Find Nearby Plumbers In Irving, Texas

The review set paints a deeply mixed but predominantly negative picture of this contractor. While one 5-star review praised professionalism, status updates, and bonus work at no charge, the remaining reviews describe serious failures across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is heavily dragged down by poor communication, unresponsive management, use of subcontractors who disappeared after errors, and a shocking lack of concern when a child was injured by a shattered shower door. Project completion is the weakest area, with multiple reviews describing unfinished work, repeated failed repairs, scheduling failures, and jobs left in disarray for weeks or months. Experience concerns are significant, with one reviewer noting a recommendation that was not to code, another describing incorrect installations requiring the homeowner to intervene, and a third flagging improperly installed shower components. Pricing receives a moderate score due to one genuinely positive experience with a competitive trenchless sewer quote, offset by complaints about undisclosed charges, billing disputes, and payment leverage used to avoid completing repairs.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• One review (2021-07-30) is over 3 years old and was given reduced weight relative to the four 2024 reviews.
• The single 5-star review (sewer line replacement) is specific and credible, but it describes a different type of job than the renovation/repair work described in the negative reviews — these may reflect different crews or service lines.
• The 2-star review is extremely detailed and describes a pattern of systemic failures including safety hazards, code violations, billing disputes, and subcontractor mismanagement — this review carries significant evidentiary weight.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in tone, length, specificity, and rating, which supports authenticity.
• A child was reportedly injured by a shattered shower door due to improper installation — this is a serious safety flag that materially impacts the experience and project completion scores.
• One reviewer explicitly states a recommendation from this contractor was not to code, resulting in over $2,000 in unnecessary costs — this is a critical competency red flag.

With only 5 reviews and a strong skew toward detailed negative experiences involving safety incidents, code violations, and incomplete work, this WW Score should be treated as a warning signal rather than a definitive rating — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek multiple independent references before hiring.

RC Pros Plumbing has an overwhelmingly negative review profile across all four scored dimensions. Pricing is the most critically damaged dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly describing bait-and-switch coupon tactics, extreme upselling, hidden charges, double billing, and quotes that were 3–10x what competitors ultimately charged for the same work. Project completion is nearly as damaging, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, warranty refusals, no-shows, work left in worse condition than before, and months-long delays without resolution. Professionalism scores marginally higher only because a small cluster of positive reviews (roughly 7 out of 42) describe friendly, on-time technicians — but these are vastly outweighed by accounts of condescending behavior, owner hang-ups, unreturned calls, and management dishonesty. Experience scores slightly above the others due to a handful of reviews praising specific technicians by name, but is undercut by multiple accounts of wrong tools, incorrect diagnoses, incomplete repairs, and work that failed within months.

• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN: At least 10 reviews independently describe the same tactic — a low-cost coupon ($49–$69) used to gain entry, followed by immediate upselling to hydrojetting or camera services costing $1,000+, with the coupon service never actually attempted.
• FRAUDULENT DIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviewers report being quoted $8,000–$18,000 for repairs that competitors subsequently resolved for $200–$400, strongly suggesting systematic false or exaggerated diagnoses.
• DOUBLE BILLING AND UNAUTHORIZED CHARGES: At least two reviews describe being charged amounts different from what was quoted or agreed upon, with one reviewer documenting a $1,150 double-charge caught only because they insisted on an itemized invoice.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor warranties, failing to return calls after payment, and abandoning jobs mid-completion.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE REVIEWS: The 7 positive reviews are notably brief, generic, and lack the specific detail present in negative reviews. Several use near-identical phrasing ('professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'highly recommend') with no job specifics. These may be inflated or inauthentic and have been weighted conservatively.
• OPERATING UNDER MULTIPLE NAMES: At least two reviews explicitly state the company also operates as 'All Masters Plumbing' and 'Rooter Connectionz,' suggesting a pattern of rebranding potentially to escape negative reputation history.
• BBB F-RATING CORROBORATION: Multiple reviewers independently reference an F rating with the Better Business Bureau, corroborating the pattern of complaints seen in this review set.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2019–2024, with the most recent being June 2024. Negative patterns are consistent across the entire date range, indicating no meaningful improvement over time. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2023 to mid-2024) continue to reflect the same bait-and-switch and overcharging complaints.

This WW Score of 18.7 is based on 42 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered highly reliable — the volume, specificity, consistency, and recency of negative reviews paint a clear and credible picture of a contractor with serious, systemic integrity and quality problems.

Herndon Services demonstrates critically poor performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by consistent communication failures, unresponsiveness, missed appointments, and hostile customer interactions. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with nearly every review documenting incomplete work, extended delays (weeks to months), no-shows despite scheduled appointments, and abandoned jobs. Technical experience is undermined by reports of inadequate troubleshooting, damage to customer property, and reliance on external resources (YouTube, Google) rather than professional knowledge. Pricing concerns emerge in multiple reviews regarding upfront payment demands and lack of transparency. The single 5-star review (January 2019) is vastly outweighed by 14 consecutive 1-star reviews spanning 2017–2022, indicating systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF FAILURE: 14 of 15 reviews are 1-star ratings with consistent, specific complaints across multiple years (2017–2022). This is not random variation but evidence of chronic systemic problems.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Every negative review explicitly mentions failure to return calls, answer phones, respond to texts, or follow up. This is the single most repeated complaint (14 mentions).
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews document scheduled appointments with no appearance and no advance notice. This occurs repeatedly across different customers and years.
• INCOMPLETE/DAMAGED WORK: Several reviews document work that made problems worse (water damage, broken filtration systems, nail through vent) rather than fixing them.
• SINGLE POSITIVE REVIEW ANOMALY: The one 5-star review (January 2019) is generic, brief, and lacks detail compared to the highly specific negative reviews. It may represent an outlier or different service context but does not materially offset the overwhelming pattern.
• RECENCY: Most reviews are 3–5 years old (2017–2019), with some more recent (2020–2022). The pattern persists across the entire period, suggesting ongoing issues.
• LEGAL/REGULATORY CONTEXT: First review explicitly references consultation with lawyers regarding criminal fraud charges and class action potential, indicating severity beyond typical service complaints.

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 15 reviews with consistent, specific, and corroborating evidence of systemic failure across professionalism, project completion, and experience. The overwhelming consensus (93% 1-star reviews) with detailed, non-generic complaints spanning multiple years and customer types indicates genuine, chronic operational dysfunction rather than isolated incidents or measurement error.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score because the reviews are for a plumbing supply store (Ferguson's), not a contractor or plumber performing work. The reviews evaluate retail customer service, showroom experience, and parts availability—not job completion, workmanship, or project delivery. Professionalism shows mixed results (helpful staff in 2 reviews, poor customer service in 2 reviews). Pricing is criticized as high in 1 review. Project completion and experience dimensions are not applicable to a retail supply business. The data is fundamentally misaligned with the WW Score framework, which is designed for service contractors.

• CRITICAL: Reviews are for a plumbing supply retailer, not a contractor/plumber. WW Score is designed for service providers who complete projects, not retail establishments.
• Review dates span 2014–2021 (7-year range). Most reviews are older than 12 months, limiting recency relevance.
• Professionalism mentions are split: 2 positive (Tyler's exceptional service, friendly staff) and 2 negative (ignored customers, poor showroom experience). This creates high variance.
• Pricing dimension based on only 2 mentions with conflicting signals (one review notes 'insane' prices, another implies fair value for professional supply store).
• No reviews mention actual plumbing work, project timelines, callbacks, or workmanship quality—core dimensions for contractor scoring.

This WW Score cannot be calculated or trusted because the reviews evaluate a plumbing supply store's retail operations, not a contractor's service delivery. The framework is fundamentally misaligned with the business type being reviewed.

All three reviews are from 2009 (14+ years old) and contain exclusively 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language and no critical details. While reviews explicitly praise punctuality, cleanliness, technical skill (drywall smoothness, diagnostic ability), project completion, and affordability, the extreme age of the data and suspiciously uniform praise pattern severely limit confidence. The sample size of 3 reviews is below the minimum threshold for reliable WW Score calculation. No negative feedback or realistic trade-offs are mentioned across any review.

• CRITICAL: All reviews are from 2009 — over 14 years old. No recent data available to assess current performance or business practices.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: All three reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language and no specifics about pricing, timelines, or any realistic concerns. This uniformity raises questions about review authenticity or selection bias.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for any confidence in scoring; 10+ strongly preferred.
• NO NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: Complete absence of any critical comments, delays, cost overruns, or quality issues is atypical and reduces credibility of the dataset.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and critically outdated data (all from 2009). Any scoring would be based on extremely limited, aged information with suspicious uniformity. Current contractor performance cannot be assessed from this dataset.

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. While both reviews are highly positive and mention all four dimensions, the sample size is too small to produce a statistically meaningful composite score. All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to minimal mention counts (1–2 each).

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Potential fake review pattern detected: Both reviews are 5-star ratings with enthusiastic, generic praise and no specific problem details or criticisms. Review 2 uses excessive punctuation and superlatives ('phenomenal,' 'above and beyond,' 'best in the business') typical of promotional language.
• Review 2 contains suspiciously identical phrasing to common contractor marketing templates ('Do yourself a favor and call him, you will not be disappointed').
• No recent review recency concern: Review 1 is from July 2024 (recent); Review 2 is from September 2023 (within 12 months).

This score cannot be calculated or trusted. The sample size of 2 reviews is insufficient for reliable analysis, and the pattern of identical 5-star ratings with generic praise raises concerns about review authenticity. Collect at least 3–5 additional independent reviews before drawing conclusions about this contractor's performance.