Find Nearby Plumbers In Dallas, Texas

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe serious failures across all four dimensions, with the most damaging pattern being repeated refusal to honor lifetime warranties — a direct and critical project completion failure. Professionalism scores are dragged down by reports of slow responses, canceled appointments, dismissive technicians, and outright deception during arbitration. Pricing concerns center on the $70–$75 warranty trip charges that customers felt were unjustified given their warranty contracts, as well as allegations of upselling unnecessary work. Experience scores reflect a small number of genuinely positive outcomes (piers holding over many years, honest assessments) but are heavily offset by accounts of broken pipes, over-lifting, gas line strikes, and work that deteriorated within two years. The few positive reviews (5 out of 18) are outnumbered more than two-to-one by strongly negative ones, and the positives are largely older or less detailed.

• STRONG WARRANTY FRAUD PATTERN: At least 9 independent reviews explicitly describe the company refusing to honor its advertised lifetime warranty, using tactics such as charging trip fees, sending denial letters despite visible damage, and citing technicalities (unpaid transfer fees, plumbing exclusions) to avoid performing warranty work. This is the single most consistent and serious pattern in the dataset.
• NEGLIGENCE ALLEGATIONS: One review (2014) describes a gas line strike requiring emergency services, broken drain pipes from a hydraulic slip, over-lifting requiring three correction attempts, and an estimated $15,000 in resulting damages. The reviewer also references 9 BBB complaints filed against the company.
• DECEPTION ALLEGATION: One reviewer states the company foreman lied under oath during arbitration, denying statements he made on-site. This is a serious integrity flag.
• LEGAL ACTION: At least two reviewers explicitly state they hired or were in the process of hiring an attorney to sue the company. One reviewer states they did sue and recovered only attorney costs, then had to pay a second company to redo the work.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative review is from October 2023, indicating the warranty non-compliance pattern has persisted for at least a decade and continues to the present. Positive reviews are concentrated in 2016–2021 and are significantly outnumbered.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): The positive reviews (5-star ratings from 2017, 2018, 2020, 2021) are notably brief and generic compared to the highly detailed negative reviews. One 5-star review from 2017 contains only two vague sentences with no specifics. This does not definitively indicate fraud but warrants caution when weighting positive signals.
• RATIO WARNING: 13 of 18 reviews are 1-star ratings. Only 4 reviews are 5-star and 1 is 4-star. The negative-to-positive ratio is approximately 3:1, which is a strong negative signal.

This WW Score is based on 18 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions and a consistent, multi-year pattern of serious complaints; the score of 28.1 should be treated as highly reliable and reflects a contractor with significant documented risks to consumers.

The overwhelming majority of reviews across all four dimensions are deeply negative, painting a consistent picture of a company with serious systemic failures. Professionalism is devastated by chronic no-shows, missed appointment windows, rescheduled appointments with no notice, dismissive and rude customer service representatives (including agents explicitly stating they 'didn't care'), and a near-total failure to follow through on commitments. Pricing is the single worst-performing dimension, with dozens of reviewers documenting egregious markups — capacitors costing $5–$50 billed at $400–$1,400, plumbing quotes 2–5x higher than competitors, and HVAC system quotes exceeding $72,000 for systems quoted elsewhere at half or less — alongside allegations of bait-and-switch tactics, hidden charges, and predatory upselling. Project completion is critically poor, with multiple accounts of abandoned or incomplete work (a hole left in a brick wall for over a year, ductwork installed incorrectly, quality inspections delayed 60+ days), units failing hours after installation, and technicians leaving jobs unfinished. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small number of positive reviews praise individual technicians by name, but these are vastly outnumbered by accounts of misdiagnoses, failure to identify obvious faults (e.g., a bad capacitor missed across 10+ service calls), and technicians lacking basic tools or parts.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED POSITIVE REVIEWS: The 10 five-star reviews are strikingly generic and brief compared to the detailed, specific negative reviews. Several positive reviews name individual employees effusively with no other detail (e.g., 'George provided great service and is a great professional and outstanding technician' — 1 sentence, 5 stars). One 5-star review appears to be written by an employee ('By far this company has been the best I have worked for'). These positive reviews do not offset the volume and specificity of negative accounts and have been weighted accordingly.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: At least 20+ reviews independently describe the same pattern — a low-cost or free inspection used as a sales entry point, followed by dramatically inflated repair or replacement quotes. Multiple reviewers confirmed via second opinions that recommended repairs were unnecessary or available at a fraction of the quoted price. This pattern is consistent enough to suggest a systemic sales practice rather than isolated incidents.
• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers have alleged outright fraud, including: a technician allegedly placing water intentionally in a blower unit to manufacture a repair need; billing for parts not agreed upon; charging for work not performed; and one reviewer stating they reported the company to the Texas Attorney General. These are unverified but recur across multiple independent reviews.
• ELDERLY TARGETING: At least two reviews explicitly describe high-pressure sales tactics used against elderly customers (an 80+ year old and a 78-year-old veteran), including pressuring them to sign contracts on the spot for work quoted at multiples of competitor prices.
• RECENCY NOTE: The negative review pattern is consistent from 2011 through September 2024, with no meaningful improvement over time. The most recent reviews (2024) are among the most severe, suggesting conditions have not improved and may have worsened since a reported ownership change.
• REVIEW SPAN: Reviews span 13 years (2011–2024). Per scoring rules, heavier weight was given to reviews from 2023–2024, which remain overwhelmingly negative and consistent with the full historical record.

This WW Score is based on 80 reviews with extremely high data density across all four dimensions and should be considered highly reliable; the consistency of negative feedback across 13 years, multiple service categories, and dozens of independent reviewers leaves very little ambiguity about the contractor's performance profile.

Blue Mountain Plumbing receives an overwhelmingly negative assessment across all four dimensions based on 42 reviews spanning 2022–2024. Professionalism is catastrophically low, with dozens of reviewers citing missed appointments, no-shows, unreturned calls, rude technicians, and complete communication breakdowns. Project completion is similarly dismal, with the vast majority of reviews describing abandoned work, jobs left unfinished for weeks or months, and technicians collecting service fees without performing repairs. Pricing concerns are significant, with multiple reviewers alleging fraudulent upselling, double-billing, inflated out-of-pocket charges, and refusal to reimburse for company-caused damages. Experience scores are marginally higher only because a small number of reviews describe technically competent work, but these are vastly outnumbered by accounts of technicians lacking basic diagnostic skills, arriving without tools or parts, and misrepresenting findings to warranty companies. Only 4 of 42 reviews are positive, and those are brief and lack specific detail.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — POSITIVE REVIEWS: Only 4 positive reviews exist among 42 total. Three of the four positive reviews (May 2024, Feb 2023, Jun 2022) are brief, generic, and lack the operational specificity seen in negative reviews. They may represent outlier experiences or potentially curated submissions, but cannot be confirmed as fake. They were included but carry minimal weight given the overwhelming negative consensus.
• PATTERN OF SYSTEMIC FRAUD ALLEGED: Multiple independent reviewers allege the company deliberately misrepresents findings to home warranty companies to deny claims, upsells unnecessary code upgrades, and collects service fees without performing work. This pattern is consistent across reviewers who do not appear to know each other and spans multiple years.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews (30+) are from within the past 12 months (2023–2024), making the negative signal highly current and reliable. The pattern has not improved over time — it has persisted and appears consistent.
• HOME WARRANTY CONTEXT: Nearly all negative reviews involve customers assigned through home warranty companies (Choice Home Warranty, etc.), suggesting the company may selectively underperform on warranty jobs while potentially performing better on direct-pay customers. This limits generalizability but does not reduce the validity of the negative scores.
• DOUBLE-BILLING ALLEGATION: At least one reviewer explicitly describes being charged twice ($375) for the same service with no response when disputed.
• REFUND WITHHOLDING: At least two reviewers report being owed refunds for months with no resolution.
• TECHNICIAN CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe technicians arriving without tools, parts, or proper company vehicles; eating lunch instead of working; and being rude or condescending to customers.

This WW Score of 18.7 is based on 42 reviews with strong recency and high mention counts across all four dimensions, and should be considered a highly reliable and damning assessment of this contractor's performance.

Selvin Rosa Foundation Repair demonstrates severe deficiencies across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by repeated no-shows, unresponsiveness to calls, broken appointments, and unprofessional behavior (showing up with injuries, workers drinking on job). Project completion is the most damaging dimension—work is abandoned mid-project, warranty claims are ignored, callbacks are refused, and jobs require multiple trips over months to complete. While pricing was initially competitive, the poor execution and extensive rework required negate any value proposition. Technical workmanship shows inconsistent quality with visible defects, poor cleanup, and structural issues left unresolved.

• CRITICAL: All 5 reviews are 1-2 star ratings with consistent, detailed complaints—not fake reviews, but rather a pattern of genuine customer dissatisfaction spanning 2017-2021
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews document company refusing to honor 10-year warranty and avoiding callbacks on warranty claims
• ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Consistent pattern across reviews of incomplete work, multiple no-shows, and refusal to return despite promises
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent review is from March 2021 (3+ years old); however, pattern of complaints is consistent across all years analyzed, suggesting systemic issues
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: No-shows on 3 consecutive appointments, unresponsiveness to voicemails, workers drinking on job, poor site cleanup, unauthorized use of customer utilities

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely—it is based on 5 detailed reviews with consistent, specific complaints across all major dimensions, spanning multiple years with no contradicting positive evidence.

This review set cannot be reliably scored due to severe internal contradictions that suggest fraudulent activity. The first review (dated 2023-11-20) provides detailed, specific allegations of incompetence, damage, no-shows, and financial harm. The five subsequent reviews (dated 2021 and 2023) contain generic praise with minimal specifics, identical phrasing patterns ('very professional,' 'responsive,' 'great work'), and suspiciously uniform 5-star ratings that directly contradict the detailed 1-star complaint. The temporal clustering and stylistic uniformity of the positive reviews, combined with the stark contradiction to documented harm, indicate likely fake reviews masking a genuine service failure.

• CRITICAL: Suspected fake review pattern detected. Five reviews (2021-05-31 through 2023-10-05) exhibit identical phrasing, generic praise without specifics, and uniform 5-star ratings that directly contradict a detailed 1-star complaint with documented evidence of damage and no-shows.
• The 2023-11-20 review provides specific, verifiable details (cartridge repair, valve damage, wall cutting, carpenter/painter needed) that suggest a real service failure. The positive reviews lack comparable specificity.
• Temporal clustering: All positive reviews are from 2021 or early 2023; the damaging review is from late 2023, suggesting possible reputation management attempt.
• The 2023-10-05 review claims Victor fixed a slab leak and installed a water heater 'at no charge' — an implausibly generous claim that lacks credibility.
• Stylistic uniformity across positive reviews ('very professional,' 'responsive,' 'great work,' 'highly recommend') suggests coordinated or templated responses rather than authentic customer voices.

This score cannot be calculated reliably. The review set exhibits clear signs of fraudulent activity with likely fake positive reviews masking documented service failures, making any aggregate score meaningless and potentially misleading. The detailed 1-star complaint with follow-up evidence of damage should be treated as the most credible data point available.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 4 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. While the reviews are uniformly positive and mention professionalism (same-day response, courteous behavior, follow-up), project completion (jobs finished, issues resolved), and experience (master plumber, 6-year relationship), the extremely small sample size and age of most reviews (3 of 4 from 2019-2020) prevent confident scoring. Pricing data is minimal (1 mention only).

• CRITICAL: Only 4 total reviews — sample size is too small for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY CONCERN: 3 of 4 reviews are from 2019-2020 (3-5 years old); only 1 review from 2021. Recent performance data is severely limited
• UNIFORMITY PATTERN: All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise language ('Great service', 'Awesome service', 'Highly recommend'). No negative feedback or specific problem-solving examples provided. This uniformity warrants caution
• PRICING DATA SPARSE: Only 1 review mentions pricing ('reasonably priced'), insufficient for reliable pricing dimension assessment
• EXPERIENCE MENTIONS LIMITED: Only 2 reviews explicitly reference skill/experience (master plumber, 6-year relationship)

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (4 reviews minimum threshold not met) and concerning recency gaps. Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.