Find Nearby Plumbers In Lewisville, Texas

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 appears to be a plumbing supply house rather than a contractor, so Project Completion is not applicable. Professionalism scores are sharply divided: two reviews praise specific staff members (Sam, Jamal, Mike, Aaron) for helpfulness and knowledge, while three reviews describe poor customer service experiences including a deceptive credit card cancellation, charging for an unsolicited mask, and a restrictive return policy. Pricing feedback is negative, with one reviewer finding the same part 30% cheaper online and another frustrated by hidden charges. Experience is modestly positive based on two mentions of staff product knowledge, but the sample is too small to be confident. The mixed and largely negative service reviews pull the overall score down considerably.

• This business appears to be a plumbing supply store, not a contractor or plumber — the WW Score framework may not fully apply, and Project Completion is entirely inapplicable.
• Review dates span from 2015 to 2024 — three of the six reviews are more than 3 years old, and the most critical reviews (credit card incident, mask charge) are from 2015 and 2021 respectively. Recency weighting limits their current relevance but they still reflect documented service failures.
• Only 6 reviews total — this is an extremely small sample size. The WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent long-term performance.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific names, specific incidents, and varied sentiment, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with mixed sentiment and no data on project completion, making it a low-reliability indicator that should not be used as a definitive assessment of this business.

This contractor's review set is small (5 reviews) and deeply divided, making any score inherently unreliable. Professionalism is the most-discussed dimension and is severely damaged by two explicit accounts of aggressive, threatening behavior — including one alarming incident where the contractor allegedly demanded money upfront, became threatening when asked for a refund, and showed up uninvited at a customer's home. Pricing received mixed signals: one review praised cost-saving advice and honest repair recommendations, while another cited inflated quotes given without seeing the job and a suspicious request for cash for supplies. Project completion data is thin, with only one confirmed successful service visit and one incident where no work was rendered at all. Experience scores are similarly split, with one reviewer calling the contractor 'very inexperienced' and arrogant, while two others praised his knowledge and problem-solving.

• SERIOUS SAFETY FLAG: One reviewer (2023-05-05) alleges the contractor demanded upfront cash for supplies, became aggressive and threatening when asked for a refund, and parked outside the reviewer's home uninvited after being told not to return. This is a significant red flag beyond typical service complaints.
• BEHAVIORAL PATTERN: Two separate reviews (2022-10-02 and 2023-05-05) independently describe the contractor as aggressive. This consistency across unrelated reviewers increases credibility of these negative accounts.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total span approximately 2.5 years, making statistical confidence very low across all dimensions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review (2024-08-05) is positive but contains minimal detail — it does not address the serious concerns raised in prior reviews and cannot offset them meaningfully.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The three 5-star reviews are relatively generic and light on operational detail. However, the two 1-star reviews are highly specific and credible in their detail, which increases their relative weight.
• DATE RANGE WARNING: Two of the five reviews are older than 24 months (2022), reducing their recency weight. The most serious misconduct allegation (2023-05-05) is approximately 18 months old at time of analysis.

This WW Score should be treated as LOW RELIABILITY — the sample size of 5 reviews is insufficient for a confident assessment, and the presence of serious misconduct allegations (financial aggression, threatening behavior, uninvited home visit) introduces risk factors that a numerical score alone cannot fully capture; prospective customers are strongly advised to exercise caution.

Three of the four reviews are highly negative and describe serious failures across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by accounts of workers showing up unannounced, hanging up on customers, poor communication, and leaving job sites in disarray. Pricing is a major concern, with two reviewers explicitly describing significant cost overruns and hidden charges not disclosed until billing, and one reviewer calling the company 'con artists' who pursue legal action for payment. Project completion is critically low, with one reviewer describing an abandoned job leaving a home without a functional bathroom and kitchen for weeks, and another describing a four-day job that was quoted as one day with unresolved resulting damage. The sole positive review is brief, generic, and from 2017, providing minimal counterweight to the pattern of serious complaints.

• Only 1 positive review out of 4, and it is brief, generic, and contains no specific details about the work performed — it carries very low evidentiary weight.
• The single positive review is dated 2017, making it over 7 years old. All negative reviews span 2015–2020. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, meaning current performance cannot be assessed.
• Multiple reviews independently describe the same pattern of hidden/unexpected charges and cost overruns, which is a significant and consistent red flag suggesting a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• One review describes workers arriving unannounced at a home where a minor was present alone — this is a serious professionalism and safety concern.
• The total review count of 4 is very low. While the WW Score has been calculated, it should be treated with caution due to the small sample size.

This score is based on only 4 reviews with a heavy skew toward negative experiences and no recent data, making it directionally informative but not statistically reliable — the consistent pattern of complaints across pricing, communication, and project completion does, however, suggest meaningful risk.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews provided, both of which are generic praise with no specific evidence supporting any of the four scoring dimensions. The reviews lack concrete details about punctuality, pricing, project completion timelines, or technical workmanship.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Both reviews exhibit suspicious patterns — repetitive generic phrasing ('great service,' 'highly recommend,' 'family owned'), identical structure, no specific project details, no concrete examples, and suspiciously enthusiastic tone with excessive punctuation. No substantive information provided.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews are from 2019 and 2021 — both older than 12 months, limiting relevance to current service quality.
• NO ACTIONABLE DATA: Reviews contain zero explicit mentions of professionalism specifics, pricing details, project completion evidence, or technical skill demonstration.

This score cannot be calculated or trusted. The review sample is too small, both reviews appear potentially fabricated, and neither provides concrete evidence across any of the four scoring dimensions.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided. This single review documents severe failures in professionalism (unresponsive to 10+ contact attempts) and project completion (90% complete with no follow-through on final part installation or warranty service). However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as per methodology requirements.

• Only 1 review provided — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2015 (9+ years old) — does not reflect current business practices
• No data on pricing, so price-friendly dimension cannot be evaluated
• No data on technical experience/workmanship quality

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required). The single review indicates serious service issues, but cannot be generalized to overall contractor performance.