Find Nearby Plumbers In El Paso, Texas

Fabian's Plumbing shows significant performance issues across multiple dimensions. The detailed 2021 review documents severe technical failures in tub installation, improper plumbing work, and incomplete job execution, with the contractor ultimately abandoning responsibility and the customer forced to pay twice for repairs. A 2023 callback revealed defensive communication and poor responsiveness to quality concerns. One positive 2022 review praises work quality and scheduling flexibility, but this is substantially outweighed by documented evidence of poor workmanship, incomplete project delivery, and unprofessional conduct. The allegation of signature forgery raises serious ethical concerns.

• CRITICAL: Signature forgery allegation in 2021 review — described as criminal deceptive business practice. This is a serious legal/ethical red flag that cannot be ignored.
• Contractor abandonment: 2021 review explicitly states contractor refused to continue as contractor and demanded customer pay workers directly for repairs — clear project completion failure.
• Defensive communication: 2023 review documents contractor becoming 'short & defensive' when called about incomplete work on cell phone.
• Conflicting reviews: One 5-star review (2022) contradicts the detailed 1-star account, claiming disbelief in signature forgery allegation. This creates credibility tension, but the detailed technical documentation in the 1-star review is specific and verifiable.
• Recency concern: Most recent negative review is 2023; positive review is 2022. Pattern suggests ongoing issues.
• Limited sample size: Only 3 reviews total limits statistical confidence, though the severity of documented issues is substantial.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (3 reviews), but the documented evidence of technical incompetence, project abandonment, and alleged signature forgery in the detailed 2021 review is serious and specific enough to warrant significant concern regardless of the positive 2022 review. The 2023 callback issue suggests problems may be ongoing.

This contractor received sharply divided feedback across only 3 reviews. The single positive review praised responsiveness, punctuality, and quality of workmanship on a pipe repair. However, two negative reviews raised serious concerns about pricing transparency and value — one customer was charged over $400 for a dishwasher install estimated as a 1-hour job, and another was charged $100 for a 5-minute hose connection. Professionalism scores were dragged down by the dismissive response to pricing complaints in one review. Project completion scores reflect that work was technically finished in all cases, but the quality and appropriateness of the work performed relative to the charge was disputed. The overall picture is mixed, with pricing being the most consistently flagged concern.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with significant caution.
• Two of three reviews are older than 12 months (2017 and 2019), with the most recent positive review from April 2020. Recency weighting is limited across all reviews.
• Pricing complaints appear in 2 of 3 reviews and are specific and detailed, suggesting a genuine pattern of overcharging or lack of pricing transparency rather than isolated incidents.
• The single 5-star review lacks the specificity seen in the negative reviews and provides no pricing or detailed workmanship information, limiting its ability to offset the negative signals.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the small sample size means no reliable trend can be established.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning several years and should be considered highly unreliable — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a meaningful indicator of contractor quality.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply inconsistent picture. Two of the three reviews describe serious punctuality failures — in one case the contractor never showed up or communicated after an initial visit, and in another he arrived nearly 90 minutes late with no adequate explanation. These no-show and late-arrival incidents heavily drag down both professionalism and project completion scores. The single positive review is genuinely strong, praising rapid response, on-time arrival, quick resolution, reasonable pricing, and professional conduct — but it cannot offset the weight of two detailed negative experiences. With only three reviews total, confidence in any dimension is low, and the overall WW Score should be treated with significant caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as highly unreliable.
• Two of three reviews describe no-show or significant late-arrival behavior, suggesting a possible pattern of poor reliability.
• All three reviews are from late 2021 to early 2022 — no recent data available to assess current performance. Scores may not reflect the contractor's present reliability.
• The single positive review, while specific and credible, is outnumbered 2-to-1 by negative experiences. It has not been discounted for fakeness but carries limited counterweight given the sample size.
• No reviews mention experience or workmanship quality in detail except the one positive review, making the experience score extremely low confidence.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews from over two years ago and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references before hiring.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension and is overwhelmingly negative — multiple reviewers describe no-shows, unreturned calls, and staff yelling at or dismissing customers. Project completion is similarly troubled, with one reviewer describing a misdiagnosis that caused $4,000 in unnecessary damage and another noting the company may have gone out of business entirely. The only positive reviews come from two customers who praised accurate leak detection and timely service, providing the sole basis for any upward scoring in experience and pricing. Given the small review pool and the preponderance of serious complaints, all scores should be treated with caution.

• Only 6 total reviews — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability.
• All reviews are dated between 2017 and 2021; no reviews from the past 12 months are present. Business may no longer be operating.
• One reviewer explicitly states the company may have gone out of business due to complete non-responsiveness.
• The two positive reviews (5-star) are notably detailed and specific, reducing fake review concern, but they are heavily outnumbered by negative reviews.
• A verified complaint of a 15-foot misdiagnosis causing $4,000 in additional property damage with no remediation offered is a serious liability flag.
• Multiple independent reviewers describe the same pattern of no-shows and hostile customer service responses, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score has LOW overall reliability due to a very small review pool of only 6 reviews, all of which are more than 2 years old, and the possible closure of the business — the score should not be used as a current indicator of service quality.

The reviews for Plumbing Depot paint a predominantly negative picture across all scored dimensions. Professionalism is heavily damaged by multiple accounts of poor communication, a technician hanging up on a customer, and one deeply concerning allegation of deliberate sabotage to generate business. Project completion fares similarly poorly, with at least two reviews explicitly stating the work was done incorrectly or caused additional damage, such as scratching a sink and damaging the vanity area. Pricing received one strongly positive mention and one strongly negative mention, resulting in a middling score with moderate confidence. Only two reviews were positive, one praising punctuality and a completed job, and another commending fair pricing and efficiency, but these are far outweighed by the volume and severity of negative accounts.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2018-06-08) alleges that a technician named Jesus deliberately sabotaged their sewage line to generate repeat business. This is an extreme claim and, if accurate, represents criminal conduct. This review significantly suppresses all dimension scores.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only one review is within the past 12 months (2024-02-26). Three of the six reviews are from 2013–2015, making them 9–11 years old. The most recent review is negative and consistent with older negative patterns, but the dataset is largely stale.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 reviews total. Scores carry limited statistical reliability and should be interpreted with caution.
• MIXED PLATFORM CONCERN: Some reviews appear to reference an eCommerce/online retail experience (shipping, online orders) rather than in-person plumbing service. The Justin Cormier review (2013) may relate to a different business context than field plumbing work, which could slightly distort dimension scores.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, and writing style. No suspiciously repetitive or generic praise patterns were identified.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample of only 6 reviews, a dataset that is predominantly over 5 years old, and the presence of an unverified but serious misconduct allegation that materially influences the scores.

The reviews paint a deeply concerning picture of this contractor across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely damaged by two reviews describing the owner as dismissive, hostile, and unwilling to stand behind his work — including an explicit refusal to honor any warranty and a suggestion to 'part ways' when a customer raised a legitimate concern. Project completion suffers significantly because a newly installed pressure regulator failed within six months and the contractor refused a callback, indicating poor follow-through and no warranty support. Experience is called into question by the premature failure of the installed regulator, suggesting either a defective part was used or the installation was substandard. The one positive signal — same-day emergency service at a fair price — is a single older review from 2017 and provides only limited uplift to the pricing dimension.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.
• The single positive review (5-star, 2017) is over 7 years old and contains no specific detail about the work performed, limiting its evidentiary value.
• Two of three reviews are strongly negative and describe behavioral concerns including hostility and refusal to honor completed work — these are serious red flags.
• The 2014 review references alleged violent temperament; while this is a subjective characterization, it aligns directionally with the 2022 review describing dismissive and confrontational behavior.
• Recency concern: The most recent substantive negative review is from 2022. No reviews exist from 2023 or later, making it impossible to assess whether conduct has improved.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 8 years and should be considered very low reliability — the score directionally reflects serious concerns but cannot be statistically trusted without a much larger review sample.