Find Nearby Plumbers In Haltom City, Texas

Jonathan receives generally positive marks for responsiveness and professionalism, with three of four reviewers praising his promptness, politeness, and technical capability. However, a significant negative review raises serious concerns: a customer reported the same issue recurring within 9 days of the original repair, an alleged unauthorized overcharge of $7 to their credit card, and an attempt to charge an additional $350 for a follow-up inspection rather than honoring the original work. This single but detailed negative review meaningfully drags down the pricing and project completion scores, as it describes both a failed repair and a lack of accountability. With only 4 reviews total — two of which are from 2020 and one from 2021 — the dataset is too small to draw firm conclusions, and all scores should be treated with caution.

• Very small review sample (only 4 reviews total) — WW Score has low statistical reliability.
• All reviews are from 2020–2021; no reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current service quality is unknown.
• One detailed 1-star review alleges a recurring plumbing failure within 9 days of repair, an unauthorized credit card charge of $7, and an attempt to charge an additional $350 for a follow-up rather than honoring the original job. This is a significant red flag for both project completion and pricing integrity.
• The negative review is specific and credible — it includes dates, dollar amounts, and quoted text messages — and should be weighted seriously despite being outnumbered by positive reviews.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to the very small review sample (4 reviews), the age of all available reviews (2020–2021 only), and the presence of a credible, detailed negative review that raises concerns about workmanship follow-through and billing practices.

Texas Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance pattern with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. While technical skill and experience are consistently praised (78/100), the company struggles significantly with professionalism (52/100) and project completion (48/100). Critical failures include multiple no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication from ownership, and incomplete work requiring customer callbacks. Pricing concerns (54/100) center on lack of transparency, overcharging, and vague quotes. Recent reviews (2021-2024) show more negative patterns than older reviews, suggesting potential service deterioration.

• SEVERE RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2021-2024 (8 one-star reviews), while positive reviews are predominantly from 2016-2020. This suggests significant service quality decline in recent years.
• OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT ISSUE: Multiple reviews specifically cite owner 'Nathan' or 'Jerry Brown' for poor communication, unprofessional behavior, dismissiveness, and lack of follow-up on serious issues (gas leaks, incomplete work). This is a systemic leadership problem.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention no-shows, missed appointments, or broken promises to arrive. This is a recurring operational failure.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews document work that required customer callbacks, additional visits, or hiring competitors to fix problems (gas leak, clogged drain, faucet repair). Project completion rate is concerning.
• GENDER BIAS ALLEGATION: One detailed review from 2021 alleges the owner treats female customers poorly (ignoring calls about gas leaks, being demeaning and dismissive). This is a serious professional conduct issue.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Several reviews cite vague quoting, surprise charges, and lack of upfront cost clarity. One customer paid $712 for work they identified themselves.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LOW: The positive reviews contain specific details (names, dates, problem types, timeframes) and the negative reviews are equally detailed and credible. No obvious fake review patterns detected, though the polarization is extreme.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted cautiously: the company shows genuine technical competence but severe operational and management failures, particularly in recent years. The extreme polarization (13 one-star, 13 five-star) and recency bias toward negative reviews suggest current service quality is significantly lower than historical reputation. Customers should expect inconsistent service with high risk of no-shows, poor communication, and incomplete work, despite potential technical competence when work is actually completed.

This contractor's review set reveals a deeply polarized customer base: a cluster of positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for punctuality, communication, and professionalism, offset by a large volume of serious negative reviews describing price gouging, incomplete work, no-shows, unlicensed technicians, and refusal to honor warranties or return for callbacks. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing charges that were multiples of competitor quotes, misleading coupons, and charges for work that failed to resolve the problem. Project completion is severely undermined by repeated accounts of jobs left unfinished, problems recurring within days, and technicians who could not complete basic tasks. Experience scores are dragged down by credible accounts of unlicensed work, thousands of dollars in property damage, and technicians who lacked basic knowledge. The positive reviews, while genuine in some cases, are insufficient to offset the volume and severity of the negative experiences documented across multiple years.

• 18 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• Several positive reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'David was great! Real Pros', 'He was awesome! Straight forward and knows what he's talking about!') with no specifics, which reduces their evidentiary weight.
• A disproportionate number of 5-star blank reviews (no text) may indicate rating inflation or solicited ratings without genuine feedback.
• Multiple credible negative reviews describe a consistent pattern: high initial charges, failure to resolve the problem, refusal to return without additional full payment, and no warranty honored — suggesting a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• One review explicitly states an unlicensed technician caused thousands of dollars in damage and that the Texas State Board of Plumbing Examiners confirmed the violation — this is a serious legal and safety flag.
• Review dates span from 2016 to 2025. Negative patterns appear consistently across all years, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time. However, some positive reviews from 2024–2025 suggest individual technicians (Pascual, Dillon, Brett) may perform well.
• The review referencing racial slur allegations and the owner's public response disputing customer accounts suggests a pattern of adversarial customer relations at the management level.
• Pricing complaints are the most consistent signal across the entire review set, appearing in reviews from 2016 through 2025 without interruption.

This WW Score of 42.1 is based on a large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be treated as a reliable signal of significant and systemic performance problems — particularly in pricing transparency, project completion, and warranty follow-through.

The reviews for Pottsy Plumbing paint a predominantly negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is the most consistently criticized area, with three of four reviewers explicitly describing rude, dismissive, or unreliable behavior, while only one review praised the contractor as professional and responsive. Pricing is a serious concern, with two reviewers independently calling the rates excessive or a rip-off, including one detailed account of a $595 charge for roughly 1.5 hours of work. Project completion is mixed — the work was generally described as technically effective when completed, but one reviewer experienced significant scheduling failures and follow-through issues. Experience scores modestly higher, as the one positive review praised knowledgeability and the negative reviews focused more on conduct and pricing than on workmanship quality.

• Three of four reviews are older than 10 years (2011, 2012, 2015), and the most recent review is from 2019. All data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current contractor quality or behavior.
• The single 5-star review (2015) uses somewhat generic praise language ('outstanding job,' 'very knowledgeable and professional') with limited specific detail, though it does mention specific services performed, reducing but not eliminating fake review concern.
• Small sample size of only 4 reviews severely limits reliability. Scores should be treated with caution.
• No reviews fall within the past 12 months, meaning recency weighting cannot favor any review. The score reflects a historical snapshot only.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all more than 5 years old, and should be considered a low-reliability historical snapshot — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek more current references before hiring.

Both reviews are scathing 1-star accounts describing severe failures across every dimension. Professionalism is rated near zero due to explicit reports of crew members sleeping and drinking on the job, unauthorized restroom use, breaking personal property, ignoring calls, and showing up unannounced. Project completion is similarly catastrophic — one reviewer reports a job that took a full year instead of three months and was never finished, with missing tile, peeling paint, and a missing light fixture. Pricing concerns are severe, with one reviewer alleging unexplained charges and financial scamming totaling over $10,000, and the other describing irreplaceable property damage including a ruined washer, dryer, and central AC unit. Workmanship quality is described as inept, including a botched hexagonal tile installation that ran into hardwood flooring and had to be abandoned mid-pattern.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 1-star with highly specific, detailed negative accounts — no fake review patterns detected; language and incidents are distinct between reviews.
• One review (2021-12-10) is older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date; however, both describe consistent patterns of misconduct.
• Allegations of drug use (cocaine) and substance abuse on the job site are present in one review — this is a serious safety and legal flag.
• Allegations of unauthorized financial charges and potential fraud are present — prospective customers should exercise extreme caution.
• Contractor allegedly retained a key to the property and used it without proper notice, raising security and boundary violation concerns.

With only 2 reviews available, the WW Score cannot be formally calculated, but the available evidence is uniformly and severely negative across all four dimensions, and should be treated as a serious warning signal despite the limited sample size.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews are available, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a trustworthy composite score. Both reviews are positive and mention professionalism (prompt response, on-time arrival, professional demeanor) and project completion (work completed, callbacks honored). However, pricing is not addressed in either review, and experience/workmanship is mentioned only once. The reviews are also significantly dated (2013 and 2020), with no recent feedback from the past 12 months.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per protocol
• No recent reviews — most recent is from 2020, oldest from 2013; no data from past 12 months
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions — no evidence of fair pricing or value assessment
• Both reviews are 5-star with generic positive language; limited specificity on technical quality or problem-solving

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews). Any score derived from only 2 reviews would be statistically unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.