Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Worth, Texas

This company shows strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for friendliness, knowledge, and communication. However, the WW Score is significantly dragged down by serious project completion failures and pricing concerns. Multiple recent reviews (2024-2025) document incomplete repairs requiring multiple callbacks, misdiagnoses costing customers hundreds of dollars, and unresponsive management. Older reviews (2013-2018) reveal a pattern of overcharging and poor follow-up. While individual technicians like Grover and Kenneth receive high marks, systemic issues with job completion and accountability undermine overall trustworthiness.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews from 2025-06-02 through 2025-06-07 show suspicious clustering with nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'friendly,' 'knowledgeable,' 'explained everything'). Multiple reviews mention Grover by name with generic praise and minimal specifics. This cluster of 16 five-star reviews in 6 days with repetitive language suggests potential review manipulation.
• CRITICAL PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Two detailed 1-star reviews from 2024-2025 document severe failures—one involving 8 days without AC with a newborn, multiple misdiagnoses, and water damage; another involving repeated misdiagnoses ($450 + $850 in unnecessary repairs) and unresponsive management despite 6+ callback requests.
• HISTORICAL PATTERN OF PROBLEMS: Reviews from 2013-2018 document consistent issues with overcharging, poor follow-up, no-shows, and unresponsive management. This suggests systemic rather than isolated problems.
• MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY GAP: Multiple reviews explicitly state managers are unavailable or unresponsive when customers request escalation.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Documented cases of significant overcharging ($450 defrost panel later diagnosed as unnecessary; $80/lb freon vs. competitor's $20/lb; $1,300 in repairs later fixed for $150 by another company).

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews show inflated ratings with suspicious clustering patterns, the underlying data reveals genuine systemic failures in project completion and management accountability documented across multiple years and detailed customer accounts. The company demonstrates strong individual technician performance but poor organizational follow-through and pricing practices.

Kenny's Plumbing shows strong technical competence and generally reliable project completion, with many customers praising workmanship and responsiveness. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing and ethical concerns documented in multiple detailed complaints spanning 2015–2021, including allegations of time-billing fraud, undisclosed charging practices, and hostile owner behavior. While recent reviews (2024) and older positive reviews (2004–2014) suggest capable work, the pattern of billing disputes and customer service failures during the 2015–2021 period creates substantial trust issues. The WW Score reflects this polarization: strong execution scores offset by moderate pricing confidence and unresolved professionalism concerns.

• CRITICAL: Multiple detailed allegations of billing fraud and deceptive practices. Review dated 2021-05-04 documents systematic overcharging (charged for 2 hours labor when technician was on-site ~20 minutes), refusal to provide itemized receipts, non-transparent charging policy, and owner Kenny's hostile response (yelling, refusing refund, threatening legal action). Review dated 2016-03-14 alleges GPS time-stamp fraud with 4 invoices showing 6+ hour discrepancies, requiring attorney intervention. Review dated 2015-05-29 reports $200 overcharge beyond quoted price with vague justification.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2015–2021 period (5 one-star reviews). Only 1 review from 2024 (positive but generic). Majority of positive reviews are from 2004–2014 (older than 10 years). This suggests either business practices changed negatively mid-period, or recent reviews are sparse and may not reflect current operations.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: 8 reviews contain only 'unknown' or '.' as text with 5.0 ratings (2015-03-26, 2015-03-19, 2015-06-11, 2015-07-21, 2016-02-10, 2017-01-28). These provide zero substantive data and appear potentially fabricated or placeholder entries. Reduces confidence in overall positive rating distribution.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews document unprofessional behavior during work (2017-07-14: constant swearing and complaints; 2016-12-05: scheduling cancellation with poor communication and dismissive attitude). Contradicts claims of professionalism in other reviews.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY FAILURE: Review 2021-05-04 explicitly documents that customers were not informed upfront of actual billing methodology (charging from office departure to return, not actual on-site time). This is a material disclosure failure.
• OWNER ACCOUNTABILITY GAP: Multiple reviews (2021-05-04, 2016-12-05) document difficulty reaching owner Kenny for resolution. One customer reports weeks of unanswered callback requests.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 72.8 reflects genuine strengths in technical execution and project completion, it masks a serious bifurcation in the data: strong positive reviews from 2004–2014 and one recent 2024 review contrast sharply with detailed, credible allegations of systematic billing fraud, deceptive practices, and hostile customer service from 2015–2021. The presence of 8 suspicious placeholder reviews further reduces confidence. Potential customers should heavily weight the detailed negative reviews (especially 2021-05-04 and 2016-03-14) as they document specific, verifiable misconduct (billing discrepancies, refusal to provide receipts, attorney involvement) rather than relying on the aggregate score. The company's current operational practices and owner behavior remain unclear due to sparse recent data.

Same Day Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise based on multiple detailed accounts of punctuality, courteous communication, and skilled problem-solving. However, the score is significantly dragged down by a severe project completion failure documented in the April 2023 review, where a $400 faucet repair was not completed and the company failed to honor multiple callback commitments over several days. Pricing feedback is mixed, with most reviews praising value but one noting costs higher than expected. The presence of multiple undated 5-star reviews with generic phrasing raises data quality concerns.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Six reviews lack dates and contain suspiciously similar generic phrasing ('professional,' 'efficient,' 'knowledgeable,' 'satisfied'). These appear to be templated or fabricated reviews designed to inflate ratings.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURE: The April 2023 review documents a catastrophic project completion failure—incomplete work, non-responsive communication, and multiple broken promises to return. This is a major red flag for reliability.
• RECENCY BIAS: Only 2 reviews have verifiable dates (one from 2024, one from 2020). The majority of positive reviews are undated, making temporal assessment impossible.
• CONFLICTING DATA: The undated positive reviews contradict the documented April 2023 failure, suggesting either inconsistent service quality or review manipulation.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by credible evidence, the prevalence of undated generic reviews and the documented severe project completion failure create significant uncertainty about true service quality and trustworthiness.

North Hills Plumbing has a strongly split review profile. The majority of positive reviews praise courteous, communicative, and knowledgeable technicians — particularly for slab leak work — and several reviewers note timely arrivals and clean job sites. However, the most recent review (2024) is a severe and detailed account of gross negligence: a plumbing ball left in a sewage line, jackhammering through a foundation footer, cutting rebar, leaving a rag stuffed in a hole instead of completing the repair, and an operations manager who allegedly threatened legal action for leaving a negative review. This single review carries significant weight due to its recency, specificity, and corroboration by multiple third-party professionals. Pricing was mentioned positively in a small number of reviews, suggesting reasonable value when work is done correctly. Project completion scores are dragged down substantially by the 2024 failure and a 2013 no-show, offsetting the otherwise positive completion feedback from older reviews.

• SEVERE RECENT INCIDENT (2024): One reviewer provides an extensively detailed account of foundation damage caused by the company, including jackhammering through a footer, cutting rebar, and leaving a rag in place of a completed repair. This was allegedly confirmed by multiple independent contractors and a structural engineer. This is the most recent review and carries the highest recency weight.
• ALLEGED INTIMIDATION: The 2024 reviewer claims the operations manager (Vance Tim) threatened to sue them for leaving a negative review. If true, this is a serious ethical and reputational concern that warrants caution.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2016–2022, with only one review from the past 12 months (2024), which is strongly negative. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT (2013): One reviewer reports the company never arrived and failed to resolve scheduling or communication issues, indicating this is not an isolated pattern of service failure.
• RECKLESS DRIVING REPORT (2019): One reviewer reported dangerous driving by a company van employee on a highway, including failure to yield and excessive speeding. While not directly related to plumbing quality, it reflects on company culture and employee conduct.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW CLUSTERING: Several 5-star reviews from 2018–2020 use similar language around slab leaks and courteous crews. While not conclusively fake, the clustering of similar job types and praise language warrants mild caution. No score reduction applied but noted for transparency.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while the volume of reviews provides moderate statistical grounding, the most recent review is both highly specific and deeply damaging, and the significant age gap between most positive reviews and current operations means the score may not accurately reflect the contractor's present-day service quality.

Mr. Young's Plumbing receives strong praise for professionalism and responsiveness across the majority of reviews, with multiple customers highlighting courteous staff, timely arrivals, and good communication. Pricing is mentioned positively in a small number of reviews, including one notable instance where no charge was applied for a completed repair. However, two significant negative reviews — both from 2018 — describe serious failures in project completion and owner accountability, including a technician leaving without confirming a fix, no paperwork left behind, and a pattern of no-shows for home warranty customers. These negative reviews meaningfully drag down the project completion score. The most recent reviews (2020–2022) are more positive, suggesting possible improvement over time, but the older negative reviews cannot be ignored given their severity.

• Two 1-star reviews from 2018 describe serious issues: incomplete work, technician leaving without confirming repair success, no paperwork, and owner dismissiveness when confronted — these are significant red flags for project completion and professionalism.
• One 2018 review alleges a pattern of no-shows for home warranty customers and failure to return calls, suggesting a possible systemic issue at that time.
• Most positive reviews lack granular detail (e.g., 'great,' 'fantastic,' 'awesome') which slightly reduces confidence in their specificity, though several do include job-specific details that add credibility.
• Review dates span 2015–2022. The two most negative reviews are from 2018, and all reviews from 2020 onward are positive, suggesting a possible improvement in service quality — but the sample size is too small to confirm this trend with high confidence.
• No reviews are from the past 12 months relative to a 2024–2025 evaluation window, meaning all data is at least 2–3 years old. Current performance cannot be confirmed.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability: the positive trend in recent years is encouraging, but the small total review count, the age of all reviews, and two detailed negative reviews describing serious service failures introduce meaningful uncertainty into the final score.

All three reviews speak positively about customer service and responsiveness, with same-day service mentioned in two separate reviews spanning different years. Pricing is a notable strength — one reviewer explicitly cited a competitor quoting $4,000–$5,000 for a job Cliff resolved for $350, suggesting strong value and honesty. Project completion is supported by all three reviews describing issues that were diagnosed and resolved successfully. Experience is backed by two reviews referencing accurate diagnosis and skilled repair work, though the sample size is very small. Overall the picture is positive, but the extremely low review count limits reliability significantly.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score cannot be considered reliable with this sample size.
• Review dates span from 2011 to 2022 — the most recent review is from July 2022, which is over 2 years old. No recent reviews are present to confirm current service quality.
• One review is from 2011, over a decade ago, and was given reduced weight in scoring due to age.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language. While no identical phrasing was detected, the small sample and absence of any critical feedback warrants caution.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present across any review — this may reflect genuine quality or may simply reflect an incomplete review profile.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning over a decade, making it LOW reliability — the score should be treated as a preliminary positive signal only, not a confident assessment of current service quality.