaging this contractor for structural or safety-critical work.

Combat Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous service across 18 reviews. Technical experience is solid with 12 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, project completion reliability is undermined by multiple serious complaints (5 reviews) alleging incomplete repairs, charged work never performed, and customers discovering issues after paying. Pricing is a significant concern, with 7 mentions revealing overcharging, lack of transparency, and estimates perceived as excessive relative to actual work needed. The company shows capability but faces credibility issues around billing integrity and follow-through on complex jobs.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2019-2023) allege fraudulent billing—customers charged for repairs never completed, discovered by re-excavating areas and finding no work done. This pattern appears in at least 4 separate reviews with specific details (main water line repairs, slab leaks, leak diagnostics).
• Pricing transparency concerns: At least 3 reviews explicitly mention overpricing, deceptive initial charges, and unwillingness to disclose costs upfront. One customer reported $500 estimate for minor tasks they completed for $60.
• One highly detailed negative review (kit carson, 2023-01-18) alleges the company charged for a site visit with no work performed and misrepresented the scope of work needed, suggesting potential targeting of seniors.
• Recency bias: Most 5-star reviews are from 2016-2018 (older than 3 years). Negative reviews cluster in 2019-2023, suggesting potential service quality decline or increased scrutiny over time.
• Three reviews have no text content (blank), making them unusable for dimension scoring.
• One 1-star review (2022-06-10) is vague ('Wasn't able to help me') but customer gave credit for veteran status, limiting severity assessment.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by substantial positive feedback, the WW Score is significantly depressed by credible, detailed allegations of billing fraud and incomplete work spanning multiple years. The pattern of complaints about charged-but-unperformed repairs is specific enough to warrant serious concern. Recommend requesting references for complex jobs (slab leaks, main line work) and obtaining detailed written scope-of-work agreements with photo documentation before and after.

Mark Masters Service Company demonstrates solid technical expertise and strong project completion capabilities, with multiple reviews praising quality workmanship and thorough follow-through on complex installations. However, professionalism scores are tempered by a significant punctuality issue (90-minute late arrival with no courtesy call) and serious allegations of financial losses in one highly negative review. Pricing appears fair based on limited explicit mentions, with transparent quoting practices noted. The company shows genuine customer care and attention to detail, but the recency of reviews (oldest from 2012, most pre-2016) and the stark contrast between glowing testimonials and the severe 1-star complaint create uncertainty about current operational standards.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Four of five reviews are from 2012-2015 (9-12 years old). Only one review from 2022. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• SEVERE ALLEGATION: One 1-star review (2021) alleges multiple customers suffered financial losses exceeding six figures and references Dallas Building Permits. This is a serious red flag that contradicts the glowing testimonials and suggests potential systemic issues. This claim is unverified but material.
• PUNCTUALITY ISSUE: 2018 review documents 90-minute late arrival with no courtesy call, directly contradicting claims of timeliness in other reviews.
• POTENTIAL REVIEW BIAS: The 2012 and 2015 reviews are exceptionally detailed and laudatory with minimal criticism, while the 2021 review is harshly negative. This polarization warrants caution.
• SCOPE CREEP: Reviews mention HVAC, electrical (battery backup/generator), and plumbing work. Unclear if all services are equally reliable or if expertise varies by trade.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only one review from past 3 years), a serious unverified allegation of financial harm, and contradictory evidence regarding punctuality and professionalism. The score reflects historical performance but may not represent current operations.

Parnell Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising honest pricing, friendly staff, and solid workmanship across a wide range of plumbing tasks. Pricing is a consistent highlight, with multiple reviewers noting bills came in lower than expected and that the company did not charge for minor visits or warranty callbacks. However, professionalism and project completion scores are tempered by credible negative reviews citing poor follow-through on quotes, unresponsiveness, an abandoned large project, and a complaint about workers smelling of marijuana on a job site. The 2018 two-star review is particularly detailed and credible, describing a pattern of communication failures and unmet commitments that meaningfully reduces the project completion score. The review base spans 2003 to 2025, with the majority of substantive reviews being more than one year old, which limits confidence in current performance.

• 6 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews use very brief, generic praise ('Great service!', 'Awesome service and staff!!', 'They are good people') with no specifics. These contribute minimally to scoring.
• Two reviews dated 2005 and one from 2004 and 2003 appear to reference a 'King James' persona and city radio dispatch monitoring, which may not reflect the same business entity or current practices. These were treated with caution.
• One review text appears garbled and contradictory ('Great frienwould not recommenddly servicev') with a 1-star rating — likely a corrupted or tampered review. It was flagged but the negative signal was noted.
• One 5-star review references 'Parnell electric' rather than plumbing, suggesting it may be a misattributed review for a different company. Scored conservatively.
• The most recent negative review (2025-06-06) alleges workers smelled of marijuana on a job site — this is a recent and specific complaint that warrants attention.
• The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2018 or earlier. Recent reviews (2023–2025) are mostly brief or empty, reducing confidence in current service quality.
• No clear fake review pattern detected, but the volume of short, undetailed 5-star reviews without specifics is notable and inflates the raw star average beyond what the substantive evidence supports.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the scoring is grounded in a reasonable number of substantive reviews, but is significantly skewed toward older data, contains multiple empty or generic reviews, and includes credible negative feedback about communication failures and job abandonment that cannot be dismissed.

The majority of reviewers praised punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous behavior, supporting a solid professionalism score, though one serious complaint about a contractor breaking walls and then going completely unresponsive significantly tempers that dimension. Project completion is similarly mixed — most reviews describe jobs being seen through to the end, but the abandoned-work review (1-star, June 2023) is a critical red flag that cannot be ignored and pulls the completion score down meaningfully. Experience scores well across multiple reviewers who cited technical knowledge, problem-solving on complex sewer and leak issues, and quality workmanship. Pricing received limited but mixed signals: one reviewer noted an unexpected $1,500 additional charge mid-project, while another praised reasonable pricing, resulting in a conservative mid-range score.

• CRITICAL FLAG: One reviewer (1-star, June 2023) explicitly states the contractor broke holes in the wall and then disappeared without completing the work and stopped answering the phone. This represents a serious project abandonment allegation and is weighted heavily against project completion.
• MIXED ENTITY WARNING: Reviews appear to reference at least two different business names — 'Ares Plumbing' and 'C&G Plumbing' — as well as multiple technician names (Anthony, Ruben/Reuben, Richard). It is unclear whether all reviews are for the same business entity. Scores may reflect a blended or incorrect pool of reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: One review (Richard, 5-star) is dated March 2011 — over 13 years old. This review was given minimal weight as it does not reflect current business performance.
• UPSELL CONCERN: One reviewer noted an unplanned additional charge of $1,500 mid-project. While the reviewer accepted it, this pattern warrants caution around pricing transparency.
• SAMPLE SIZE CAUTION: Only 11 reviews total were analyzed. While the WW Score is calculable, the limited sample size means a single negative review has outsized impact and conclusions should be treated with caution.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to the small review pool, a serious unresolved project abandonment complaint, and ambiguity about whether all reviews belong to the same business entity — prospective customers should independently verify the contractor's identity and seek additional references before hiring.

K&K Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous staff across multiple recent reviews. However, pricing concerns appear in 8 reviews, with customers reporting unexpectedly high labor charges, unnecessary upsells (expansion tank), and additional fees that competitors do not charge. Project completion is generally solid with timely work and quality output, though older reviews (2020-2021) document serious failures including broken valves, improper installations, and unresolved follow-up issues. Experience level is strong based on technical competency and problem-solving, but the company's track record shows inconsistency—excellent recent performance contrasts sharply with documented quality failures in prior years.

• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2022-2024 (recent), while most negative reviews are from 2019-2021 (older). This suggests either genuine improvement or selective review deletion. Treat recent positive trend cautiously.
• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2019, 2020, 2021, 2023) explicitly cite unexpectedly high labor charges and unnecessary add-ons (expansion tank, extra plumbing fees). This is a consistent complaint across different time periods.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between recent 5-star reviews praising work quality and 2020-2021 reviews documenting broken valves, improper installations, and flooding. Suggests either staff turnover or inconsistent quality control.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE CONFLICT: 2024 review documents argumentative phone interaction and company's defensive response to criticism, raising concerns about conflict resolution and customer relations.
• UNRESOLVED ISSUES: 2020 review describes 'unanswered emails and texts' and failure to make things right—indicates potential follow-through problems despite recent positive completion scores.

This WW Score of 74.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While recent reviews (2022-2024) are consistently positive and support higher scores, the company's documented history of pricing disputes, quality failures, and customer service conflicts (2019-2021) creates legitimate concern about consistency. The sharp improvement in recent reviews may reflect genuine operational changes, but insufficient time has passed to confirm sustained improvement. Prospective customers should specifically discuss pricing structure upfront and request references from recent jobs.