Find Nearby Plumbers In Lancaster, Texas

R&S Mechanical has a deeply mixed review profile spanning nearly two decades. Positive reviews consistently praise professionalism, punctuality, reasonable pricing, and quality workmanship — particularly from long-term repeat customers. However, several strongly negative reviews significantly drag down all dimensions: one customer experienced rude technicians, a failed callback, and a warranty dispute that ended with the owner yelling and hanging up; another reported technicians damaging an AC unit; and a third was charged $120 for a five-minute visit with no resolution and rude follow-up phone behavior. The three near-identical 1-star reviews from June 2021 (same reviewer, same content, posted across consecutive dates) are flagged as a duplicate review campaign, but the underlying complaint is substantive and corroborated by other negative reviews. Project completion is particularly concerning given the unresolved p-trap failure and the refusal to honor warranty work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Three reviews dated 2021-06-25 and 2021-06-26 are nearly word-for-word identical, submitted by what appears to be the same reviewer. These have been treated as a single unique complaint for scoring purposes to avoid over-penalizing, but the pattern suggests deliberate multi-posting.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2006–2014, with only 2 positive reviews from 2021–2024. The most recent negative review (2021) and the most recent positive reviews (2024) are both present, but the overall positive base is heavily aged.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL: One reviewer explicitly describes R&S refusing to honor warranty work on a p-trap failure they installed, with the owner denying responsibility and hanging up on the customer — a serious project completion and professionalism red flag.
• WORKMANSHIP DAMAGE CLAIM: One reviewer (2018) alleges that technicians caused a $7,000 AC unit to stop working after visiting the property, which was never addressed in any visible response.
• BILLING PRACTICES: Multiple reviewers and the negative 2021 review highlight outdated, insecure, and inconvenient billing methods with no online payment option, which contributed to a customer dispute.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence, the review set spans 18 years with significant recency gaps, contains a confirmed duplicate review submission, and includes several serious unresolved complaints that meaningfully offset the positive long-term customer base.

This contractor exhibits a deeply polarized review pattern with extreme contradictions that prevent reliable scoring. Four reviews (50%) describe serious fraud, incomplete work, permit violations, and non-refunded deposits, while four reviews (50%) praise professionalism and expertise. The negative reviews contain specific documentation of deception (fake permit stories, incomplete piping work, license delinquency), while positive reviews lack detail and appear generic. The temporal pattern shows older positive reviews (2017-2018) and more recent detailed negative reviews (2020-2023), suggesting deterioration or potential review manipulation. No coherent WW Score can be calculated when evidence points to fundamentally unreliable service delivery.

• CRITICAL: Extreme polarization — 50% one-star fraud allegations vs. 50% five-star praise with no middle ground. This pattern is highly suspicious.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Positive reviews (2017-2023) are generic, lack specifics, and use enthusiastic but vague language ('Wow', 'Excellent', 'Loved them'). Negative reviews are detailed with documentation, names, license numbers, and specific incidents.
• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviews allege permit fraud, unlicensed work, deposit theft, incomplete jobs, and license delinquency. One review references TSBPE (Texas State Board of Plumbing Examiners) investigation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews cluster in 2017-2018 (5-6 years old). Negative reviews are recent (2020-2023) with escalating severity, suggesting either business deterioration or review pattern change.
• DOCUMENTATION CITED: Negative reviewers reference third-party plumber inspections, city inspection reports, insurance fraud, and legal proceedings — claims that could be verified.
• INCONSISTENT IDENTITY: Reviews reference 'Robert Aguilar Jr.', 'Roberto', 'Rob', 'Serenity's Art of Plumbing', 'Serenity's Plumbing' — possible name/entity variations or multiple operators.
• REFUND DISPUTES: Multiple reviews cite non-refunded deposits and unresolved payment disputes spanning months to years.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to irreconcilable contradictions in the review set. The extreme polarization (0% middle ratings), temporal clustering of positive vs. negative reviews, generic positive language contrasted with detailed negative allegations, and cited regulatory investigations suggest either severe business instability, review manipulation, or fundamental unreliability. DO NOT HIRE based on this profile — the fraud allegations are specific, documented, and consistent across multiple independent reviews. Verification with TSBPE and local licensing authorities is strongly recommended before any engagement.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The review mentions quick responsiveness (professionalism) and competitive pricing, but provides no information about project completion, workmanship quality, or actual job outcomes. The review is dated 2022 (over 2 years old) and does not confirm whether the quoted work was actually completed or the quality of the final result.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from March 2022 — over 2 years old, outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• Review mentions a quote but does not confirm project completion or final quality
• No substantive detail provided about workmanship or actual job performance

This score cannot be calculated reliably with only one review. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

The single review analyzed is a detailed 1-star account describing severe failures across every dimension. The contractor left the bathroom full of trash, fixtures covered in plumber's putty, and joints improperly finished — indicating poor workmanship and low experience. The two pre-existing leaks were reportedly made worse, and the newly installed shower leaked, pointing to a near-total failure in project completion. Communication and follow-through were critically poor: the customer was told the contractor would return the following week and was then never contacted again, despite having been paid in full. Pricing received a marginally higher score only because payment was collected for work that was at least attempted, but the value delivered was essentially zero given the outcome.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from June 2014, making it over 10 years old. This data should be treated with extreme caution as it may not reflect current business practices.
• The review references other positive reviews existing at the time, but none were provided for analysis. Those reviews could not be evaluated for authenticity or content.
• Abandonment pattern flagged: contractor accepted full payment, failed to complete work, made existing problems worse, and ceased all communication — a serious red flag for consumer protection purposes.

This score is based on a single review that is over a decade old, making it highly unreliable as a current assessment of Mosley Plumbing's quality — far more reviews, especially recent ones, would be required before any meaningful confidence can be placed in these scores.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided. While this single review is highly positive and mentions professionalism (responsiveness, kindness, communication), project completion (job was completed), and experience (educational approach, technical knowledge), a single data point cannot support a reliable WW Score. Pricing was not mentioned in this review. At least 3 reviews are required to produce a trustworthy score.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from February 2021 — over 3 years old; recency is a concern
• No pricing information mentioned — cannot score Price Friendly dimension
• Single positive review without comparative data cannot establish baseline quality

This score cannot be calculated or trusted with only one review; additional recent reviews are essential before any WW Score can be responsibly generated.

This single review paints an extremely negative picture across the two dimensions it addresses. Professionalism was severely lacking: the contractor failed to return calls, required four to five follow-up calls before responding, and made repeated promises to return that were never honored. Project completion was a complete failure — the job was abandoned twice, the customer waited weeks with no contact, and ultimately had to finish the work themselves. Pricing and experience could not be assessed as the reviewer made no mention of either. Both scorable dimensions received near-zero scores reflecting explicit, detailed accounts of serious failures.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2017-09-24, which is more than 7 years old. This data may not reflect the contractor's current performance.
• No pricing or experience data was mentioned in any review — those dimensions are entirely unscored.

This score is based on a single review from 2017 and should be treated as highly unreliable — it reflects one customer's experience and cannot be considered representative of the contractor's overall performance.