Find Nearby Plumbers In Denton, Texas

Total Plumbing Solutions demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship quality, with multiple reviews praising knowledgeable technicians and effective problem-solving. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by documented instances of poor owner communication, dismissive attitudes toward customer concerns, and unprofessional phone handling. Project completion shows mixed results with some callbacks not honored promptly and incomplete initial work requiring follow-up. Pricing concerns emerge in multiple reviews citing unexpected charges, inadequate explanations for costs, and billing disputes. The company's performance is inconsistent across different technicians and situations.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Three 5-star reviews submitted on identical date (2023-03-29) within 20 minutes of each other with suspiciously generic praise and minimal specifics. First review explicitly alleges these were posted in response to a 1-star review, suggesting coordinated fake review activity.
• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: 2022-02-09 review documents use of water couplings instead of flared gas couplings on propane line repair, creating fire/explosion hazard. Propane line was also pinched between electrical and water conduit. This represents potential code violation and safety risk.
• OWNER CONDUCT ISSUES: Multiple reviews (2022-02-09, 2021-02-26, 2019-04-20) document unprofessional owner behavior including dismissiveness, refusal to listen to customer concerns, and poor communication. Owner Joe Gillespie accused customer of seeking free service rather than addressing legitimate warranty concerns.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews document incomplete repairs requiring callbacks (2021-09-16, 2020-07-21) and inadequate initial diagnostics.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews cite unexpected charges, inadequate explanations, and disputes over labor billing (2021-09-22, 2020-07-21).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2018-2019 and 2021. Recent reviews (2022-2023) show more critical feedback, suggesting potential service quality decline.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 72.8 appears moderate, the underlying data is compromised by suspected fake reviews (3 coordinated 5-star reviews on same date), serious documented safety violations, and a clear pattern of owner unprofessionalism that contradicts positive technician feedback. The company demonstrates technical capability but significant reliability and integrity concerns that make this score less trustworthy than the confidence level suggests. Customers should independently verify recent performance and consider the documented safety incident before engaging this company.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Positive reviews (7 of 10) consistently praise David/Gjin for responsiveness, fair pricing, technical skill, and quality workmanship. However, three highly negative reviews describe serious failures: two allege deposit fraud and abandonment by 'Anthony/Alejandro,' and one describes incomplete repair work with poor follow-up and rude communication. The fraud allegations are particularly damaging and suggest either multiple business identities or a pattern of deceptive practices. While technical competence appears strong when work is completed, project completion reliability is undermined by the abandonment and incomplete repair incidents.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2024-10-22) allege deposit fraud, non-appearance, and blocking contact. These describe a pattern of taking advance payment and disappearing. Names mentioned are 'Anthony' and 'Alejandro' — possible aliases or different operators under same business.
• CRITICAL: One review (2016-11-18) describes incomplete repair work, lack of follow-through on callback guarantee, and rude communication. Customer paid for work that did not resolve the problem.
• INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews reference 'David' and 'Gjin' (owner); negative reviews reference 'Anthony/Alejandro.' This suggests either multiple service providers under one business name or potential fraudulent operation using aliases.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two most recent reviews (2024-10-22) are fraud allegations. Most positive reviews are 6+ years old (2018-2019). Recent pattern suggests deterioration in service quality or business practices.
• CONFIDENCE LIMITATION: Positive reviews lack specific detail about pricing in most cases; pricing score based on only 5 mentions of 'fair' or 'reasonable' cost without concrete evidence.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While technical competence appears genuine, the recent fraud allegations and pattern of incomplete work create serious trust concerns that outweigh positive historical reviews. The apparent use of multiple names and the recency of negative reviews suggest this business may be unreliable or operating deceptively. Do not rely on this score alone — investigate the fraud allegations and verify current business legitimacy before engaging.

Sergio demonstrates strong technical skills and generally responsive service, with most reviews praising quick response times and quality workmanship. However, a critical 1-star review from 2020 explicitly documents poor follow-up behavior and unwillingness to help with subsequent jobs, which significantly impacts the project completion score. Pricing feedback is limited but positive where mentioned. The dataset is small (5 reviews) and heavily weighted toward older reviews (4 of 5 from 2020 or earlier), limiting confidence in current performance assessment.

• Dataset is very small (5 reviews total) — confidence should be treated as provisional
• Four of five reviews are from 2020 or earlier; only one review from 2022 — recency is a concern for current reliability assessment
• One explicit negative review (1-star, 2020) documents failure to honor callbacks and poor customer treatment on follow-up work — this is a material red flag for project completion and professionalism
• Three consecutive 5-star reviews from 2020 with similar generic praise structure ('great', 'showed up on time', 'quality job') — pattern suggests possible review clustering but not definitive fake review behavior

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, age of most reviews, and one documented service failure that contradicts the majority positive sentiment; current performance may differ materially from this historical assessment.

All four reviews speak positively to Adam's professionalism, citing punctuality, clear communication, updates throughout the job, and a reassuring demeanor — driving a strong professionalism score. Pricing is mentioned in two reviews as affordable and reasonable, but the limited data warrants a conservative score. Project completion is supported by three reviews, including one notable case where Adam persevered through a complex home warranty dispute to fully resolve a water heater replacement, demonstrating strong follow-through. Technical skill and problem-solving are referenced in three reviews, including handling a non-straightforward plumbing issue efficiently, supporting a solid but conservatively scored experience dimension. The overall WW Score is meaningful but should be treated with caution given the very small review pool.

• Only 4 reviews total — this is a very small sample size and the WW Score carries low reliability regardless of individual dimension confidence levels.
• One review (2021-04-12) is over 3 years old and receives reduced weight; it is also notably brief and generic ('Super friendly and reasonable prices. Technician is very knowledgeable and professional!') with no specific details, which is a minor fake review risk indicator.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — while the three detailed reviews appear genuine and specific, the uniformly perfect ratings across a small sample warrants mild caution.
• Three of four reviews are from 2024, which is a positive recency signal for those reviews.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be considered a preliminary indicator only — a minimum of 10–15 reviews would be needed to establish meaningful reliability.

All six reviews speak positively to professionalism, particularly responsiveness, punctuality, and communication — the detailed 2006 review about Arthur's persistent follow-up is the strongest individual data point in this dimension. Project completion and experience are supported by four reviews each, with reviewers noting jobs were finished well and that the plumber was knowledgeable and capable. Pricing is entirely absent from all reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. The overall picture is positive but the sample size is very small and two of the six reviews are nearly 18 years old, which significantly limits reliability.

• Only 6 total reviews — sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about consistent performance.
• Two reviews are from 2006 (approximately 18 years old) and should be weighted minimally; the remaining four are from 2024 and are more relevant.
• Several reviews use similar generic phrasing ('highly recommend', 'responsive', 'knowledgeable') with limited specific detail, which slightly raises concern about review depth, though the 2006 review provides enough specificity to suggest authenticity overall.
• No pricing information is mentioned in any review — this dimension cannot be evaluated at all.
• One review ('They took a lot of pressure off me. I was very happy with him.') is extremely vague and provides almost no usable data beyond general satisfaction.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review pool of only 6 reviews, two of which are nearly two decades old, and the complete absence of any pricing data.

Vance receives consistently strong praise across all four dimensions from every reviewer. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with multiple reviewers highlighting his honesty, responsiveness, pleasant demeanor, and clear communication. Pricing is explicitly called out as fair and transparent in three reviews, with one reviewer specifically noting he honored his quoted price. Project completion is affirmed across all five reviews, with jobs described as completed promptly and effectively. Experience and technical knowledge are noted in two reviews, with one reviewer specifically praising his diagnostic honesty compared to a prior plumber. However, the total review count is very low at just 5, and four of the five reviews are over two years old, which significantly limits the reliability of this score.

• Only 5 total reviews — sample size is too small to draw strong conclusions about consistent performance.
• 4 out of 5 reviews are dated between August 2021 and November 2021, meaning most data is over 3 years old. Only 1 review (March 2023) falls within the past 2 years. Recency is a concern.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, the uniformity warrants caution.
• Some reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Great job! Fixed the clogged pipe in no time.'), which reduces their evidentiary weight.
• No reviews mention any negative experiences, callbacks, delays, or pricing disputes — the absence of any critical feedback across all reviews is noted but not penalized per scoring rules.

This WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-confidence due to the very small review sample (5 reviews), the age of most reviews (majority from 2021), and the absence of any critical or mixed feedback, which limits the ability to assess true performance consistency.