Find Nearby Plumbers In Keller, Texas

Compassion Roofing exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile. Positive reviews consistently praise Corey's honesty, responsiveness, and technical skill on smaller jobs, with strong marks for professionalism and experience. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews from 2016–2018 documents severe project completion failures on large insurance claims, including 15-month delays, incomplete work requiring multiple callbacks, poor subcontractor management, and alleged financial impropriety (unauthorized check cashing). The company demonstrates competence on straightforward repairs but struggles dramatically with complex, multi-trade projects. Recency matters: most recent reviews (2022–2023) are positive, suggesting possible operational improvements, but the pattern of large-job failures is too substantial to ignore.

• SEVERE POLARIZATION: 14 five-star reviews vs. 10 one-star reviews with minimal middle ground. This suggests either genuine operational inconsistency or potential review manipulation.
• RECENCY BIAS: Negative reviews cluster heavily in 2016–2018 (insurance storm damage era). Recent reviews (2022–2023) are uniformly positive. Unclear if company has reformed or if dissatisfied customers from earlier period have stopped reviewing.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review (2018-05-17) explicitly alleges unauthorized check cashing without homeowner signature or consent. This is a serious red flag not addressed in company responses.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CRISIS: Multiple detailed accounts of 4–15 month delays on large jobs, incomplete work, poor subcontractor oversight, and repeated callbacks. One review documents 11+ outstanding issues after 20k+ paid.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Several reviews report being ignored, unable to reach management, lack of status updates, and handoffs between staff without coordination.
• INSURANCE CLAIM HANDLING: Multiple reviews suggest the company prioritizes insurance-funded roof replacement over honest assessment of actual damage, potentially inflating claims.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Some positive reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('go above and beyond,' 'highly recommend,' 'exceptional') with minimal specific detail. However, many positive reviews do contain specific project details, so confidence in fake review detection is limited.
• SAMPLE COMPOSITION: 28 reviews is adequate, but the extreme polarization and temporal clustering reduce reliability of overall score.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the MODERATE overall confidence reflects adequate mention counts, the extreme polarization (50% five-star, 36% one-star) and temporal clustering of failures suggest the company's true performance is highly context-dependent: likely strong on small, straightforward repairs but unreliable on large, complex insurance-claim projects. Recent positive reviews suggest possible improvement, but insufficient time has passed to confirm sustained change. Prospective customers should specifically inquire about large-project timelines and subcontractor management before engaging.

Posey Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture that has deteriorated significantly over time. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are dominated by complaints about unprofessional office staff, failure to follow through on callbacks, incomplete work, and refusal to take responsibility for damage caused by faulty installations. While older reviews (2012–2017) and a handful of recent ones praise the quality of workmanship and responsiveness, multiple reviewers explicitly note that quality declined after Mr. Posey's retirement, and several skilled plumbers have reportedly left the company. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with repeated accounts of technicians leaving jobs unfinished, missed appointments, and unresolved callbacks. Pricing received mixed signals — one reviewer praised significantly lower pricing versus a competitor, another was charged nearly $300 for 30 minutes of work with the problem unresolved, and one reviewer alleged an attempted overcharge at checkout.

• 9 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating — these are likely fake or low-effort reviews and have been excluded from dimension scoring. They inflate the raw star average without providing any usable evidence.
• Three reviews dated 2023-11-19 appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates of each other, suggesting possible review manipulation or a system error. Only one instance was counted per dimension.
• One review appears to be for a medical office ('new patient,' 'paperwork,' 'tremor') and is almost certainly posted to the wrong business listing. It was excluded from scoring.
• The review marked 'unknown' with a 2.0 rating and the 'unknown' with a 5.0 rating contain no usable text and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• A clear pattern of decline is evident: positive reviews are concentrated in 2012–2017 and a few in 2020–2022, while 2023–2024 reviews are overwhelmingly negative. This recency trend significantly weighs down scores.
• Multiple reviewers independently cite the same structural problems: office staff rudeness, failure to return calls, and incomplete work — suggesting these are systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on 34 reviews with usable content across a multi-year period and carries HIGH overall confidence in its dimensions, but consumers should weight the 2023–2024 reviews most heavily as they reflect the company's current operational state, which appears significantly worse than its historical performance.

The overwhelming majority of reviews for Robles and Sons Plumbing are deeply negative across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple documented no-shows, failure to return calls, and deceptive billing practices described in detail by several reviewers. Pricing is the single worst-performing dimension, with multiple reviewers providing specific dollar figures and receipts demonstrating gross overcharging — including one reviewer who documented $296 in materials billed at $3,570 and another charged $505 after being quoted $255. Project completion is critically low, with multiple reviews describing work that was never finished, problems left unresolved, and at least one case where the city re-tested and found the gas still leaking after Robles completed the job. The few positive reviews (3 out of 16) describe timely, affordable, and quality work, but they are vastly outnumbered and several are older than three years, preventing them from meaningfully offsetting the pattern of serious complaints.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple reviewers with specific receipts and invoices allege that Robles and Sons charged significantly more than quoted or more than materials justified. One reviewer documented materials costing $296 billed at $3,570. Another was charged $505 after a $255 quote. Another was charged $260 for 1 foot of PVC. This is a consistent and documented pattern, not isolated incidents.
• DOUBLE-BILLING ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly alleges the technician photographed completed work to submit a separate claim to the home warranty company while also charging the homeowner directly — a potential fraud concern.
• ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the contractor taking payment or a service fee and then failing to fix the problem, not returning calls, or not showing up at all. This is a recurring theme across multiple years.
• COMPETENCY CONCERNS: At least three reviews describe the contractor being dispatched for work outside their apparent expertise (water softener, sprinkler system, gas leak diagnosis) and either misdiagnosing or failing to diagnose the problem entirely, while still collecting fees.
• RECENCY NOTE: The three positive reviews are dated 2018, 2019, and 2021. All reviews from 2023 and 2024 are 1-star. The trend is clearly worsening over time, and recent performance appears significantly worse than older positive reviews suggest.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK: The three positive reviews are brief and generic but do include some specific details (Manny by name, garbage disposal, sink installation). They are not flagged as definitively fake, but their contrast with the volume and specificity of negative reviews is notable. No suspicious clustering of identical phrasing detected among positives.
• ONE REVIEW (truck driving behavior) does not directly assess plumbing services and was excluded from dimension scoring but retained as a character/professionalism signal.

This WW Score is based on 16 reviews spanning 2017–2024 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a reliable and conservative assessment; the score of 28.4 reflects a consistent, multi-year, multi-reviewer pattern of serious concerns around overcharging, non-completion, and deceptive practices that should be weighted heavily by any prospective customer.

This contractor's reviews paint a largely negative picture across nearly every dimension. Two of the three reviews describe serious failures: one involving a complete no-show with no communication, and another involving a plumber who arrived unprepared, broke a fixture, required the customer to drive him to a store, and then abandoned the job half-finished. The sole positive review mentions a water heater installation and a helpful advisory about a gas meter at no extra cost, which provides limited positive signal on pricing and experience. Professionalism and project completion scores are severely dragged down by the two 1-star reviews, which are detailed and credible. Overall, the evidence strongly suggests unreliable service delivery.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for definitive conclusions.
• Two of three reviews are from 2020–2021, making all data over 3 years old. Recency is poor and current performance may differ.
• The single 5-star review is vague and lacks specific detail about the plumber, date of service, or named individuals, which slightly reduces its credibility relative to the two detailed negative reviews.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the extremely small sample size limits any meaningful pattern analysis.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than 3 years, and should be considered highly preliminary — do not rely on it as a definitive assessment of this contractor's current quality.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only one review contains usable information, mentioning response time (professionalism dimension). The second review contains no text content. With fewer than 3 reviews and only 1 dimension with evidence, a composite score cannot be calculated with any meaningful confidence.

• Only 1 of 2 reviews contains usable text data; second review marked 'unknown'
• Insufficient review volume (n=1 usable) to calculate WW Score reliably
• Single review is from 2021 (3+ years old); recency is a concern
• Review lacks specific details about actual work performed; generic praise only
• No evidence provided for pricing, project completion, or experience dimensions

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data volume and lack of dimensional coverage; at least 3 reviews with substantive detail across multiple dimensions are required.

Both reviews describe severe service failures with no follow-up communication and incomplete work. Review 1 reports a supervisor visit with no subsequent contact or resolution, though a callback to Enoch completed the job same-day. Review 2 describes a technician (Ruben) who photographed the problem and left without fixing it, leaving the customer without water and refusing to return. Professionalism is critically compromised by lack of communication and responsiveness. Project completion is severely impacted by abandoned work and refusal to honor callbacks. No pricing information was mentioned in either review.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews provided. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are extremely old (2017 and 2020). No recent reviews available to assess current service quality.
• SEVERE SERVICE FAILURES: Both reviews describe critical failures including incomplete work, lack of communication, and refusal to return for callbacks. This suggests systemic operational problems.
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: Review 1 mentions 'Enoch' completing the job successfully same-day, but this appears to be a different contractor called after the primary company failed.

This analysis is unreliable due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and extreme age of data (3-7 years old). While both reviews describe serious failures, a WW Score cannot be responsibly calculated. Current contractor performance may differ significantly from 2017-2020 service levels.