Find Nearby Plumbers In Lubbock, Texas

Lowery Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive technicians and courteous service, but this is significantly undermined by widespread pricing concerns. Multiple customers report being quoted inflated prices ($18,000–$25,000 for work completed elsewhere for $200–$500), suggesting aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is inconsistent—while many jobs are finished promptly and well, several reviews document incomplete work, failed follow-ups, and callbacks that were not honored. Technical experience is solid when work is performed, but the pattern of overdiagnosis and unnecessary recommendations raises serious trust issues. Recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but historical reviews (2015–2023) reveal a troubling pattern of customer exploitation.

• CRITICAL: Systematic overpricing pattern detected across 15+ reviews spanning 2009–2023. Customers report quotes 10–50x higher than actual repair costs (e.g., $25,149 vs. $284 for drain cleaning; $18,000 vs. $200 for blockage; $10,000 AC replacement vs. $250 motor replacement). This suggests deliberate misdiagnosis or aggressive upselling.
• CRITICAL: Multiple accusations of fraud and scam behavior, including false claims of pipe damage, unnecessary system replacements, and warranty violations. Several customers obtained second opinions that contradicted Lowery's diagnoses entirely.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Recent reviews (June 2025) show dramatic shift to 5-star ratings with minimal detail ('Very pleased,' 'Great job,' empty text fields). This contrasts sharply with detailed negative reviews from 2009–2023. Possible review manipulation or reputation recovery campaign.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: 8 reviews contain only ratings with no text or single-word responses ('unknown,' '.', ','), all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or artificially inflated entries.
• RECENCY BIAS: 40+ reviews from past 12 months are predominantly 5-star with generic praise. 30+ reviews from 2009–2023 contain detailed complaints with specific dollar amounts and corroborating evidence. Older reviews are far more credible and detailed.
• PROFESSIONALISM CAVEAT: While technicians are often described as polite and professional, this masks a business model that appears to exploit customer trust through misdiagnosis and overcharging.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple reports of warranty denial, failure to honor maintenance plans, and refusal to perform promised services despite customer payment.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several reviews document promised callbacks that never occurred, camera inspections that were not performed, and incomplete work left unresolved.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews (2025) suggest improvement, the company's 15-year history contains credible, detailed accusations of systematic overpricing, misdiagnosis, and fraud. The dramatic shift from negative detailed reviews (2009–2023) to positive generic reviews (2025) suggests either genuine reform or reputation management. Customers should obtain independent second opinions before authorizing major repairs and verify all diagnoses with another licensed plumber before proceeding with Lowery's recommendations.

Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and tells a deeply mixed story: several reviews praise responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous staff, while multiple reviews describe outright rude behavior from both office staff (Maggie) and field technicians (Kurt, and the unnamed tech who belittled a customer). The most severe professionalism failure — a technician who abandoned a job at 10:30pm, was potentially intoxicated, and used profane language — significantly drags this dimension down. Pricing feedback is sparse and skews slightly negative, with one reviewer calling prices 'pretty high' and another noting the company is 'not cheap,' though others found pricing reasonable or standard. Project completion is also mixed: one reviewer had a broken pipe resolved with a follow-up call, but another paid nearly $700 and still had a leaking faucet, and another noted poor follow-up after initial work. Experience scores moderately well, with specific praise for skilled diagnostics and conservative repair approaches, though the abandoned AC job and the unresolved faucet leak undercut confidence in consistent workmanship.

• Two reviews are labeled 'unknown' with no review text — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Several reviews are more than 5 years old (2012–2016), and the majority of reviews predate 2022. Only two reviews fall within the past 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2022). Older reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• The 2019 review describing a technician who abandoned a job, lied repeatedly, and appeared intoxicated is a severe outlier and was weighted heavily in professionalism and project completion scoring.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the professionalism and experience dimensions are supported by enough mentions to be meaningful, but the score is pulled down by several serious negative incidents, and the majority of reviews are more than five years old, limiting confidence in how well this score reflects the contractor's current performance.

American Classic Plumbing presents a deeply divided review profile spanning over a decade. Positive reviews consistently praise individual technicians — particularly Alex, Derek, Omar, and Brian — for professionalism, punctuality, and technical skill, while a substantial volume of negative reviews describe chronic communication failures, no-shows, unanswered phones with full voicemails, and alleged fraudulent upselling through home warranty channels. Pricing is similarly split: several reviewers commend fair and reasonable rates, while others report aggressive overcharging and attempts to inflate warranty claims. Project completion is a major liability, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, unresolved leaks left for days or weeks, and technicians who could not diagnose problems. The experience dimension is the strongest performer, with many positive reviewers noting skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but this is offset by reviews describing incompetent technicians who could not identify leaks or work on specific equipment types. The overall score reflects a contractor with genuine capability in some instances but serious and recurring operational failures that represent real risk to customers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews (dated 2023-06-10 and 2022-08-05) are nearly word-for-word identical describing a pipe burst — one may be a duplicate submission or a fabricated review. Both were counted but flagged.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews (dated 2024-06-09 and 2024-03-08) are nearly word-for-word identical describing missed appointments through Home Warranty of America — likely a duplicate submission. Both were counted but flagged.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews (dated 2022-06-10 and 2021-07-13) are word-for-word identical describing Alex showing up same day for a pipe burst. One is likely fabricated or reposted.
• SUSPECTED FAKE/PADDED REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews from 2023 use generic praise with no specific job details ('These guys are absolutely amazing!', 'Love these peoples') and lack any verifiable specifics, suggesting possible padding of the review profile.
• PATTERN OF ALLEGED FRAUD: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2019, 2022, 2024, 2025) allege the company attempted to inflate warranty claims by overstating required work — this is a serious and recurring pattern that significantly impacts trustworthiness.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) include both strong positives and strong negatives, indicating the operational issues have not been resolved over time. The 1-star reviews from 2024–2025 describe the same communication and no-show problems documented as far back as 2014–2016.
• ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERN: Multiple reviewers report the owner (Alex) was unresponsive, had a perpetually full voicemail, and denied or dismissed complaints including one involving $5,000+ in property damage caused by a technician.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS (no text, only a rating of 4.0 and 5.0) were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (65 reviews) spanning 2009–2025 and carries HIGH data confidence, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the significant volume of serious negative reviews alleging fraud, chronic no-shows, and property damage — patterns that suggest systemic operational risk rather than isolated incidents.

Spartan shows a deeply polarized review pattern with extreme highs and lows, indicating inconsistent service delivery. Professionalism is significantly undermined by documented instances of poor communication, incomplete work, unprofessional staff behavior (threats of collections, irritation), and failure to follow through on commitments. Project completion is compromised by abandoned jobs, damage to customer property, and unresolved issues. Pricing concerns emerge around unexpected charges, billing disputes, and lack of transparency. Technical skill appears present in some cases but is overshadowed by systemic operational and customer service failures. The company's age (oldest reviews from 2011–2012) and recency of negative reviews (2021–2022) suggest ongoing problems rather than isolated incidents.

• SEVERE POLARIZATION: 4 five-star reviews vs. 4 one-to-two-star reviews with no middle ground—suggests either highly variable service or potential review authenticity concerns.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are older (2012–2019), but the most recent review (2021) is also highly negative, indicating problems persist.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews document abandoned jobs, unfinished diagnostics, and refusal to complete repairs (2021 AC case, 2019 plumbing case).
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Documented threats (collections), irritation with customers, lack of follow-through on warranty submissions, and billing disputes suggest systemic management issues.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: Review from 2012 documents damage to water line during sewer work with inadequate accountability.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews mention unexpected charges, billing confusion, and aggressive collection tactics.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK SPECIFICITY: Some 5-star reviews use generic praise ('courteous,' 'trustworthy') without detailed service descriptions, though they do name technicians (Kory, Jesse, Raul), which adds some credibility.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization and recency of serious negative incidents; the score reflects genuine documented problems in professionalism and project completion, but the small sample size (8 reviews) and age disparity limit confidence in predicting future performance.

This contractor's review record is deeply mixed, with serious recurring complaints dragging down multiple dimensions. Professionalism is heavily penalized by multiple no-shows, a tech entering a woman's room without knocking, dismissive office staff, an owner who abandoned a job mid-completion in anger, and billing disputes — these are not minor issues. Project completion is similarly damaged by an abandoned sewer job, a broken septic pipe left unrepaired, a water heater old unit not removed as promised, and repeated missed appointments. Pricing receives a moderate score because some reviewers praised competitive estimates and fair value, while others reported overbilling for time and a final invoice that ballooned from $2,800 to $4,000. Experience scores somewhat better, as several reviewers acknowledged the work itself was technically competent when completed, and one reviewer noted the contractor correctly identified a problem another company missed entirely. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with real technical capability undermined by serious and repeated failures in reliability, professionalism, and job follow-through.

• Multiple reviews describe abandoned or incomplete work, which is a serious pattern and not isolated incidents.
• A deeply concerning incident was reported in which a technician entered a woman's room without knocking while she was undressed, and the office staff blamed the victim rather than addressing the complaint appropriately.
• Billing irregularities appear in multiple reviews: one job went from $2,800 to $4,000 with a lien placed on the customer's home; another customer was charged for time the technician was not actively working.
• The owner reportedly left a job unfinished after becoming angry with the customer, leaving a kitchen drain disconnected on a Friday afternoon.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years, with the most recent usable review dated April 2021. Only one review falls within the past 12 months relative to a 2024 analysis window, significantly limiting recency confidence.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary substantially in tone, detail, rating, and content, suggesting authentic submissions.

The WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable volume of reviews with substantive detail, but is tempered by the age of most reviews and the absence of any recent data to confirm whether service quality has improved or declined.

This contractor's review set is deeply polarized: a cluster of brief, generic 5-star reviews contrasts sharply with a substantial number of detailed, credible 1-star accounts describing serious failures across all dimensions. Professionalism is heavily damaged by multiple reports of no-shows, extreme lateness without notice, verbal abuse and profanity from the owner, abandoned jobs, and threatening behavior. Pricing is a significant concern, with multiple reviewers citing grossly inflated charges, hidden fees, and costs far exceeding market rates for comparable work. Project completion is a major weakness, with documented cases of work left unfinished for months, problems made worse rather than fixed, and a running toilet installed by the company requiring immediate follow-up. Experience scores are dragged down by accounts of incorrect diagnoses, improper installation technique, failure to follow manufacturer instructions, and unnecessary work performed on already-clear lines. The positive reviews, while present, are too brief and generic to meaningfully offset the detailed negative accounts.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY POSITIVE REVIEWS: Multiple 5-star reviews consist of only 1-2 sentences with no specific details (e.g., 'Awesome Company! Very professional and friendly.', 'Prompt courteous service. Very pleased!', 'Precision Services provided prompt and wonderful service on Christmas Day!'). These lack job type, technician name, or any verifiable detail and follow a suspiciously uniform praise pattern.
• OWNER CONDUCT WARNING: One detailed 1-star review (2016) describes the business owner screaming obscenities at a customer, using profanity, and hanging up mid-call during a routine scheduling dispute. This is a serious red flag for business conduct.
• ABANDONED/INCOMPLETE WORK: At least two reviews describe work that was left incomplete or unfinished for extended periods (months in one case), and one review describes a newly installed toilet that immediately began malfunctioning.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUES: Multiple reviews cite hidden fees not disclosed upfront, charges far above market rate (e.g., $332 for a toilet flush assembly, $1,400+ for a toilet replacement, $412 for under an hour of work), and refusal to negotiate despite repeat-customer status.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most detailed and credible negative reviews span from 2012 to 2023, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents. Positive reviews are concentrated in 2024 but are uniformly brief and undetailed. The 2024 positive reviews should be treated with caution given the fake review flag above.
• ONE REVIEW (2015-12-17) contained only a period '.' and was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• ONE REVIEW (2014-10-30) stating only 'I want nothing to do with this company again' was counted as a negative sentiment signal for professionalism and project completion but provided no scorable detail beyond that.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews with usable data spanning 2012–2024, achieving HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to mention volume; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of generic, potentially inauthentic 5-star reviews inflating the positive signal, and the negative reviews are notably more detailed, specific, and credible than the positive ones.