Find Nearby Plumbers In Garland, Texas

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The reviews present contradictory signals: one praises punctuality and diagnostic ability, while the other reports a critical installation error (cartridge installed backwards) and failure to restore water service to a sprinkler system during summer. No pricing information was mentioned in either review.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated
• Extreme rating divergence (1-star vs 5-star) suggests inconsistent service quality or potentially different service types
• Critical service failure documented in 1-star review: incorrect cartridge installation and forgotten water restoration
• All reviews are older than 12 months (Feb 2023 and Jan 2022) — recency is poor
• Second review lacks specificity and detail despite 5-star rating — generic praise pattern

This score cannot be trusted due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum 3 required) and conflicting evidence of both competent and negligent work; additional recent reviews are needed before making any contractor decision.

This single review is a detailed, highly negative account describing serious misconduct by Plumbing SOS and the plumber dispatched. The reviewer alleges the plumber refused to properly assess the job before quoting an inflated price of $650 (versus a competitor's $185), collected a $75 service fee without performing work, and was later discovered to be an unlicensed apprentice rather than a master plumber. The invoice allegedly violated Texas law by omitting required license and insurance certificate numbers. The reviewer also clarifies that Plumbing SOS is not a local independent contractor but a dispatch message center, which contradicts how the business was presented. All four dimensions are severely impacted: professionalism is undermined by deceptive business practices, pricing is flagged as exploitative, project completion failed entirely, and experience is called into question by the plumber's unlicensed status.

• SERIOUS LEGAL/LICENSING CONCERN: Reviewer alleges the dispatched plumber was an unlicensed apprentice, not a master plumber, in potential violation of Texas state law.
• INVOICE COMPLIANCE VIOLATION ALLEGED: Reviewer states the invoice lacked a master plumber license number and certificate of insurance, which may violate Texas plumbing regulations.
• DECEPTIVE BUSINESS REPRESENTATION: The company was allegedly presented as a local independent contractor but is actually a dispatch message center with no direct employee relationship to the plumber sent.
• PRICE GOUGING CONCERN: A quote of $650 was given without inspecting the job; a competing plumber completed the same work for $185.
• ONLY 1 REVIEW ANALYZED: WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews. All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be used as definitive assessments.
• NO FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: This review appears genuine — it is highly detailed, includes specific names, dates, dollar amounts, legal references, and a documented follow-up revision.

This score is based on a single detailed review and cannot be considered statistically reliable; however, the severity and specificity of the allegations — including potential licensing fraud and invoice law violations — make this review a serious red flag that warrants significant caution.

This single review documents severe professionalism failures (three no-shows without communication) that directly prevented project completion and caused customer hardship. While the reviewer acknowledges the work quality is good when performed, the repeated failure to show up or communicate represents critical breakdowns in reliability and responsiveness. Pricing was noted as expensive but acceptable given work quality. However, with only one review and no recent data (from 2015), a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient data for reliable scoring (minimum 3 reviews required)
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review is from January 2015 (9+ years old) — does not reflect current business practices
• SEVERE PROFESSIONALISM FAILURES: Three documented no-shows without communication is a major red flag for reliability
• Cannot calculate composite WW Score with fewer than 3 reviews

This analysis is unreliable due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and extreme age of data (2015). No WW Score can be responsibly calculated. Any assessment based on this single review should be treated with extreme caution and supplemented with current customer feedback.

Only a single review was available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer indicates Brian completed work on a tankless water heater and answered questions, suggesting adequate professionalism and some technical knowledge. Project completion is implied but not described in detail. Pricing was not mentioned at all. Scores have been kept conservative given the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• No pricing or value information mentioned in any review.
• Single review provides insufficient basis for confident scoring across any dimension — all scores should be treated as preliminary estimates only.

This score is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance — significantly more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

This single review describes a positive experience across multiple jobs, including rerouting plumbing from PVC to PEX and resolving a long-standing hot water leak issue. The reviewer highlights a fair and appreciated quote, prompt responsiveness, and successful outcomes on both their own property and a family member's home. Scores are kept conservative across all dimensions due to the extremely limited sample size of one review. While the review is detailed and specific enough to avoid fake review flags, one data point is insufficient to draw reliable conclusions about consistent performance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and should be treated with very low confidence.
• Review is from February 2023 — over 12 months old at time of analysis; no recent reviews available to assess current performance trends.

This score is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality or consistency.

This single review from 2016 provides explicit praise for professionalism (prompt, accommodating), pricing (honest, fair fees), and experience (excellent workmanship). However, with only one review and no mention of project completion specifics, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated. The review is detailed and specific rather than generic, but the sample size is far too small to establish confidence in any overall assessment.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from 2016 (8+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• Project completion dimension has no explicit mention in the review.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A single review, even if positive and detailed, cannot support a trustworthy overall score. At least 3 recent reviews are needed.