Find Nearby Plumbers In Irving, Texas

This contractor's review set is deeply divided, with two highly detailed 1-star reviews describing serious misconduct — including alleged theft of deposits totaling thousands of dollars, misdiagnosis of plumbing issues, no written contracts, no receipts, and payment routed through a personal Zelle account — which heavily drag down all four dimensions. The three positive reviews (2019–2021) describe professional, timely, and fairly priced service, but they predate the negative reviews by at least one year and cannot offset the severity of the fraud allegations. The most recent reviews (both December 2022) are the most damaging and most relevant under recency weighting, describing a pattern of non-refunded deposits and abandoned work. The single positive 2021 storm-era review does note a scheduling miscommunication but ultimately praises the outcome, providing a small counterbalance. Overall, the weight of credible, specific negative evidence — particularly around project completion and professionalism — results in a low composite score.

• FRAUD ALLEGATION: Two independent reviewers (Dec 2022) allege that Joe accepted large deposits ($1,200–$3,500) for work never performed and then refused to issue refunds, with one reviewer explicitly using the word 'stole.'
• REVIEW SUPPRESSION CONCERN: The Dec 2022 reviewer explicitly states a prior review was removed and suspects systematic removal of negative reviews, which may explain the otherwise high star average. This is a serious platform integrity flag.
• NO WRITTEN CONTRACTS OR RECEIPTS: Multiple negative reviewers note the contractor operates with no paperwork, no signed agreements, and no receipts — a significant consumer protection red flag.
• PAYMENT TO PERSONAL ACCOUNT: Payments were directed to the contractor's girlfriend's Zelle account rather than a business account, which is irregular and increases fraud risk.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Two separate negative reviewers report that Joe diagnosed expensive slab leak/tunnel jobs that turned out to be simple clogs fixed by other plumbers for a fraction of the cost — suggesting either incompetence or deliberate upselling.
• RECENCY WEIGHTING APPLIED: All three positive reviews are from 2019–2021. Both negative reviews are from December 2022. The most recent data paints a significantly worse picture and has been weighted more heavily.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): The three positive reviews are somewhat generic in praise ('professional,' 'friendly,' 'fair price') with limited technical specifics, though they do include some situational detail. This is a minor flag, not conclusive.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review set (6 reviews), but the two detailed 1-star reviews from 2022 are highly credible given their specificity, corroborating details, and fraud allegations — consumers should treat this score as a serious warning signal rather than a balanced average.

Strittmatter exhibits highly polarized performance with severe safety and ethical concerns offsetting some positive technical work. Multiple reviews allege deliberate equipment sabotage, electrical hazards, and aggressive sales tactics, while others praise professionalism and competence. Pricing practices are consistently criticized as exploitative, with one customer charged $5,300 for a failed repair and another reporting aggressive upselling. Project completion is undermined by failed repairs and lack of accountability. The company demonstrates technical capability in some jobs but serious lapses in honesty, safety practices, and customer trust.

• CRITICAL SAFETY CONCERN: First review alleges deliberate equipment sabotage creating electrical hazard endangering children; second technician confirmed missing ground wire and burnout. This is a serious allegation requiring investigation.
• PATTERN OF AGGRESSIVE SALES: Multiple reviews describe high-pressure tactics, unnecessary replacement recommendations, and predictions designed to create urgency.
• PRICING INTEGRITY ISSUES: Repeated complaints of excessive charges ($5,300 repair that failed), refusal to take responsibility, and dismissive manager response to complaints.
• FAILED REPAIRS WITH NO ACCOUNTABILITY: AC repair failed immediately after $5,300 charge; technician blamed prior technician and denied warranty coverage.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2022-2023 (recent); positive reviews are from 2020-2021 (older). Recent pattern suggests deterioration in service quality.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between positive reviews (water heater, pipe repair, main line work) and negative reviews (AC service). Suggests inconsistent technician performance or selective service quality.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization and serious unresolved allegations of safety violations and deliberate misconduct. While technical capability is demonstrated in some projects, the pattern of pricing complaints, failed repairs, and safety concerns in recent reviews (2022-2023) suggests significant systemic issues that outweigh positive historical feedback.

This contractor shows significant and consistent problems across multiple dimensions. Two of four reviews describe serious failures in project completion—work that required callbacks and was not properly diagnosed or fixed the first time. Pricing practices are questionable, with evidence of charging for unnecessary work (toilet pull) and refusing to honor stated warranties or credits. Professionalism is mixed: while two reviews praise politeness and responsiveness, two others describe dishonesty, refusal to warranty work, and confrontational behavior from ownership. The two positive reviews are substantially older (2013, 2018) while the two negative reviews are more recent (2016, 2020), suggesting a pattern of deterioration. The WW Score reflects serious trust and reliability concerns.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two most recent reviews (2016, 2020) are strongly negative, while positive reviews are from 2013 and 2018. This suggests potential service quality decline over time.
• WARRANTY AND POLICY ISSUES: Multiple reviews cite refusal to honor stated 30-day warranty and disputes over company policy regarding toilet pulls. Pattern suggests deliberate upselling through unnecessary work.
• PRICING INTEGRITY: Evidence of charging for work that was not needed (toilet pull in first review) and refusing to credit first trip against second trip despite owner's verbal agreement. Suggests deceptive billing practices.
• OWNER CONDUCT: One review explicitly describes owner engaging in 'cuss fight on the phone' and refusing to honor his own word. This is a serious professionalism and integrity red flag.
• INCOMPLETE DIAGNOSTICS: Two reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion or required callbacks to identify problems missed on first visit (card in toilet, continued clog after initial service).

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), but the consistency of negative patterns across multiple recent reviews and the severity of complaints regarding billing integrity, warranty refusal, and incomplete work suggest genuine and serious concerns about this contractor's reliability and trustworthiness.

The review set is small (5 reviews) and deeply mixed, spanning over a decade, which significantly limits reliability. Professionalism scores are pulled down by a no-show with no callback and a technician who performed a shoddy, tape-based repair on an elderly customer, despite two positive reviews praising punctuality and communication. Pricing is a serious concern — three of four pricing-related reviews describe the company as expensive, non-transparent, or outright predatory, including a $1,000 charge on a 90-year-old with a duct-tape fix and a $321 quote for a basic drain clog. Project completion is similarly troubled, with one abandoned appointment, one botched repair using duct tape on sheetrock and a vent pipe, and only two reviews suggesting work was completed satisfactorily. Experience scores reflect the same pattern: two positive impressions are offset by a technically poor repair that raises serious workmanship concerns.

• RECENCY WARNING: Two of the five reviews are from 2012, making them over 10 years old. These are given reduced weight but still reflect a pattern of pricing and reliability complaints.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: The 2020 review describes a potentially exploitative interaction with a vulnerable elderly customer — duct tape used on a vent pipe and sheetrock, with a $1,000 bill. This is a significant workmanship and ethics red flag.
• PRICING PATTERN: Three separate reviews across different years independently flag pricing as high, non-transparent, or deceptive. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not an isolated complaint.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews total. Scores should be treated as directional indicators only, not definitive assessments.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and date. No signs of coordinated or fabricated reviews.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small review volume (5 reviews), wide date range spanning 11 years, and the absence of a large enough recent sample to confirm whether early negative patterns have been resolved.

This contractor's review set is deeply mixed, with strong positive experiences offset by two highly detailed and credible negative reviews describing no-shows, poor communication, and questionable billing practices. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and scores poorly due to multiple accounts of technicians failing to arrive, not calling ahead, and staff being dismissive or rude. Project completion is similarly damaged by accounts of work being refused or abandoned without resolution. Pricing received a moderate score because one reviewer praised affordability while another described being charged $125 for no service rendered. Experience scores slightly higher as a few reviewers noted work was done correctly, but the sample is too small to draw strong conclusions.

• One review (2020-06-30, 5 stars) appears incoherent and generic with no specific details about the service — likely a fake or bot-generated review and was given minimal weight.
• The negative review from 2018-11-05 alleges that positive reviews were written by employees — this cannot be verified but warrants caution when interpreting the 5-star reviews.
• Two of the five-star reviews (2020-08-09 and 2020-02-26) are over 3 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• Only 6 total reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary only.
• Recency note: The most recent review is from May 2023; the two most detailed negative reviews are from 2022 and 2018, but the patterns they describe (no-shows, poor communication) are consistent with each other, increasing their credibility.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning 5 years, includes at least one suspected fake review, and features two highly detailed negative accounts that significantly drag down the score — treat this result as LOW reliability until a larger and more recent review sample is available.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 4 reviews spanning 2017 to 2021. Professionalism is a serious concern, with two reviews explicitly describing rude, unresponsive, and unprofessional behavior, while two others praised friendliness and honesty. Project completion is similarly troubled — one review describes a complete failure to follow through on post-install support for an $11,000 system, and another describes a technician who prioritized collecting payment over fixing the problem. The two positive reviews, both referencing HVAC work by someone named Martin, suggest competence and fair pricing in that context, but these are older reviews (2018–2019) and do not outweigh the more recent and severe negative experiences. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with inconsistent reliability and significant red flags around accountability.

• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review (2021) is now over 3 years old. All reviews are between 3 and 8 years old, limiting their relevance to current performance.
• SPLIT IDENTITY CONCERN: Two positive reviews specifically name 'Martin' and reference HVAC work via NextDoor referrals, while the two negative reviews describe different contexts (home warranty contractor, apartment complex plumbing). It is possible these reviews reflect different technicians or service contexts under the same business, which would make aggregate scoring misleading.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. Scores are based on very limited data and should be treated with significant caution.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: The 2021 review describes a complete breakdown in post-installation support for a high-value commercial job, which is a serious red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• PAYMENT-FIRST BEHAVIOR: The 2017 review explicitly states the technician became rude and disengaged after receiving payment, suggesting a pattern of poor accountability.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to only 4 reviews, a wide date range spanning 8 years, possible mixed-identity concerns between reviewers, and a stark split between positive and negative experiences that prevents confident generalization.