Find Nearby Plumbers In Lubbock, Texas

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is dragged down significantly by one detailed 1-star review describing a failure to return a manager callback, dismissive receptionist behavior, and a suggestion to call a competitor — offset partially by positive mentions of quick callbacks and helpful staff in other reviews. Pricing is a notable concern: one reviewer paid $1,200 for a job another company quoted at $560, citing $160/hour overtime charges for time spent searching for a part, though the owner did eventually make it right. Project completion is the most damaging dimension — the detailed 1-star review documents two failed repair attempts on the same HVAC issue within five weeks, with the problem recurring, which is a serious workmanship and follow-through failure. Positive reviews are brief and lack specifics, limiting their evidentiary weight.

• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Nothing but the best of experience', 'They are the best, most reliable plumbing service EVER') with little to no specific detail — these carry low evidentiary weight.
• One highly detailed 1-star review (2021) documents repeated failed repairs, poor communication, and no manager callback — this review is specific, credible, and significantly impacts scoring.
• One 3-star review (2020) documents a pricing issue where the customer was charged more than double a competitor's quote, partially resolved by the owner calling back a week later.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only one review is from 2023, and it is a brief 5-star with minimal detail. Recency data is thin and does not reliably reflect current performance.
• Only 6 total reviews are available. This is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution — a single bad or good experience has outsized influence on the result.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning 7 years, with most reviews lacking sufficient detail; the score should be treated as LOW RELIABILITY and prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references before hiring.

Gibson Plumbing shows significant weaknesses across multiple dimensions. While crew-level technical skill is acknowledged in two reviews, the company suffers from severe professionalism issues centered on owner/management behavior including dishonesty, poor communication, and gaslighting. Pricing concerns are prominent, with customers reporting unexpected charges, inflated quotes, and lack of transparency. Project completion is compromised by incomplete initial assessments and recurring problems post-job. The 2020 review details systematic deception about equipment compatibility and crew training; the 2018 review highlights abandonment of customer communication; and multiple reviews from 2014-2016 allege dishonest billing practices. Only the crew's technical execution receives consistent praise.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2020, 2018, 2016, 2014) allege dishonesty, deception, and gaslighting by owner/management. This is a pattern, not isolated complaint.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 4-10 years old (2014-2018). Only one recent review (2020) is available. Cannot assess if issues have been corrected.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Crew competence is praised, but owner/management behavior is severely criticized. This suggests systemic management failure rather than skill gaps.
• UNRESOLVED ISSUES: 2016 review reports recurring sewer line problems 7 months after replacement, suggesting workmanship or diagnostic failures.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: 2018 review documents 3+ weeks of non-response to customer inquiry about financing options.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews cite unexpected charges, inflated quotes, and discrepancies between quoted and final bills.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited sample size (5 reviews) and age of most data (4-10 years old). However, the consistency of complaints about owner dishonesty and billing practices across multiple independent reviews suggests genuine systemic issues, not isolated incidents. The score reflects serious trust and transparency problems that outweigh technical competence.

This contractor's review set is small (4 reviews) and spans a wide date range (2015–2019), limiting reliability. Two of the four reviews are strongly negative, describing technicians who failed to resolve the stated problem, charged for incomplete work, and refused to honor callbacks or provide guarantees — directly impacting project completion and experience scores. The two positive reviews praise promptness, professionalism, and reasonable pricing, but lack specific detail about workmanship quality. The negative reviews are detailed and credible, describing specific dollar amounts, timelines, and failed resolution attempts, which weighs heavily against the contractor's scores in completion and experience. Overall, the pattern suggests inconsistent service quality with notable concerns around follow-through and technical competence.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• All reviews are older than 5 years (most recent: March 2019) — no data from the past 12 months. Current service quality is unknown.
• Two detailed 1-star reviews describe the same pattern: technician fails to resolve the problem, company refuses to honor a callback or guarantee, and customer is asked to pay again. This is a significant and consistent red flag.
• The two positive reviews are relatively brief and lack specific workmanship detail, though they do not appear to be fake — they reference specific situations (water heater, outdoor faucet leak on New Year's Eve).
• No reviews mention appearance or formal communication quality in depth; professionalism score is mixed due to polite phone manner noted alongside failure to resolve complaints.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 4 reviews, all dated 2015–2019, with a sharply divided sentiment pattern and no recent data to confirm current service standards.

The review corpus is heavily dominated by negative experiences across all four dimensions, with professionalism drawing the most criticism — including technicians failing to show up, rude managers, broken coupon promises, and a no-show on advertised 24/7 emergency service. Pricing complaints are severe and recurring, with customers describing per-service charges as excessive, opaque billing from shop-departure time, and charges levied for work that was never completed. Project completion is a major failure point: multiple reviewers describe jobs left unfinished, drains still clogged after payment, no-shows on follow-up calls, and a $5,400 sewer job that left a patio destroyed and debris abandoned on the property. A minority of positive reviews do exist — praising specific technicians like Shawn and Kelvin — but these are far outnumbered by detailed, credible negative accounts spanning over a decade.

• Several positive reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great People and Company! Outstanding service! Honest and Reliable!', 'Great job very professional', 'This is a great bunch. Polite, professional, and courteous.') with no specific details, job descriptions, or technician names — consistent with low-effort or potentially inauthentic reviews.
• Two reviews reference 'Roto-Rooter' rather than 'Mr. Rooter', suggesting possible confusion between franchises; these were still included as they appear to reference the same Lubbock location based on context.
• The review dated 2010-09-08 contains only 'see above' with no usable content and was excluded from scoring.
• The review with a 4.0 rating and no text was excluded from scoring.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most negative reviews concentrated between 2011–2020. Only 3 reviews are from 2024–2025, limiting recency confidence. Scores were not heavily adjusted upward based on older positive reviews.
• A consistent pattern of unresolved callbacks, abandoned jobs, and rude management responses appears across multiple independent reviewers spanning many years, suggesting systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given that many negative reviews are more than 3 years old and a small cluster of recent positive reviews may indicate operational improvement that the historical data does not fully capture.

The review set paints a predominantly negative picture of this contractor across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension and is severely damaged by multiple accounts of rude office staff (Shannon, Lori), a technician who abandoned a job on an elderly woman for six days in triple-digit heat, and a tech who admitted ignorance about his own company's services. Project completion is similarly troubled, with documented cases of incomplete or improperly executed work, a job outright abandoned before starting, and significant delays in follow-through. Pricing drew explicit criticism in multiple reviews, including allegations of unauthorized charges, inflated parts pricing, and a $500 diagnostic fee that another company undercut dramatically. Experience scores slightly higher due to a couple of positive installation reviews, but is undercut by a technician who failed to check for Freon leaks after a repair, causing the system to fail within hours. The two positive reviews (2024 HVAC installation and 2017 heater call) provide the only meaningful upward pressure on the score.

• Most reviews are negative (7 out of 10 are 1-star or 2-star), suggesting systemic service quality issues rather than isolated incidents.
• Several reviews are older than 12 months, with 7 of 10 reviews dated before 2024. The most recent positive review (2024) and the most recent negative review (2023) are the only reviews within the past 12 months, limiting recency confidence.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific names, dates, dollar amounts, and detailed narratives consistent with genuine customer experiences.
• Multiple reviews describe mistreatment of elderly or vulnerable customers (78-year-old woman left without AC for 6 days in triple-digit heat; 86-year-old man's job abandoned without referral), which represents a serious ethical concern beyond standard service quality.
• Unauthorized billing and deceptive renewal practices are explicitly described in one detailed review, suggesting potential consumer protection concerns.
• The 4-star review from 2018 is over 6 years old and describes unresolved billing issues even at time of writing, further reducing its positive weight.

This WW Score is based on 10 reviews with strong narrative detail across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence on three of four dimensions; however, the score should be treated with moderate overall trust due to the age of most reviews and the absence of recent data beyond 2023-2024 to confirm whether service quality has improved.

The review set paints a deeply concerning picture of Boyce Plumbing across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated no-call/no-shows, failure to return calls, technicians leaving jobs without completing work, and dismissive or rude communication — with only 3 of 10 reviews offering any positive professionalism remarks. Project completion is similarly alarming: multiple reviews describe abandoned jobs, unresolved leaks, a gas safety certification that proved dangerously incorrect, and a faucet installation that caused a ceiling collapse and mold — with only one review describing a job completed satisfactorily. Pricing drew explicit criticism, including a disputed $90 diagnostic charge and a $970 faucet replacement described as steep, alongside one review noting reasonable pricing. Experience scores slightly higher due to a handful of positive reviews praising specific technicians (Ricky and Tory) for knowledge and skill, but these are outweighed by documented failures in workmanship. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with serious, recurring operational and quality failures.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 1 year relative to the most recent review date (2024-03-01). Only 1 review is from 2024, 2 from 2021, and the remaining 7 range from 2012 to 2020. Score reliability is reduced due to the age of most data points.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One review (2024-03-01) alleges that the company certified no gas leak when a major gas leak was present, rendering a home uninhabitable. This is a serious safety and liability flag that should be weighted heavily.
• PATTERN FLAG: Negative reviews show consistent, specific, and credible patterns — no-call/no-shows, refusal to return calls, incomplete work, and billing disputes — across multiple years and multiple reviewers. This consistency increases credibility of the negative feedback.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CONCERN: The 4 positive reviews (2018–2020) are notably generic in structure and cluster within a narrow time window. Two specifically name 'Tory' and use similar praise language ('expert,' 'professional,' 'great value'). While not definitively fake, these should be treated with moderate skepticism.
• ABANDONED WORK: Multiple reviews describe technicians arriving, declining to perform work, and leaving — sometimes billing for the visit. This is a recurring pattern across at least 3 separate reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the negative reviews are specific, credible, and span multiple years with consistent failure patterns, but the score is somewhat limited by the small total review count (10), the age of most reviews, and mild concerns about the authenticity of the clustered positive reviews.