Find Nearby Plumbers In Dallas, Texas

This contractor demonstrates strong technical skills and professionalism when present, with 28 mentions of punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior. However, a significant pattern of no-shows and missed appointments (6 explicit mentions across multiple years) substantially undermines the overall score. Project completion shows mixed results: many jobs are completed well and on time, but several reviews document incomplete work, quality issues (shower pan liner failure, door frame gaps), and follow-up problems. Pricing is generally viewed as fair to reasonable, though some customers note premium rates. The 81 reviews span from 2007 to 2025, with concerning reliability issues appearing consistently across decades.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of no-shows and ghosting documented in at least 6 reviews across different years (2011, 2013, 2014, 2023, 2024). This is not isolated—it appears systemic.
• Multiple reviews mention being stood up after confirmations, with one detailed account of standing up two clients on the same day and losing $2,000+ in work.
• Quality control inconsistency: Some reviews praise excellent work; others document significant failures (shower pan liner not installed, causing water damage; door frame gaps that persisted after callback).
• Administrative/invoicing issues documented: Multiple reviews cite unexpected charges not on bid, difficulty getting final invoices, and lack of transparency on material costs.
• Several empty/blank reviews (5 instances) with 5-star ratings suggest possible review manipulation or incomplete submissions.
• Company appears to have multiple operators/names (Dan Handy, Lou Olerio, José Villareal, Ivory) which may indicate franchise or staff turnover issues.
• Older reviews (2007-2015) show more severe complaints (property management failures, major remodel disasters, tenant complaints about mold/dead rats).
• Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail, which may indicate selective positive review submission or fake reviews, though some detailed positive reviews exist.
• One review explicitly warns about voicemail being full and recommends texting instead—suggests chronic communication infrastructure problems.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 72.8 reflects mixed performance, the most critical finding is a documented, recurring pattern of no-shows and missed appointments spanning over a decade. The contractor demonstrates genuine skill and professionalism when work is completed, but reliability in showing up and following through on commitments is severely compromised. Customers should expect excellent work quality IF the contractor arrives, but should also prepare contingency plans for potential cancellations or no-shows. The score is dragged down primarily by project completion failures (no-shows, incomplete callbacks, quality issues) rather than pricing or skill.

Texas Green Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in customer interactions, with many reviews praising skilled technicians, clear communication, and responsive service. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—multiple customers report feeling overcharged or misled about costs, with complaints of excessive service fees, inflated labor rates ($330+/hour), and aggressive upselling of unnecessary work. Project completion shows mixed results, with some no-shows and abandoned jobs reported alongside successful emergency responses. The wide variance between highly satisfied customers and those who felt financially exploited creates a polarized reputation.

• PRICING PATTERN: At least 10 reviews explicitly cite excessive pricing, hidden fees, or aggressive upselling. This is the most consistent negative theme across the dataset.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Multiple reviews mention YouTube videos and Roger Wakefield's content (5+ reviews) with generic praise unrelated to actual service experience. Several 5-star reviews contain no substantive detail about work performed. However, these appear to be from fans of the YouTube channel rather than coordinated fake reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews cluster around 2021-2022 and 2015-2019. Only 3 reviews from 2024-2025, limiting current reliability assessment.
• AGGRESSIVE COLLECTION PRACTICES: One 2016 review reports threats of police involvement and property damage if payment not made immediately—serious red flag for business practices.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Same company receives both 5-star emergency response praise and 1-star no-show complaints, suggesting operational inconsistency.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE DISPUTES: Multiple reviews report high diagnostic fees ($600+) with threats to re-charge if customer seeks second opinion—potentially coercive practice.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the sample size is adequate (60 reviews), the company exhibits a stark bifurcation between customers who praise technical skill and those who report financial exploitation. The pricing dimension is particularly concerning with consistent, detailed complaints across multiple years. The score of 72.8 reflects this tension—above average on professionalism and experience, but significantly dragged down by legitimate pricing concerns that appear systemic rather than isolated.

Baker Brothers demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and communication across 28 mentions. Technical experience is solid with 15 mentions of knowledgeable, thorough work. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing concerns appearing in 10 mentions, with multiple customers reporting dramatically inflated quotes, overcharges, and what some describe as predatory pricing practices (e.g., $512 for smoke detector installation, $20k for a leak repair, quotes 2-3x higher than competitors). Project completion shows mixed results with 12 mentions—while many jobs are completed same-day, several detailed complaints describe incomplete work, extended delays, poor follow-up, and lack of accountability. The weighted score reflects these material weaknesses in pricing and project execution despite strong interpersonal performance.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple independent complaints (at least 5 distinct 1-star reviews) describe significantly overpriced quotes and invoices. Customers report being quoted 2-3x market rates, charged $512 for basic smoke detector installation, and $20k for what should have been routine leak repair. This pattern is too consistent to dismiss.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Several detailed negative reviews describe incomplete work, extended delays (2-month delays for yard refill), unauthorized charges, poor follow-up on callbacks, and lack of accountability. One customer reports a 2-month nightmare with damaged property and unresolved issues.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple complaints about poor after-hours support, unanswered callbacks, unresponsive management, and defensive behavior when questioned. One customer reported no callback despite emergency water system issue.
• CORPORATE STRUCTURE CONCERN: One review notes the company is owned by The Wrench Group (large corporate entity acquiring local businesses), which may explain pricing strategy and reduced personalized service.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most 5-star reviews are from June 2025 (very recent, clustered dates), while detailed negative reviews span 2019-2025. Recent reviews show less specificity and some appear generic. Older reviews contain more detailed narratives (both positive and negative).
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly praised individual technicians (Orlando, David, Trevor, etc.) and serious failures in project management, pricing, and follow-through. Suggests quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 28 and 15 mentions respectively, the pricing dimension (10 mentions) reveals a material and consistent pattern of customer harm that significantly impacts trustworthiness. The clustering of 5-star reviews in June 2025 and the detailed, specific nature of negative reviews spanning years suggest the company excels at initial customer interaction but has systemic issues with pricing transparency, project management, and accountability. Prospective customers should obtain multiple independent quotes and carefully review the detailed negative reviews before engaging this company.

Kenny's Plumbing shows strong technical competence and generally reliable project completion, with many customers praising workmanship and responsiveness. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing and ethical concerns documented in multiple detailed complaints spanning 2015–2021, including allegations of time-billing fraud, undisclosed charging practices, and hostile owner behavior. While recent reviews (2024) and older positive reviews (2004–2014) suggest capable work, the pattern of billing disputes and customer service failures during the 2015–2021 period creates substantial trust issues. The WW Score reflects this polarization: strong execution scores offset by moderate pricing confidence and unresolved professionalism concerns.

• CRITICAL: Multiple detailed allegations of billing fraud and deceptive practices. Review dated 2021-05-04 documents systematic overcharging (charged for 2 hours labor when technician was on-site ~20 minutes), refusal to provide itemized receipts, non-transparent charging policy, and owner Kenny's hostile response (yelling, refusing refund, threatening legal action). Review dated 2016-03-14 alleges GPS time-stamp fraud with 4 invoices showing 6+ hour discrepancies, requiring attorney intervention. Review dated 2015-05-29 reports $200 overcharge beyond quoted price with vague justification.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2015–2021 period (5 one-star reviews). Only 1 review from 2024 (positive but generic). Majority of positive reviews are from 2004–2014 (older than 10 years). This suggests either business practices changed negatively mid-period, or recent reviews are sparse and may not reflect current operations.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 8 reviews contain only 'unknown' or '.' as text with 5.0 ratings (2015-03-26, 2015-03-19, 2015-06-11, 2015-07-21, 2016-02-10, 2017-01-28). These provide zero substantive data and appear potentially fabricated or placeholder entries. Reduces confidence in overall positive rating distribution.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews document unprofessional behavior during work (2017-07-14: constant swearing and complaints; 2016-12-05: scheduling cancellation with poor communication and dismissive attitude). Contradicts claims of professionalism in other reviews.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY FAILURE: Review 2021-05-04 explicitly documents that customers were not informed upfront of actual billing methodology (charging from office departure to return, not actual on-site time). This is a material disclosure failure.
• OWNER ACCOUNTABILITY GAP: Multiple reviews (2021-05-04, 2016-12-05) document difficulty reaching owner Kenny for resolution. One customer reports weeks of unanswered callback requests.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 72.8 reflects genuine strengths in technical execution and project completion, it masks a serious bifurcation in the data: strong positive reviews from 2004–2014 and one recent 2024 review contrast sharply with detailed, credible allegations of systematic billing fraud, deceptive practices, and hostile customer service from 2015–2021. The presence of 8 suspicious placeholder reviews further reduces confidence. Potential customers should heavily weight the detailed negative reviews (especially 2021-05-04 and 2016-03-14) as they document specific, verifiable misconduct (billing discrepancies, refusal to provide receipts, attorney involvement) rather than relying on the aggregate score. The company's current operational practices and owner behavior remain unclear due to sparse recent data.

Winstead Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally responsive service, with multiple reviews praising skill level, equipment capability, and prompt arrival. However, project completion is significantly undermined by two detailed negative reviews describing incomplete work, damage to customer property, refusal to finish jobs, and aggressive collection practices. Pricing is generally viewed favorably when work is completed properly. The company shows inconsistency in follow-through and accountability, which substantially reduces overall reliability despite strong individual technician performance in successful jobs.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 5+ years old (2012-2016). Recent reviews (2022, 2019) are predominantly negative, suggesting potential service quality decline.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Two 1-star reviews from 2022 and 2019 describe incomplete work, property damage, refusal to complete jobs, and aggressive debt collection behavior. These are specific, detailed complaints with concrete examples—not generic criticism.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: The 2024-02-15 review uses excessive exclamation marks, generic superlatives ('FANTASTIC!!!'), and lacks any specific details about actual work performed. Language pattern ('bend over backwards,' 'first class,' 'take pride') is suspiciously generic and differs markedly from detailed negative reviews.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between glowing older reviews and serious recent complaints suggests either service degradation or potential management/staff changes affecting quality control.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias favoring older reviews, serious unresolved allegations in recent complaints, and evidence of at least one potentially fabricated positive review; the company's actual current reliability appears lower than the calculated score suggests.

The majority of reviews praise Len and his team for professionalism, clear communication, honesty, and technical skill across plumbing and HVAC work. Multiple reviewers specifically highlight transparent pricing and no upselling, which supports a solid pricing score. However, the most recent review (2023) is a detailed, credible 1-star complaint describing a failed bathroom remodel, a defective tub installation, refusal to accept responsibility, and the homeowner being left with unexpected repair costs — this significantly drags down both project completion and professionalism scores. The bulk of positive reviews are from 2017–2020, meaning the most current data point is a serious negative experience. Scores are moderated accordingly to reflect this recency concern.

• RECENCY WARNING: The only review from the past 12 months (2023) is a detailed 1-star complaint describing incomplete follow-through, deflection of responsibility, and a defective installation. This is the most current signal and carries elevated weight.
• RECENCY WARNING: Seven of the ten reviews are from 2017–2020, making them 4–7 years old. The contractor's current quality and reliability cannot be reliably inferred from this older data.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: Several 5-star reviews use vague, generic praise with limited specifics (e.g., 'very honest and nice,' 'great service'). While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild caution. The more detailed positive reviews (water heater, HVAC, shower valve) appear genuine.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: The 2023 review explicitly describes a job that resulted in a cracked tub, water damage to flooring, and the contractor refusing to honor responsibility for materials he purchased and installed. This is a direct project completion and professionalism failure.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is low, the majority of positive data is 4–7 years old, and the sole recent review is a serious unresolved complaint that meaningfully undermines confidence in current service quality.