Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Worth, Texas

24 Hour Key Plumbing shows a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily penalized dimension: while many positive reviewers praise Bobby's friendliness, responsiveness, and courtesy, a significant cluster of negative reviews documents repeated no-shows, missed appointment windows, poor communication, and in one case alleged unprofessional conduct on-site (alcohol smell). Project completion is similarly compromised — multiple reviewers report incomplete repairs, misdiagnosed problems, and a pattern of becoming unreachable after payment, which substantially drags down what would otherwise be a reasonable completion record. Pricing receives a moderate score because the majority of reviewers who mention cost describe it as fair or reasonable, but two serious complaints — one involving a charge nearly triple the market rate with no prior quote, and another involving a bill $330 above the quoted price — prevent a higher score. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, as most reviewers who comment on workmanship describe Bobby as knowledgeable and skilled, though the misdiagnosed shower leak and incomplete leak repair in separate reviews introduce meaningful doubt.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with most positive reviews concentrated between 2011 and 2017. Only 3 reviews are from 2019 or later, and the two most recent reviews (2022) are split — one positive, one strongly negative. Current performance may differ significantly from historical patterns.
• PATTERN OF CONCERN — NO-SHOW / GHOSTING: At least 5 independent reviews (2016, 2017, 2017, 2018, 2019) describe Bobby becoming unreachable after payment or failing to show up for scheduled appointments. This is a recurring and specific pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PATTERN OF CONCERN — POST-PAYMENT ABANDONMENT: Three reviewers (Amber C. reference in 2019 review, the 2018 faucet review, and the 2019 shower leak review) explicitly describe paying for work and then being unable to reach Bobby for follow-up or warranty callbacks. One reviewer successfully disputed the charge via credit card.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One reviewer was charged $680 against a quoted $350, and another was charged with no prior quote at all and later found the rate to be approximately 3x market rate. These are serious transparency failures, not minor discrepancies.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR MACHINE-TRANSLATED REVIEW: The review dated 2016-07-12 contains unusual phrasing consistent with machine translation (e.g., 'hole in my laundry sink spigot,' 'those would need to be supplanted,' 'holding up 3 days,' 'turned out that evening'). This review has been included but treated with reduced weight.
• STAR RATING POLARIZATION: Reviews cluster heavily at 1-star and 5-star with very few mid-range ratings, which is a common pattern when a contractor has a vocal base of loyal customers alongside a separate group of customers with serious grievances. This does not indicate fake reviews per se but does suggest the experience is highly variable.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews spanning over a decade, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by the age of most positive reviews, a documented recurring pattern of no-shows and post-payment ghosting, and at least one suspected machine-translated review — prospective customers should weight the post-2018 negative reviews heavily when making a hiring decision.

Molberg Plumbing receives strong praise from many customers for responsiveness, friendly technicians, and professional demeanor, which drives a moderate professionalism score. However, two significant negative reviews — one detailing over 2.5 months of unresolved work with poor follow-through, and another citing an abandoned owner callback — meaningfully drag down the project completion score. Pricing is a notable concern: one detailed 1-star review from a 50-year construction veteran explicitly describes what he characterizes as excessive charges ($422 for 45 minutes, plus a $2,800 quote for a $45 DIY fix), and a separate 5-star review acknowledges costs are 'top tier,' limiting confidence in price-friendliness. Experience scores moderately well given multiple reviews praising knowledgeable technicians, but the unresolved multi-month plumbing failure and conflicting camera diagnoses temper that score. Overall, the business shows genuine strengths in responsiveness and customer care but has documented weaknesses in follow-through and pricing transparency.

• Two reviews posted on the same date (2024-04-19) within minutes of each other, both 5-star, both praising 'Jordan' with very brief and generic language — possible coordinated or solicited reviews.
• The 1-star review dated 2022-04-14 is highly detailed and credible, describing a multi-month unresolved issue with specific dates, costs, and technician interactions — this is a serious project completion failure that should be weighted heavily.
• The 1-star review dated 2024-08-19 is also highly credible, written by a self-identified 50-year construction professional with specific dollar amounts and a verifiable DIY comparison — this is a significant pricing red flag.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Great service with a smile!', 'Came right out and fixed my problem'), which limits their evidentiary weight relative to the detailed negative reviews.
• Review recency is mixed: the two most damaging reviews (pricing and project completion failures) are from 2022 and 2024, indicating these are not isolated historical issues.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews with a meaningful mix of detailed positive and negative accounts; the score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the negative reviews are unusually specific and credible and should not be dismissed, while the positive reviews, though numerous, are often brief and a subset may be solicited.

The majority of reviews praise responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous crew behavior, which drives a moderately positive professionalism score. However, a highly detailed and credible 2024 review describes the owner Bill Blankenship becoming verbally abusive, threatening, and using profanity toward a customer who declined a quote — a serious professionalism failure that significantly drags the score down. Pricing is a mixed picture: one review praises fair pricing, while another credibly documents what the reviewer characterizes as price gouging during a declared state of emergency, and a third describes premium charges for low-quality work. Project completion is generally positive with most jobs described as finished and cleaned up, but one review describes belligerent behavior when workmanship issues were raised and the customer ultimately finishing the job themselves, and another describes a job being cut short at the owner's instruction. Experience scores are similarly split — several reviews praise quality workmanship on tiling and plumbing, while one detailed review explicitly describes horrible craftsmanship including bad carpentry, sloppy tile work, and an unwillingness to correct problems.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A significant cluster of reviews (approximately 12–14) have no date, no specific job details, very short generic praise, and near-identical structure (e.g., 'They got the job done and acted professionally. Highly recommended.' / 'Very friendly and professional, with clear recommendations and quick work.' / 'This is a great company to have a relationship with.'). These reviews lack specificity and may not reflect genuine customer experiences. Confidence in the positive signals from these reviews is reduced.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 3 reviews have confirmed dates. The most recent dated review (2024-10-08) is the most detailed negative review and describes threatening and abusive behavior by the owner. The second most recent dated review (2024-01-08) is positive. All undated reviews cannot be weighted for recency.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: The 2024 dated review describes the owner threatening legal action, using profanity ('chicken shit'), and making threatening statements toward a customer who simply declined a quote. This is a significant red flag for customer safety and business conduct, especially given that the owner has the customer's home address.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One detailed review (2020) describes poor finish work quality across multiple trades (painting, carpentry, tile) and an unwillingness by the owner to correct deficiencies, resulting in the customer completing the job themselves. This is a substantive quality concern for remodel work specifically.
• PRICING CONCERN: One review documents a quoted price of $1,500 for a job that competing contractors quoted at $350–$500, during a declared state of emergency. While market conditions during disasters vary, the magnitude of the difference warrants caution.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the dated reviews provide credible signals in both directions, but the large volume of undated, generic, and suspiciously brief 5-star reviews inflates the positive data pool and cannot be fully trusted, while the most recent verified review raises serious concerns about owner conduct that prospective customers should weigh heavily.

TALT Plumbing shows strong professionalism and pricing practices based on multiple positive reviews praising responsiveness, friendliness, and fair costs. However, a severe 1-star review from 2018 describing a major installation error that caused $7,200 in damage and lack of accountability significantly undermines confidence in project completion quality. The company's skill level appears solid in routine work, but the critical failure on a basic faucet repair raises serious concerns about consistency and follow-through. The presence of one catastrophic negative review among four glowing reviews creates substantial tension in the overall assessment.

• CRITICAL: One severe negative review (1-star, 2018) describes major workmanship failure, water damage to interior walls, and lack of accountability. Owner allegedly stated he was 'tired of working with' the customer. Company was reportedly uninsured at time of incident.
• PATTERN CONCERN: Four reviews (2024, 2022, 2020, 2018) are uniformly 5-star with generic praise ('best guys', 'fantastic', 'awesome'). Limited specific technical details in positive reviews. Possible review inflation or selection bias.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most reviews are 2+ years old (2022, 2020, 2018). Only one recent review from 2024. Cannot assess current operational standards with confidence.
• INSURANCE RED FLAG: 2018 review explicitly states company was uninsured during the incident. Current insurance status unknown.

This score should be treated with caution. While positive reviews suggest good customer service and pricing, a single catastrophic failure involving property damage, lack of accountability, and uninsured status creates material doubt about the company's reliability and risk management. The small sample size (5 reviews) and age of most data further limit confidence. Recommend requesting proof of current insurance and references for recent major projects before engaging.

P&P Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and reveals a split picture: many reviewers praise punctuality, politeness, and responsiveness, but serious complaints exist around no-shows, hanging up on customers, leaving messes, and workers loitering. Pricing drew notable criticism in two reviews — one involving a bill that significantly exceeded the quoted range without prior authorization, and another where $500 was charged for work that was never completed — dragging the pricing score down considerably despite a few reviewers finding the rates fair or even lower than expected. Project completion is a significant concern: one reviewer was never served after three weeks of promises, another paid for an unclog that was never performed, and a third experienced repeated callbacks for a toilet that still was not fully fixed. Experience scores moderately, with several reviewers noting quick and skilled repairs, but offset by a general contractor reportedly having to redo some of P&P's work and a toilet left in imperfect condition after multiple visits.

• Several reviews are extremely old (2004–2011) and carry very limited relevance to current business practices; the majority of reviews with usable detail are more than 5 years old.
• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2014-10-31) contains only the word 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2011-05-04) contains only 'It went Great overall.' — too vague to score any dimension and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• The 2007-06-18 review is suspicious: the reviewer gives a 5-star rating while explicitly stating the contractor had to redo work and still had outstanding fixes — this rating-text mismatch may indicate an error or manipulation and was treated with caution.
• Two of the most detailed negative reviews (2022 and 2021) describe serious ethical concerns: unauthorized work billed without consent, refusal to return to complete paid work, and demanding additional payment for incomplete jobs. These are strong red flags for business integrity.
• No reviews are dated within the past 12 months (relative to the most recent review date of 2022-02-17), and the bulk of positive reviews are from 2007–2014, making the positive sentiment potentially outdated.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while the mention counts are sufficient to calculate scores, the review pool spans nearly 20 years with most positive reviews being very old, the two most recent detailed reviews are strongly negative, and at least one review contains a clear rating-text mismatch — consumers should weight the 2021–2022 reviews most heavily when making a hiring decision.

Delta 1 Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile. Professionalism scores are moderate (72.5) due to mixed reports: many reviews praise punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness, but several critical incidents document unprofessional behavior including rudeness to customers, discriminatory language, and poor communication. Pricing is the company's most significant weakness (38.0), with consistent complaints across multiple reviews about extreme markups on parts (PEX fittings charged at $12 vs. $0.50–$4.50 market rate), inflated labor rates ($123.50/hour billed in full-hour increments), and quotes 2–3x higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion is reasonably strong (75.0), with most jobs finished and follow-through honored, though some reviews report incomplete work and disputes over scope. Experience/workmanship is solid (78.0), with skilled technicians and good diagnostic ability frequently mentioned. The company's reputation has deteriorated significantly over time; older reviews (2009–2014) are predominantly positive, while recent reviews (2015–2025) are overwhelmingly negative, suggesting systemic decline or change in business practices.

• SEVERE PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviews document parts markups of 200–2400% above market rate and labor billing practices that appear designed to inflate costs. This pattern is consistent and credible across different reviewers.
• TEMPORAL DECLINE: Review sentiment shows sharp deterioration from 2014 onward. Pre-2014 reviews average ~4.8 stars; post-2014 reviews average ~2.1 stars. This suggests fundamental business practice changes or loss of quality control.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH ALLEGATIONS: At least 3 detailed reviews (2019, 2023, 2023) describe initial quotes that were dramatically undercut by additional charges, scope creep, or refusal to honor original agreements. One review documents a $990 charge for work that was later deemed unnecessary.
• REFUND DISPUTES: Multiple reviews report difficulty obtaining refunds or promised refunds never received (2025, 2019). One customer reported needing to contact multiple business entities to secure a refund.
• DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT: One 2018 review documents discriminatory language toward Mexican nationals during a sales call, which is a serious red flag for business ethics.
• EMERGENCY PRICING EXPLOITATION: Multiple reviews (2023, 2023) document aggressive pricing on emergency calls, with one customer charged $7,000 for work another plumber completed for $3,200.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY BY TECHNICIAN: Reviews frequently praise specific technicians (Tony, Austin, Anthony, Roy) but criticize others (Roy in 2019 slab leak incident). This suggests quality control issues and inconsistent training.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several very short, generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail (e.g., 'Austin did a wonderful job', 'Junior was super helpful!', 'Great workers their!!') appear on the same dates (2024-06-09, 2023-06-10) with suspiciously similar phrasing. However, these are outweighed by detailed negative reviews with specific dollar amounts and incident descriptions, which carry higher credibility.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted cautiously: while the score reflects genuine data from 67 reviews, the company exhibits extreme internal inconsistency (excellent workmanship paired with predatory pricing), a clear temporal decline in quality, and multiple credible allegations of unethical business practices. The score masks a company in apparent decline. Customers should prioritize the consistent pricing complaints and recent negative trajectory over the older positive reviews. The company's professionalism and experience dimensions are undermined by serious conduct issues including discriminatory language and refund disputes.