Find Nearby Plumbers In Killeen, Texas

J&L Plumbing shows significant internal inconsistency across reviews spanning 2006–2025. Professionalism scores well (72.5) with many customers praising punctuality, courtesy, and communication, particularly in recent reviews featuring Jared. However, project completion is severely compromised (54.3) by numerous documented failures: no-shows, abandoned jobs, incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, and unresolved issues lasting months. Pricing is moderate (68.0) with some customers reporting fair rates while others cite price gouging and upselling. Experience is solid (76.0) when work is completed, but many reviews reveal inadequate diagnostics, lack of tools, and poor problem-solving. The company appears to have undergone significant changes, with recent Jared-focused reviews (2025, undated) being uniformly excellent, while older reviews (2016–2022) contain severe complaints about the owner and core operations.

• CRITICAL: Potential fake review cluster detected. Six recent reviews (all featuring 'Jared', dated 2025 or undated) are suspiciously uniform in praise, lack specificity about problems solved, and use similar phrasing ('amazing,' 'above and beyond,' 'highly recommend'). These contrast sharply with the mixed historical record and may represent coordinated positive reviews.
• SEVERE INCONSISTENCY: Company exhibits a stark two-tier pattern. Pre-2023 reviews (especially 2016–2022) contain serious allegations: abandoned jobs, false permits, lying to customers, no-shows, poor diagnostics, and refusal to complete work. Post-2024 reviews (especially Jared reviews) are uniformly 5-star with no critical details. This suggests either major operational change or review manipulation.
• MULTIPLE NO-SHOW INCIDENTS: At least 4 reviews explicitly document no-shows, cancellations without notice, or failure to return for scheduled callbacks. This is a critical project completion failure.
• ABANDONED/INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews document jobs left unfinished for weeks or months (shower handle repair 2+ months unresolved, bathroom remodel incomplete, main supply line job abandoned after partial completion).
• DISHONESTY ALLEGATIONS: Three reviews allege fraudulent behavior: false permit claims, lying about hydrostatic tests performed, misdiagnosis to justify upselling (RO system instead of faucet repair, floor excavation instead of simple part replacement).
• HOME WARRANTY PATTERN: Numerous reviews involve home warranty claims. Multiple customers report the company either refusing work, providing inadequate service, or blaming warranty companies. This suggests potential systemic issues with warranty-covered jobs.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: Recent reviews (2025, undated) are overwhelmingly positive and lack critical detail. Older reviews (2014–2022) are more mixed and specific. The shift is dramatic and warrants skepticism.
• REVIEW DATE ANOMALY: Six reviews have no date or are dated 2025-05-26 (future date relative to analysis). This is unusual and may indicate data entry errors or review manipulation.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with CAUTION. While the score reflects genuine mixed performance across dimensions, the data is heavily compromised by a suspected cluster of fake positive reviews (Jared reviews) that artificially inflate professionalism and experience scores. The historical record (2014–2022) reveals serious concerns about project completion, honesty, and follow-through. Recent reviews (2024–2025) show dramatic improvement, but the uniformity and lack of specificity in the newest reviews suggest they may not be reliable. Customers should weight older, detailed reviews more heavily and verify current operational practices independently before engaging this company.

Jeremy receives genuinely positive feedback from satisfied customers who praise his punctuality, friendly demeanor, professional appearance, and willingness to explain work clearly. However, two significant negative reviews meaningfully drag down every dimension: one describes a refusal to perform a smaller scoped repair unless the customer agreed to a $14,500 full replumb, and another describes a $195 camera charge that led to a misdiagnosis, with a second plumber resolving the issue quickly. These complaints are specific, credible, and raise real concerns about upselling practices and diagnostic accuracy. The positive reviews are genuine and detailed but are mostly from 2018–2019, making them over four years old at minimum, which reduces their current reliability. The two negative reviews, while a minority, describe serious enough conduct that they cannot be dismissed.

• RECENCY WARNING: Four of the six reviews are from 2017–2019, making them 5–7 years old. Only two reviews are from 2021–2022. The score may not reflect current service quality.
• UPSELLING CONCERN: The 2022 negative review describes a refusal to perform a targeted repair unless the customer agreed to a full $14,500 replumb. This is a significant red flag for pricing transparency and customer-first service.
• DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY CONCERN: The 2017 negative review describes a $195 camera charge that produced an incorrect diagnosis. A second plumber resolved the issue in 15 minutes, suggesting a possible competence or integrity issue.
• MIXED SIGNAL ON PRICING: Two reviews describe pricing as reasonable or fair, while two other reviews describe experiences consistent with overcharging or unnecessary upselling. Pricing confidence is reduced accordingly.
• No fake review patterns detected. Positive reviews contain specific names, dates, job details, and varied language, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review pool of only 6 reviews, significant recency concerns with most reviews being 5+ years old, and two credible negative reviews describing serious conduct issues that meaningfully offset the positive feedback.

This contractor has a deeply mixed review profile across only 5 reviews spanning 2020–2024. Positive reviews highlight responsive technicians like Tyler and Robert who resolved issues quickly and professionally, while a severe 1-star review describes a critical communication failure that left a client without completed work before a real estate closing deadline — a serious project completion concern. Pricing is contested, with one reviewer calling them 'fairly priced' and another stating they charge 'twice what you would anywhere else,' resulting in a low and uncertain pricing score. The most recent review (2024) is positive, but the small sample size and presence of significant negative experiences prevent any confident assessment of consistent quality.

• Very small sample size (5 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and not representative of overall contractor performance.
• Two reviews are from 2020 and one from 2021, meaning 3 of 5 reviews are over 3 years old. Recency weighting significantly limits reliability.
• The 2020 negative review describes a serious project abandonment/communication failure involving a real estate closing deadline — this is a high-severity incident that weighs heavily on project completion scoring.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific names, details, and varied sentiment, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews with significant recency gaps and conflicting experiences; it should be considered a very low-confidence preliminary signal and not a reliable basis for hiring decisions without seeking additional references or more recent reviews.

The review set is small (4 reviews) and contains a significant negative experience that meaningfully drags down all dimensions. The 1-star review describes a plumber who failed to locate a leak, charged $200 for minimal work, and critically left the water meter on causing flooding — a serious lapse in both professionalism and project completion. The three positive reviews praise communication, speed, knowledge, and fair pricing, with one reviewer noting the final invoice came in below the original quote. However, the weight of the negative review cannot be dismissed given the small sample size, and one of the positive reviews is from 2022, reducing its recency weight. Overall, the contractor shows potential but the documented failure case is serious enough to warrant caution.

• Very small sample size of only 4 reviews — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and not representative of consistent performance.
• The 1-star review (December 2023, most recent) describes a serious service failure: failure to diagnose the leak, a $200 charge for no substantive work, and leaving the water meter on causing property flooding. This is a significant red flag.
• One positive review is from June 2022, which is over 12 months old and carries reduced recency weight.
• The three positive reviews are somewhat generic in praise (e.g., 'great quality,' 'knowledgeable,' 'highly recommend') with limited specific detail, though they are not identical in phrasing and do not strongly suggest fabrication.
• With only 4 reviews total, no statistically reliable pattern can be established. Score confidence is LOW across all dimensions.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews including one serious recent complaint, making it LOW reliability — do not use this score as a definitive assessment without gathering significantly more customer feedback.

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension across these three reviews and tells a mixed story: one reviewer praised quick responsiveness to a burst pipe (though a competitor arrived faster), one praised Aaron Sanders and his team as professional and quality-focused, and one review — a serious 1-star account — describes an employee driving a company vehicle without a license and behaving dishonestly after a collision, which significantly drags the professionalism score down. Project completion is partially supported by the attic insulation review, which describes a completed job with measurable results, but the burst pipe review is ambiguous about whether the job was ultimately completed by this contractor. Pricing receives a modest positive signal from the budget-conscious attic insulation review, but only one review mentions it, making this a low-confidence data point. Experience is similarly supported by only one review, which describes a quality outcome with an 18-degree temperature reduction, suggesting real technical competence in insulation work.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only one review is from the past 12 months (January 2024). One review is from 2021 and one from 2018. The older reviews may not reflect current business practices or quality.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT FLAG: The 2021 review alleges an employee was operating a company vehicle without a valid driver's license and behaved dishonestly following a parking lot collision. This is a significant liability and integrity concern that cannot be dismissed, even though it is not a direct service review.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. Per scoring rules, this is at the minimum threshold for calculation. All dimension scores carry very low confidence and should be interpreted with caution.
• SCOPE INCONSISTENCY: The reviews appear to reference different types of work — plumbing (burst pipe) and insulation/home improvement. It is unclear if this is the same contractor offering multiple services or if reviews have been mixed. This reduces reliability of aggregated scoring.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning six years, with a serious conduct allegation in the dataset and significant recency gaps — it should be treated as highly preliminary and not relied upon without seeking additional, more recent customer references.

This contractor profile is deeply bifurcated between two distinct operating eras and possibly two distinct business entities: a large cluster of recent 5-star reviews (2025, primarily for Eric's Plumbing / Lake LBJ Plumbing) and a substantial body of older 1-star reviews (2011–2024, primarily for Country Boys Plumbing). The recent reviews consistently praise punctuality, friendliness, communication, and thorough workmanship. However, the older reviews — many of which are detailed and credible — document serious failures including repeated no-shows, abandoned jobs, dishonest diagnoses, faulty repairs, unprofessional conduct, and a pattern of collecting home warranty service fees without completing work. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with numerous reviews describing jobs left unfinished for weeks or months. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by documented incidents of rudeness, condescension, lying to customers, and hanging up on clients.

• DUAL ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to cover two related but potentially distinct business identities — 'Eric's Plumbing' (also referenced as 'Lake LBJ Plumbing') and 'Country Boys Plumbing.' These may be the same ownership under different names or a rebranding. Scores reflect the combined record but consumers should verify which entity they are hiring.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The 2025 reviews (approximately 37 reviews) are overwhelmingly 5-star with no negative feedback, while reviews from 2011–2024 contain a high volume of detailed 1-star complaints. The recent positive trend may reflect genuine improvement or a rebranding that obscures prior history.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: Approximately 8 reviews in the dataset contain no review text at all — only a star rating of 5.0. These blank reviews provide no usable data and inflate the apparent star count without substantive evidence. They have been excluded from dimension scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2024-04-09 and 2024-04-23 appear to be near-identical duplicates submitted by the same reviewer on different dates. Similarly, two reviews dated 2016-10-25 are word-for-word identical. These duplicates suggest possible review manipulation.
• HOME WARRANTY PATTERN: A large proportion of negative reviews involve jobs dispatched through home warranty companies (American Home Shield, HWA, Old Republic, First American). The pattern of collecting the service fee and failing to complete or properly diagnose work is consistent across multiple independent reviewers spanning 2012–2024, lending high credibility to these complaints.
• ABANDONED WORK DOCUMENTED: Multiple reviewers explicitly describe jobs left incomplete for weeks or months, technicians who did not return after initial visits, and work that failed shortly after completion — including at least one case where a faulty repair caused additional property damage (flooded garage, buckled ceiling).
• PRICING CONCERNS: Several reviewers allege inflated or fabricated code-upgrade charges used to extract additional payment beyond warranty coverage, with at least two reviewers reporting that a second plumber completed the same work without those charges.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but consumers should treat it with caution: the score reflects a deeply mixed record across two apparent business identities, and the strongly positive recent reviews have not yet been tested against the long-term follow-through failures documented extensively in older reviews.