Find Nearby Plumbers In Lubbock, Texas

Two positive reviews highlight strong communication, transparency on pricing, and going above and beyond for customers, including referring work they could not handle themselves. However, a negative review raises a serious concern about incomplete work, missing parts, and a billing discrepancy where customer-supplied parts were not credited. Professionalism scores moderately well due to consistent praise in the positive reviews, but the dishonesty allegation in the negative review pulls it down. Project completion is notably penalized because the negative review explicitly describes unfinished work and missing components. The overall score is tempered by the small sample size and the presence of one substantive complaint.

• Only 3 reviews total — sample size is too small for high confidence in any dimension.
• Two of the three reviews are from 2020 and one is from 2013. The 2013 review is over 10 years old and may not reflect current business practices, but it contains specific, credible allegations of incomplete work and billing issues that cannot be ignored.
• The two positive reviews are somewhat generic in praise (e.g., 'above and beyond', 'very satisfactory') with limited specific detail, though they do include some named individuals and concrete observations, reducing but not eliminating fake review concern.
• Billing discrepancy alleged in the 1-star review (customer-supplied parts not credited) is a significant honesty/transparency flag that directly impacts pricing and professionalism scores.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence due to only 3 reviews spanning a 7-year period, a single serious complaint about incomplete work and billing dishonesty, and insufficient data volume to establish reliable patterns.

Three of four reviews are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, polite technicians, fair pricing, and solid workmanship including a tankless water heater installation. However, one detailed 1-star review describes serious scheduling failures, poor time management, and two staff members behaving unprofessionally on the phone — including hanging up on a customer — which meaningfully drags down professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing feedback is limited to two reviews but both are favorable, with one reviewer noting a competitor quoted $17,000 versus a presumably far lower Proflow price. Overall the score reflects a company with genuine strengths but a documented pattern of operational and customer service breakdowns that cannot be ignored.

• Small sample size of only 4 reviews — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Three of the four reviews are dated 2017–2021, with the most recent being October 2021. No reviews from the past 12 months were provided, so current service quality is unknown.
• The single 1-star review is highly specific and credible, naming individual employees and describing a multi-day timeline of failures. It carries significant weight despite being one review.
• The three positive reviews are individually distinct and specific enough to not raise fake review concerns, but the absence of any negative detail in them warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all older than 12 months, and should be considered LOW reliability — sufficient to indicate general tendencies but not enough to draw firm conclusions about current service quality.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses and individual operators all operating under or associated with the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different regions and time periods, making direct comparison difficult but revealing a deeply polarized reputation. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of explicit complaints about rudeness, no-shows, broken appointments, and dismissive customer service — including multiple accounts of technicians yelling at customers, slamming doors, and hanging up on home warranty representatives. Pricing is the single most-criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing charges 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, non-itemized invoices, and aggressive upselling tactics; a minority of reviewers — particularly those dealing with individual operators like Oscar, Jeff, and Rick — praised fair and transparent pricing. Project completion suffers from a notable pattern of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, work left incomplete for weeks or months, and instances where problems were made worse rather than fixed. Experience scores are moderate-positive, as many positive reviews do cite skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship from specific named technicians, but are offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect parts installation, and damage caused during service.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: These reviews appear to aggregate multiple distinct businesses and sole operators all using the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different U.S. regions (Georgia, New Jersey, Oklahoma, California, New York, Indiana, Tennessee, etc.). Scores reflect a blended profile and should not be applied to any single operator without filtering by location.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews — particularly those dated 2025-05-07, 2025-05-10, and 2025-05-19 with no review text — are blank ratings only and provide zero usable data. Several other 5-star reviews are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., two reviews from 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10 are word-for-word duplicates for 'Michael'). These have been excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star average.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews are near-verbatim duplicates submitted on consecutive or same dates (the 'Michael' gas line reviews dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10; the rude technician reviews dated 2023-08-09 and 2023-08-10). These were counted as single mentions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal text, while the most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2018–2024. The oldest reviews (2005–2013) skew positive but reflect a different era of the business. Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no evidence per Rule 1.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One review (dated 2021-06-07, 5 stars) references a healthcare provider ('very helpful with my daughter and son... ADHD and learning disabilities') and is clearly posted to the wrong business. It was excluded entirely.
• PRICING PATTERN: A recurring pattern of non-itemized invoices, refusal to provide cost breakdowns, and prices dropping significantly when customers push back strongly suggests systematic price gouging practices at certain franchise or affiliate locations, particularly those associated with Coolray/Mr. Plumber in the Atlanta, GA market.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe technicians starting jobs, leaving for parts, and never returning — sometimes for months. This pattern appears across different named technicians and locations, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the dataset aggregates multiple distinct businesses operating under the same trade name across different regions and time periods — consumers should filter reviews by their specific geographic location and verify the operator before relying on this blended score.

A1 Plumbing shows a deeply polarized customer base with stark contrasts between recent positive reviews (2025) and numerous serious complaints spanning multiple years. Recent reviews (past 6 months) are predominantly 5-star with praise for professionalism, punctuality, and technical skill. However, older reviews reveal persistent systemic issues: incomplete work requiring multiple visits, overcharging and billing disputes, poor follow-through on callbacks, rude office staff, and failure to complete jobs as promised. The company demonstrates competent technical ability when engaged, but significant gaps in project completion, pricing transparency, and customer service consistency. The WW Score reflects the weighted impact of high-confidence data showing both strong professionalism in recent interactions and substantial project completion failures documented across the review history.

• SEVERE RECENCY BIAS DETECTED: Reviews from 2025 (past 6 months) are almost uniformly 5-star with generic praise, while reviews from 2018-2024 contain numerous detailed complaints about incomplete work, overcharging, and poor follow-through. This suggests either significant company improvement or potential review manipulation.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN SUSPECTED: Multiple 2025 reviews contain suspiciously similar phrasing ('amazing job', 'great job', 'very professional', 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail. Several reviews are blank or contain only emojis/thumbs up, which is atypical of genuine feedback.
• CRITICAL PATTERN - PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least 12 reviews explicitly document incomplete work, multiple failed visits, or jobs left unfinished (shower handle after 4 visits, drain backup after 5+ visits, water heater installation abandoned mid-job, valve repair requiring multiple attempts).
• PRICING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews document significant overcharging ($250 vs $150 quoted, $1900 flat rate for 4-hour job, $545 demanded upfront for warranty work, additional charges not disclosed upfront). Pattern suggests aggressive billing practices.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES: At least 8 reviews cite rude office staff (Emily, Brittany), lack of follow-up, failure to return calls, and argumentative behavior when customers complained.
• WARRANTY COMPANY ISSUES: Numerous reviews indicate problems when company works through home warranty providers (American Home Shield, American Home Warranty), suggesting possible systemic issues with warranty claim handling.
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document damage caused during service (broke faucet, destroyed door, left mud/filth, broke wall hooks, damaged yard with caliche debris).

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH overall confidence. The score is heavily influenced by a recent surge of generic 5-star reviews (2025) that contrast sharply with detailed, specific complaints spanning 2012-2024. The company appears to have either undergone significant operational changes or is experiencing review manipulation. Customers considering this company should weight the numerous documented failures in project completion, pricing disputes, and customer service from the 2018-2024 period more heavily than the recent positive reviews, and should request detailed written estimates with itemized breakdowns before engaging services.

Joe Rushing Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and skilled workmanship, with multiple reviews praising knowledgeable staff and effective problem-solving. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious pricing concerns—multiple customers report unexpectedly high bills, hidden charges, aggressive upselling, and lack of transparency in estimates. Professionalism is mixed: field technicians are often described as courteous and respectful, but office staff receive harsh criticism for rudeness and poor communication. Project completion shows inconsistency, with some jobs completed promptly while others involved extended delays, incomplete follow-through on cleanup commitments, and unresolved billing disputes. The company's reputation is polarized between satisfied long-term customers and those who felt exploited or misled.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2020, 2017, 2022) report aggressive upselling, hidden charges, and final bills significantly exceeding initial estimates. One customer reported a 46% increase; another was quoted $8,000 by Joe Rushing but fixed for $86 by competitor. This suggests systemic pricing practices that prioritize revenue over transparency.
• OFFICE STAFF CONDUCT: Consistent complaints across multiple reviews (2020, 2022) about rude, unpleasant, and evasive office staff. One customer reported staff became hostile when questioned about delays and billing.
• PROJECT MANAGEMENT FAILURES: 2022 review documents severe project mismanagement—floor jackhammered without confirming pipe-lining availability, leaving customer with 19 days of dirt in home, failed cleanup promises, and unresolved billing disputes requiring attorney involvement.
• QUALITY ASSURANCE CONCERNS: 2020 review alleges technician made drain problem worse (possibly intentionally to justify expensive replacement), with competitor fixing issue in 30 minutes for $86 vs. $8,000 quote.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are from 2020-2022 (older than 12 months). More recent reviews (2024, 2021) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible service improvements or selection bias in recent reviewers. However, pricing and billing concerns persist across all time periods.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between field technician professionalism and office staff conduct suggests organizational dysfunction at management/administrative level.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the data set is adequate (14 reviews), the company exhibits a deeply polarized reputation with legitimate concerns about pricing transparency and billing practices that are corroborated across multiple independent reviews spanning years. The technical expertise and field-level professionalism are genuine, but systemic issues with cost management and administrative conduct significantly undermine overall trustworthiness. Prospective customers should obtain detailed written estimates, clarify all potential additional charges upfront, and consider obtaining competitive quotes before committing.

Leak-Tek demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication and friendly staff across multiple reviews. However, the WW Score is significantly impacted by serious project completion failures: a critical 2024 review documents defective workmanship on a water tank repair (wrong wire nuts, loose wires creating fire hazard, non-OE parts on warranty work) that required complete rework by another plumber. Additional completion concerns include a 2023 estimate that was never provided. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and affordable, though one customer objected to credit card processing fees. Technical experience shows mixed signals—some reviews praise knowledgeability, but the documented quality failures suggest inadequate skill or quality control.

• CRITICAL: 2024 review documents severe safety and quality failures—defective electrical work on water tank with fire hazard risk and use of non-OE parts on warranty repair. This is not a minor complaint and directly contradicts positive ratings from older reviews.
• Recency concern: Most positive reviews are from 2019–2023 (1–5 years old). The most recent review (2024) is highly negative, suggesting possible quality decline or inconsistency.
• Incomplete project: 2023 review explicitly states estimate was requested but never provided—clear project completion failure.
• Possible review authenticity concern: Two reviews (2022 and 2023) use generic praise language ('absolutely amazing and professional,' 'Highly recommend') with minimal specific detail, contrasting sharply with detailed negative and positive reviews from other customers. However, insufficient pattern to definitively flag as fake.
• Small sample size (6 reviews) limits statistical confidence despite MODERATE overall rating.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While professionalism scores are supported by multiple mentions, the recent critical safety failure documented in the 2024 review raises serious questions about actual workmanship quality and reliability that are not fully captured by the aggregate score. The score reflects a company with good customer service but documented serious technical failures; customers should request references and warranties carefully.