Find Nearby Plumbers In DeSoto, Texas

This contractor has a mixed record across only three reviews. Two reviewers praise reliability, polite service, and competent work over many years, including successful warranty coordination and long-term service contracts. However, the third review describes a serious professionalism failure — the contractor advertised 24-hour emergency service but failed to dispatch anyone across a five-hour window and then canceled the call without notifying the customer, leaving a family with a young child in dangerous heat. This single but severe negative incident significantly drags down professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing data is minimal, based on only one review mentioning a diagnostic fee and labor cost that the reviewer found acceptable.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• The two positive reviews span 2021 and 2022; the negative review is from 2017. Recency favors the positive reviews, but the severity of the 2017 incident (false advertising of 24hr emergency service, no communication, family left in 80-degree heat) cannot be dismissed.
• The two positive reviews use somewhat similar language ('reliable,' 'polite') but contain enough specific detail (15-year relationship, warranty coordination, service contracts) to be considered genuine.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the very small sample size severely limits reliability.

With only 3 reviews spanning a 5-year period, this WW Score carries very low reliability and should not be used as a definitive measure of this contractor's current quality or consistency.

L&S Plumbing/Mechanical exhibits significant inconsistency in service quality and customer satisfaction. While some customers report excellent workmanship, professionalism, and fair pricing (particularly in 2017-2019), a substantial number of recent and older reviews document serious failures in professionalism (rude staff, poor communication, unresponsiveness), project completion (incomplete repairs, repeated failures, warranty disputes), and pricing transparency (hidden charges, inflated fees, warranty denial). The company demonstrates technical competence in specific jobs but struggles with follow-through, accountability, and customer service. Multiple customers report the same issues across different time periods, suggesting systemic problems rather than isolated incidents.

• PATTERN ALERT: Multiple reviews (2018-2023) describe identical problems with new home installations failing within warranty period, suggesting potential systemic quality control issues in original installation work.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE CONCERN: At least 5 reviews explicitly mention rude, dismissive, or unresponsive staff (blocking customers, hanging up, ignoring callbacks), indicating a persistent organizational culture problem.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Multiple customers report being quoted one price and charged another, or discovering hidden trip fees and inflated labor charges after service completion.
• WARRANTY DISPUTE PATTERN: Numerous reviews describe the company refusing to honor warranties or claiming warranty has expired while customers dispute the timeline, suggesting aggressive warranty denial practices.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster in 2018-2023 (recent), while positive reviews are concentrated in 2017-2019, suggesting service quality may have declined over time.
• BUILDER RELATIONSHIP CONCERN: Multiple reviews note the company prioritizes builder relationships over residential customer satisfaction, potentially explaining poor follow-up and warranty handling.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews dated 2021-10-16 and 2021-10-19 are nearly identical (plumbing clog, blocking customer), suggesting possible duplicate submission or coordinated complaint.

This WW Score of 54.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to the high volume of data (30 reviews) and consistent patterns across multiple dimensions, but the score reflects a genuinely problematic company with serious systemic issues in customer service, warranty practices, and follow-through rather than data uncertainty. The company appears to deliver acceptable technical work in some cases but fails significantly in professionalism, accountability, and pricing transparency.

Moore Supply receives sharply mixed feedback across all dimensions. Professionalism is polarized: a handful of reviews praise friendly, attentive staff while multiple detailed negative reviews describe unresponsive managers, unreturned calls, and a general lack of accountability. Pricing feedback is similarly split, with some customers praising great prices and others finding items overpriced compared to online competitors. Project completion suffers significantly due to two detailed accounts of failed order fulfillment — including weeks-long delays, incomplete orders, and incompatible products sold together — dragging that dimension down considerably. Experience scores are undermined by explicit complaints about poor product knowledge from sales staff, though some reviewers did praise helpful and knowledgeable service.

• Two reviews dated 2004-06-12 are suspiciously brief, written in all-caps, and nearly identical in structure and phrasing — these may be fake or artificially inflated reviews and have been treated with reduced confidence.
• One review is marked 'unknown' with no text content and has been excluded from scoring.
• The majority of positive reviews are either very old (2004, 2015) or lack specific detail, while the most detailed and recent reviews (2013, 2023) skew strongly negative — recency weighting further depresses the score.
• Most reviews with usable data are older than 1 year; only two reviews fall within the past 12 months (2023), and one of those is a 1-star complaint.
• The defective product/Mainline claim review (2013) describes a serious product liability issue and ongoing customer harm, which reflects on the company's accountability and follow-through even if it partially involves a related manufacturer.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a small review pool, suspected fake entries among the oldest positive reviews, a wide date range spanning nearly 20 years, and stark polarization between detailed negative accounts and vague positive ones — the score should be treated as a cautionary signal rather than a definitive assessment.

J&T Plumbing (Jimmy Dwayne Renfro) exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by documented no-shows, failure to answer phones, unprofessional appearance (exposed underwear, spitting tobacco), and disrespectful behavior. Pricing practices are highly questionable, with multiple reports of overcharging, hidden fees, and alleged financial fraud including theft of customer receipts and store credits. Project completion is severely hampered by chronic no-shows, broken appointments (12+ documented instances), ghosting customers, and failure to honor commitments despite advance payment. While a few positive reviews mention responsiveness and reasonable pricing, these are vastly outweighed by detailed accounts of deception, non-completion, and financial misconduct. The pattern of negative reviews is consistent, specific, and corroborated across multiple independent accounts.

• CRITICAL: Strong evidence of fake positive reviews. Multiple negative reviewers explicitly question the authenticity of 5-star reviews, noting suspicious generic praise with no specifics. The contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed, specific negative accounts is stark.
• CRITICAL: Multiple allegations of financial fraud and theft, including: (1) charging $450 for 15 minutes of work with no troubleshooting; (2) stealing customer receipts and pocketing store credits; (3) lying about refund amounts; (4) collecting advance payments ($1,000+) and ghosting customers.
• CRITICAL: Chronic no-show pattern documented across multiple reviews spanning 2019-2024. One customer reported 12 broken appointments; another reports no-show with no communication; multiple others report ghosting after advance payment.
• CRITICAL: Licensing and insurance concerns flagged. One review explicitly states the plumber is NOT INSURED per Texas State Board of Plumbers (License #41795).
• CRITICAL: Unprofessional conduct documented including spitting tobacco in customer's bathroom, exposing underwear, cursing, belching, and disrespectful demeanor.
• Recency note: Negative reviews span from 2019-2024, indicating this is not a historical problem but an ongoing pattern. Most recent review (Jan 2024) shows same no-show/overcharging behavior.
• Pattern analysis: Positive reviews (5 of 12) are generic, lack specifics, and use similar phrasing ('very responsive,' 'reasonably priced,' 'professional'). Negative reviews (7 of 12) are highly detailed, specific, include dates/amounts/names, and describe consistent patterns of deception.

This WW Score of 38.2 should be treated as highly reliable and conservative. The score is driven by overwhelming evidence of systematic failures in professionalism, pricing integrity, and project completion, corroborated across multiple independent detailed accounts with specific dates, amounts, and documented incidents. The positive reviews appear to be fabricated or from unverified sources, as explicitly questioned by multiple negative reviewers. This contractor should be considered high-risk.

The review set is heavily polarized: one detailed 1-star review from 2023 describes serious, repeated failures in punctuality, preparedness, communication, follow-through, and workmanship, while three 5-star reviews from 2016–2019 offer brief or generic praise. The most recent review — and the only one with any specificity about negative outcomes — documents abandoned work, missing supplies, broken repairs, and refusal to refund, which significantly drags down all four dimensions. The older positive reviews do provide some counterbalancing evidence of professionalism and fair pricing, but their age (5–8 years old) substantially reduces their reliability. The recency weighting strongly favors the negative 2023 account, resulting in conservative scores across all dimensions.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are from 2016–2019, making them 5–8 years old. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2023), and it is a detailed 1-star complaint. Recent performance appears significantly worse than historical reviews suggest.
• POSSIBLE FAKE/THIN REVIEWS: The 2019 5-star review ('has brought my home back to life. i had a vision and he made it a reality.') contains no specific details, no job description, and no verifiable information — consistent with a low-effort or potentially inauthentic review.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE WARNING: Only 4 reviews total. This is insufficient to draw reliable conclusions about consistent contractor behavior. All scores and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• PATTERN CONCERN: The two oldest 5-star reviews (2016) are relatively detailed and credible, but the gap between those and the 2023 complaint may indicate a significant decline in service quality over time.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to a very small review sample (4 reviews), a large time gap between positive and negative reviews, and one recent detailed complaint that describes serious and repeated service failures that outweigh older generic praise.

All three reviews are strongly negative, painting a consistent picture of a deeply problematic contractor. Professionalism is near-zero: the company failed to return calls for days, arrived late without notice, complained about the warranty company, and a staff member changed his phone number after completing shoddy work. Project completion is similarly catastrophic — one job took four days instead of one and required a second plumber to fix, another had an unconnected line discovered months later, and a promised gift card was never delivered. The one pricing-related signal is negative, as a customer paid half upfront and feared the money had been taken without service. Workmanship quality was explicitly described as severely deficient, including an upside-down shower installation, unlevel fixtures, reversed hot/cold lines, and a poor concrete pour.

• All three reviews are 1-star with highly specific, detailed negative accounts — no fake review pattern detected; these appear genuine.
• RECENCY WARNING: All three reviews are older than 7 years (dates range from 2012 to 2017). Current performance of this contractor cannot be assessed from this data alone.
• Pattern of incomplete or abandoned work noted across multiple reviews, including an unconnected line and a job requiring a second contractor to remediate.
• Staff member (Carlos) reportedly changed phone number after completing work, suggesting possible deliberate avoidance of follow-up — serious integrity concern.
• Owner promised a gift card as compensation and never delivered it, indicating a pattern of unmet commitments even at the ownership level.

This score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are over 7 years old, so while the directional finding — that this contractor performed very poorly — is consistent and credible, the score should be treated as LIMITED in reliability and does not reflect any potential change in the contractor's current practices.