Find Nearby Plumbers In Dallas, Texas

Olshan Foundation Repair presents a deeply polarized review profile spanning nearly two decades. Recent reviews from 2024–2025 are overwhelmingly positive, praising punctual crews, courteous inspectors, thorough explanations, and clean job sites — driving professionalism scores upward for the recent period. However, a substantial body of older and some recent negative reviews reveals serious recurring issues: warranty non-honoring, poor communication and no-shows, substandard workmanship requiring re-repair, property damage left unaddressed, and aggressive or misleading sales tactics. Pricing is a significant concern, with multiple reviewers citing quotes far above competitors, hidden fees, and charges for work not delivered as promised. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with numerous accounts of abandoned work, failed drainage systems, recurring foundation movement post-repair, and crews leaving sites in disarray. The experience dimension is mixed — inspectors are frequently praised for honesty and knowledge, but installation crews draw repeated criticism for lack of supervision, poor technique, and causing collateral damage to plumbing, HVAC, and landscaping.

• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The most recent reviews (2025 and late 2024) are almost uniformly 5-star with specific crew name callouts and very similar structure (crew name lists, praise for punctuality and cleanup). This pattern — while not definitively fake — is consistent with coordinated or incentivized review campaigns and should be treated with caution.
• SUSPECTED REVIEW PADDING: Multiple 2025 reviews mention nearly identical crew rosters (e.g., Hernandez, Rogelio, Misael, Noe, Nelson, Eduardo appearing across at least 3 separate reviews), suggesting possible duplicate or coached reviews from the same job or crew.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS with 5-star ratings (June 2025) provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring.
• WARRANTY FRAUD PATTERN: At least 10 reviews across multiple years explicitly state Olshan refused to honor its advertised lifetime warranty, citing ownership changes, franchise closures, or policy loopholes. This is a systemic and serious concern.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years describe unrepaired damage to plumbing, HVAC systems, landscaping, irrigation, flooring, and structural elements caused during Olshan's work, with the company refusing accountability.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: Numerous reviews spanning 2006–2025 describe no-shows, unreturned calls, missed appointments, and months-long delays in warranty service — indicating a persistent systemic issue not limited to any one location or era.
• SUBCONTRACTING CONCERN: Multiple reviews note Olshan subcontracts work to third parties without disclosure, and at least one reviewer identified the subcontractor directly and advised hiring them independently at lower cost.
• OVERBIDDING PATTERN: Several reviews describe Olshan quoting significantly more piers or work than independent structural engineers determined was necessary, raising concerns about sales integrity.
• OLDER REVIEWS (pre-2022) carry reduced weight per recency rules but are numerous enough to establish long-standing systemic patterns that cannot be dismissed.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the strong recent positive reviews appear potentially inflated or coached, while the extensive negative review history reveals serious and recurring systemic failures in warranty honoring, communication, workmanship quality, and customer accountability that prospective customers must weigh carefully before engaging this contractor.

ARD Home Services shows genuine strengths in responsiveness, same-day availability, and pricing competitiveness, with multiple reviewers praising Ryan's friendly demeanor and willingness to go above and beyond — including doing work free of charge for an elderly injured customer. However, the score is significantly pulled down by a recurring and serious pattern of no-shows, poor communication, and incomplete project follow-through documented across multiple independent reviews. The most damaging review details a 5-week renovation that was quoted at 3 days, with habitual tardiness, broken tools, unsanitary conditions, and payments collected before work was finished. Additional reviews cite a no-show with no callback, a $300 deposit taken with no follow-up on a painting job, and a contractor unfamiliar with basic materials. Pricing scores well due to consistent mentions of below-market rates and transparent quotes, but this cannot offset the serious project management and reliability concerns.

• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: At least 3 independent reviews (Oct 2024, Oct 2024, Apr 2024) describe no-shows or failure to appear without communication, which is a significant reliability red flag.
• DEPOSIT COLLECTED, WORK ABANDONED: One reviewer (Feb 2024) reports a $300 deposit was taken for a painting job and the contractor became unresponsive — this is a serious financial and ethical concern.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AFTER FINAL PAYMENT: The Dec 2023 review documents work left incomplete in the attic after final payment was collected, suggesting a pattern of collecting payment before job completion.
• COMMUNICATION INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews note that communication was only proactive when payments were being requested, but poor or absent when customers needed updates or follow-up.
• WORKER QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference both Ryan and other team members (Jacob, unnamed crew). Negative reviews often involve crew members rather than Ryan directly, suggesting inconsistent quality control across the team.
• RECENCY NOTE: All 20 reviews fall within the past 12–14 months (Oct 2023 – Nov 2024), so recency weighting is relatively uniform. No significant recency gap detected.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary substantially in tone, detail, length, and rating. Both positive and negative reviews contain specific details. No artificial inflation pattern identified.

This WW Score is based on 20 reviews with strong dimension coverage and HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be treated cautiously for larger renovation or multi-day projects, as documented patterns of no-shows, incomplete work, and poor communication on complex jobs represent material risks that the positive reviews on simple service calls do not offset.

Hooper Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with a stark divide between older positive reviews (2015-2020) and recent negative experiences (2021-2024). While professionalism and experience scores are supported by multiple mentions, recent reviews reveal serious concerns about project completion (incomplete work, abandoned jobs, lack of follow-up), pricing transparency (labor rates approaching $500/hr, disputed charges), and accountability (ignored warranty claims, unresponsive management). The company demonstrates technical competence but appears to have deteriorated in service quality, customer care, and ethical business practices in recent years.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 4+ years old (2015-2020). Recent reviews (2021-2024) are predominantly negative (5 of 6 recent reviews rate 1-3 stars), suggesting significant service degradation over time.
• PATTERN OF UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS: Multiple recent reviews cite ignored callbacks, unresponsive management, and refusal to honor warranty work. This pattern appears across independent reviewers and suggests systemic customer service failure.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Reviews describe labor rates near $500/hr and disputed charges. One reviewer explicitly calculated $749.95 for 90 minutes of work. Another paid $700+ for drain cleaning, then was charged again one month later despite warranty claims.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE & ACCOUNTABILITY: Multiple reviews describe property destruction (irrigation lines cut, shower pan dropped, drywall destroyed, slab left with giant hole) with inadequate compensation or refusal to make right.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Older reviews (2015-2020) contain generic praise with minimal specifics ('amazing job', 'highly recommend', 'great service'). However, these are balanced by detailed negative reviews, so overall fake review risk is MODERATE rather than HIGH.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: One review documents owner explicitly stating 'he didn't care' about negative review threat and 'bullying' an elderly landlord into overpaying. Another describes creepy sales tactics during service call.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 20 reviews with adequate mention counts, the dramatic temporal split between older positive and recent negative reviews, combined with documented patterns of unresolved complaints and management unresponsiveness, suggests the company's current service quality may be significantly worse than the overall score indicates. Recent customers (past 12 months) should weight recent negative reviews heavily.

Professionalism is the most-discussed dimension and tells a mixed story: several reviewers praise friendly, helpful, and professional staff by name, while multiple others explicitly describe rude treatment, curt responses, and a perceived decline in service quality over time. Pricing is mentioned in only two reviews, with one noting a 'big markup' and another implying cost was acceptable if service were better, suggesting pricing is above average but not egregious. Project completion receives a notable negative signal from one reviewer who experienced a 2-month delay caused by an incorrectly ordered item and zero proactive communication, while another praised timely responsiveness — resulting in a low score on limited data. Experience and product knowledge are generally well-regarded, with multiple reviewers praising staff expertise and the quality of the showroom selection, though this does not offset the service concerns.

• Several positive reviews are generic in nature (e.g., 'reliable, great quality, friendly') with minimal specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews.
• Review dates span from 2013 to 2022 — the majority of reviews are older than 1 year relative to the most recent review date (2022-10-20), and several are 4–9 years old. Recency weighting significantly limits reliability of older positive reviews.
• Two reviews from 2018 and one from 2022 explicitly describe declining or poor customer service, suggesting a possible negative trend over time that the older positive reviews do not reflect.
• The review set is small (9 reviews), which limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to the small review set, wide date range spanning nearly a decade, and a clear split between positive and negative service experiences that makes the true current quality of this business difficult to assess with confidence.

One Source Plumbing has a mixed track record across its six reviews. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praised the friendliness and promptness of technicians like Angel, Jose, and Patrick, and several jobs were completed successfully including a difficult hydro-jet drain clearing. However, two significant negative reviews drag scores down considerably: one details an improper garbage disposal installation that caused a subsequent leak and a poor warranty dispute resolution, and another accuses the company of dishonest billing practices — reporting 60–70 feet of line work when only 5 feet were run — and refusing to honor a callback without additional payment. These serious allegations of workmanship failure and deceptive billing meaningfully reduce confidence in both project completion and pricing dimensions. The overall picture is a contractor with capable technicians on some jobs but notable quality control and customer service failures on others.

• One review (2021-02-14) contains a serious allegation of fraudulent reporting — claiming technicians logged 60–70 feet of drain line work when only approximately 5 feet were performed. This is a significant integrity concern and was weighted heavily in pricing and project completion scores.
• One review (2022-04-01) documents an improper garbage disposal installation that caused a subsequent leak, and the company refused reimbursement despite the customer's reasonable explanation. This negatively impacts both experience and project completion scores.
• Two of the six reviews are from 2021 or earlier, making them over 3 years old. More recent reviews (2023) are more positive, but the small total sample size limits the ability to confirm a clear improvement trend.
• The positive reviews, while specific enough to avoid a fake review flag, are relatively few in number. The 6-review total is too small to draw strong conclusions about consistent performance.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning roughly 3 years, including two serious negative reviews with specific allegations of poor workmanship and dishonest billing; the score should be treated as directionally informative but not highly reliable without a larger and more recent review sample.

Planet Earth Plumbing presents a deeply split record across its review history. Pricing is the strongest dimension by far — dozens of reviewers explicitly praised Andrew for fair, transparent, and significantly below-market quotes, with no hidden charges and occasional voluntary discounts. However, professionalism and project completion are severely dragged down by a large and consistent pattern of no-shows, missed appointments, broken promises, failure to return calls, and in several cases outright abandonment of paid work — including allegations of an expired plumbing license and failure to pull required permits. Experience scores moderately well among reviewers who actually received completed work, with praise for technical skill and quality, but this is undermined by multiple reviews where completed work failed inspection or broke down shortly after. The business appears to have been stronger in its earlier years (2014–2016) and deteriorated significantly in reliability from 2017 onward.

• SERIOUS RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least 18 negative reviews explicitly describe repeated no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to communicate — this is a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• LICENSE CONCERN: Multiple reviews (Jan 2020) explicitly state Andrew's plumbing license was expired at the time work was performed. One reviewer confirmed this via the Texas State Board of Plumbing Examiner website.
• PERMIT VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews allege work was performed without pulling required city permits, and at least one completed job failed inspection by a licensed third-party plumber.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: At least two reviewers allege Andrew accepted upfront payment and never performed or completed the work, with one pursuing legal action and another disputing charges via credit card.
• ABANDONED WORK: Multiple reviews describe Andrew taking customer property (shower parts, materials) and disappearing without completing the job.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most severe negative reviews cluster between late 2017 and early 2021. The most recent review (April 2021) is positive but isolated. The overall trend from 2017 onward is strongly negative.
• SPLIT REVIEW PROFILE: The review set is roughly split between strong positives (mostly 2014–2018 early period) and strong negatives (mostly 2017–2021). This suggests a business that may have declined significantly in reliability over time.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Positive reviews contain sufficient specificity and variation in language to appear genuine, though the volume of early 5-star reviews relative to later negative reviews warrants caution.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (72 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but prospective customers should treat the score with significant caution given documented allegations of expired licensing, permit violations, financial misconduct, and a clear pattern of operational unreliability that intensified from 2017 onward.