Find Nearby Plumbers In Denton, Texas

The review set is dominated by strongly negative experiences. Three of four reviews explicitly describe rude, dismissive, or unhelpful staff — including a technician, a supervisor, and a receptionist — driving professionalism to a very low score. Two reviews note that the problem was never resolved or that technicians were inexperienced, pulling project completion and experience scores down sharply. The single positive review (from 2011) describes a professional, efficient, and fairly priced repair, which provides the only upward data points across pricing and experience, but it is over a decade old and carries limited weight. Overall, the pattern is one of consistent service failure with one isolated positive outlier.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable and indicative only.
• The sole positive review is dated 2011, making it over 13 years old. It receives significantly reduced recency weight.
• Three of four reviews are from 2015–2016, also outside the preferred 12-month recency window. No recent reviews are present.
• Three separate reviewers independently used the phrase 'if I could leave 0 stars I would' — while this may reflect a common idiom, it is worth noting as a pattern. No evidence of fake positive reviews detected, but the review volume is too low to assess fake review risk meaningfully.
• Pricing score of 85 is based on a single review from 2011 and should be treated with extreme caution.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all older than 8 years, with no data from the past 12 months — it should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current service quality.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe a deeply problematic contractor with serious, recurring failures across every dimension. Project completion is catastrophically poor, with multiple reviewers reporting abandoned jobs, no-shows, technicians taking payment and disappearing, and work left incomplete or made worse. Professionalism is nearly nonexistent, with documented instances of rude staff, late-night harassing texts, blocked phone numbers, and a complete failure to communicate. Pricing is flagged as predatory and non-transparent, with undisclosed call-out fees, wildly inflated estimates, and demands for upfront cash payments. Experience and workmanship are also severely deficient, with multiple reviews describing repairs that failed immediately, damaged property caused by technicians, and incorrect parts installed. Three reviews with 5-star ratings exist but are sparse in detail and inconsistent with the overwhelming pattern of negative, highly specific complaints, raising authenticity concerns.

• SUSPECTED FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Two of the three 5-star reviews (2015 and 2018) are vague, generic, and lack the specific detail present in nearly all negative reviews. The 2015 review includes a phone number, which is a known tactic in fake or incentivized reviews. These positive reviews are heavily outweighed and inconsistent with the documented pattern of fraud and abandonment.
• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers explicitly allege criminal conduct including unauthorized credit card charges, a cash app account opened fraudulently using a customer's card details, and a police report filed. These are not mere service complaints — they describe potential criminal activity.
• REVIEW MANIPULATION WARNING: One reviewer (2022) explicitly states that Ken Brown has had negative Google reviews removed, suggesting active suppression of legitimate complaints. This undermines the reliability of any platform review count for this contractor.
• PATTERN OF PAYMENT FRAUD: Multiple reviews describe a consistent scheme — taking partial or full upfront payment, then abandoning the job or going no-contact. This pattern appears across 2013–2022, suggesting it is systemic rather than isolated.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2019, 2022) continue to describe fraud and abandonment, indicating no improvement over time. The single positive review from 2018 predates several serious fraud allegations and should be weighted accordingly.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: One reviewer documents a technician stepping through a ceiling and the company refusing to pay for damages while threatening to file an injury claim against the homeowner's insurance — described as a deliberate bad-faith tactic.

This WW Score is based on 21 reviews with a high volume of detailed, specific, and independently corroborated negative experiences spanning nearly a decade, and is considered highly reliable; the score of 18.4 reflects a contractor with documented patterns of fraud, abandonment, and predatory pricing that pose serious risk to consumers.

Select Plumbing Solutions demonstrates severe and consistent failures across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically deficient, with documented instances of no-shows, missed callbacks, rude behavior, and the owner using profanity and verbal abuse toward customers. Project completion is severely compromised, with multiple jobs abandoned, delayed for weeks or months, and left incomplete or requiring third-party remediation. Pricing concerns emerge in one review involving fraudulent permit handling and inflated costs. The single positive review (5-star) praising technical diagnosis is vastly outweighed by nine 1-star reviews documenting systematic failures. This company exhibits a pattern of abandoning work, lying to customers and warranty companies, and failing to honor commitments.

• CRITICAL: Nine of ten reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints. This is not a pattern of isolated incidents but systemic failure.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document dishonesty and fraud, including false permit registration, lying about calling warranty companies, and misrepresenting work completion status.
• CRITICAL: Owner (Thomas Sledge) documented using profanity and verbal abuse toward a customer on the phone, with the customer reporting this to the warranty company.
• CRITICAL: Repeated pattern of no-shows, missed callbacks, and abandonment of jobs across multiple reviews spanning 2018-2021.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews indicate work was either incomplete, required redoing by other plumbers, or caused customer harm (scalding shower incident).
• The single 5-star review (2018-07-09) is generic and lacks detail, appearing incongruous with the overwhelming pattern of 1-star reviews. However, it is not flagged as fake due to its brevity being plausible for a positive experience.
• All reviews except one are from 2018-2021, with most from 2019. Recency is limited, but pattern is consistent across the entire period.

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 10 reviews with 9 detailed, specific 1-star complaints documenting fraud, abandonment, dishonesty, and abusive behavior, plus one generic 5-star review. The overwhelming consensus and specificity of negative evidence, combined with documented legal/warranty company complaints, indicate this company poses significant risk to customers.

This contractor demonstrates catastrophically poor performance across all measured dimensions. Project completion is the most critical failure: every single review documents incomplete work, abandoned jobs, no-shows, or defective repairs that required customers to hire other contractors. Professionalism is severely compromised by communication failures, unresponsiveness, language barriers, rudeness, and dishonesty. Pricing practices include hidden charges, bait-and-switch tactics, and charging for work that was never completed or was done incorrectly. Technical competence is consistently poor, with multiple instances of deliberate sabotage (rocks placed in pipes), incorrect installations, and repairs that failed within weeks. The company does not honor warranties and avoids accountability.

• CRITICAL: All 19 reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly negative content. While this is not necessarily fake (the consistency reflects genuine customer harm), the pattern indicates a systematically failing business rather than normal review variance.
• Multiple reviews (at least 5) describe what appears to be deliberate sabotage: rocks placed in pipes after work, loose pipe caps, broken pipes caused by negligent towing. This suggests either extreme incompetence or intentional damage to generate repeat business.
• Language barrier and communication issues mentioned in 4+ reviews; one review notes technician 'seems like he's on drugs.'
• Warranty non-compliance documented in 6+ reviews; company explicitly states no warranty offered.
• No-show pattern: at least 6 reviews document missed appointments or failure to return calls.
• All reviews are from 2014-2020 (6-9 years old). No recent reviews provided. Unable to assess if business practices have improved.
• Company appears to operate under multiple names (Señor Rooter, 24 Hour Plumbing) per reviews, raising transparency concerns.

This WW Score of 8.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 19 detailed reviews with unanimous negative findings across all dimensions, providing exceptionally strong evidence of systematic business failure. The score reflects genuine customer harm, not measurement error or insufficient data.

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 all four reviews are uniformly positive (5-star ratings) and mention professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience favorably, the extremely small sample size, combined with the age of most reviews (3 of 4 from 2011–2012, over a decade old), prevents confident scoring. The single recent review from 2020 is insufficient to establish current performance trends.

• CRITICAL: Only 4 total reviews analyzed — sample size is too small for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY CONCERN: 75% of reviews (3 of 4) are from 2011–2012, over 12 years old. Only 1 review from 2020. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data
• PATTERN ALERT: All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly glowing language ('epitome of excellent', 'fantastic', 'ONLY plumbers'). No critical feedback, complaints, or specific problem-solving examples. This uniformity across a decade-long span is unusual and warrants skepticism
• GENERIC PRAISE: Reviews lack specific technical details about plumbing work performed. Praise is broad ('beautiful job', 'thorough') rather than specific to plumbing challenges solved
• INSUFFICIENT MENTION DISTRIBUTION: Pricing mentioned in only 2 reviews; experience in only 2 reviews. Confidence in these dimensions is limited

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (4 reviews minimum threshold not met) and severe recency bias (75% of data is 12+ years old). Any score derived from this dataset would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Current contractor performance cannot be assessed from this data.

Only 2 of 3 reviews are usable for contractor evaluation; the first review concerns a driver's traffic behavior and is not relevant to plumbing service quality. The two valid reviews are both from 2019–2021 and provide limited mentions across dimensions. Professionalism is supported by one explicit mention of professional conduct during emergency service. Pricing receives one mention praising transparent, upfront pricing with no surprises. Experience is supported by one mention of outstanding job quality. Project completion is not mentioned in any review. The extreme age of reviews (3–5 years old) and very small sample size prevent reliable scoring.

• Only 2 usable reviews from a pool of 3 total reviews
• All usable reviews are 3–5 years old (2019–2021); no recent data from past 12 months
• Each dimension mentioned in only 1 review; confidence is LIMITED across all scored dimensions
• Insufficient data to calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidance

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 usable reviews) and extreme age of available data; any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.