Find Nearby Plumbers In Mesquite, Texas

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension across all three reviews and paints a deeply concerning picture. Two separate incidents — one in April 2022 and one in July 2022 — describe workers becoming physically aggressive, using profanity, and allegedly making racist remarks toward neighbors, resulting in very low professionalism scores that heavily drag down the overall WW Score. The single positive review from 2024 describes polite, respectful workers who completed a water line repair same-day and cleaned up afterward, which provides the only positive data points for project completion and experience. The stark contrast between the 2024 positive review and the two 2022 negative incidents leaves significant uncertainty about the contractor's consistency.

• Two of the three reviews are from individuals who did NOT personally hire this contractor — they are neighbor/bystander accounts. While their observations about worker conduct in public are valid, they cannot speak to service quality, pricing, or project outcomes.
• The two negative reviews (April 2022 and July 2022) describe separate but thematically similar incidents of worker aggression and confrontational behavior, suggesting a possible pattern of conduct issues rather than isolated events.
• The single positive review (July 2024) is generic in some respects but does include specific details (main water line break, same-day service, burial and cleanup) that lend it moderate credibility.
• Recency note: The two negative reviews are from 2022 (over 2 years old at time of analysis). The only recent review (2024) is positive. It is unclear whether conduct has improved or whether the 2022 incidents were isolated to specific employees.
• With only 3 total reviews, the dataset is extremely small. The WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of overall contractor performance.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews — two of which are bystander accounts rather than direct customer experiences — making it a very low-reliability signal that should not be used as a definitive assessment of this contractor's quality.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe severely negative experiences with RL Allen Plumbing across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension, with 6 reviews mentioning it — 5 of which describe rude, unresponsive, or dismissive staff, particularly the receptionist Rosalie, dragging the score down sharply. Project completion is similarly poor, with multiple reviews citing unresolved work, failed inspections, jobs left incomplete, and no follow-through on callbacks. Experience scores marginally higher only because one positive review praised the technicians' workmanship, but this is heavily outweighed by accounts of a failed city inspection and recurring issues after repairs. Pricing received only one mention — a complaint about a $90 return-visit fee for the same unresolved issue — which is a negative signal but based on very limited data.

• Only 1 out of 6 reviews is positive (5-star). The single positive review uses specific names and details, so it does not appear fake, but it stands in stark contrast to the 5 negative reviews.
• RECENCY WARNING: All 6 reviews are dated between 2016 and 2018. No reviews from the past 5+ years are present. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect the current state of the business.
• A recurring pattern of complaints about the same staff member (Rosalie/RosaLee) and the same failure modes (no callbacks, incomplete work, rude service) across multiple independent reviews adds credibility to the negative feedback and suggests systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• The single positive review is from May 2018, sandwiched between two 1-star reviews from the same period, which reduces the likelihood it is a planted fake review but does not change the overall negative trend.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to a small review set of only 6 reviews, all of which are more than 5 years old, meaning the score reflects historical performance only and should not be used as a definitive indicator of the contractor's current quality.

Right Call Solutions has an overwhelmingly negative review profile across all four scored dimensions. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with the vast majority of reviewers reporting abandoned jobs, no-shows, failure to submit warranty reports, and months-long unresolved issues. Professionalism scores are nearly as low, with pervasive complaints about unanswered phones, unreturned voicemails, missed appointments without notice, and in several cases actively rude or dismissive technicians. Experience scores reflect multiple instances of incorrect diagnoses, broken equipment left behind, and work that failed shortly after completion. Pricing received a marginally higher score only because a small number of positive reviews praised value and transparency, though several negative reviewers explicitly cited unfair or unexplained cost estimates. The four 5-star reviews praising the company are vastly outnumbered and appear to describe a fundamentally different service experience, possibly direct (non-warranty) engagements.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: The four 5-star reviews use notably warmer, more detailed, and more articulate language compared to the uniformly negative reviews. One 5-star reviewer explicitly acknowledges the negative reviews and attempts to explain them away, which is an unusual pattern. These positive reviews cannot be dismissed outright but should be treated with caution given the extreme contrast with the other 29 reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2019–2023, with the most recent cluster (July–October 2023) being entirely 1-star. There is no positive review dated after January 2019, suggesting any prior quality may have significantly deteriorated over time.
• SYSTEMIC PATTERN: Nearly every negative review references the same failure modes — no phone answer, no voicemail callback, no warranty report submission, and no-shows — suggesting these are structural operational failures rather than isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY CONTEXT: Almost all reviews involve home warranty company assignments. The one positive direct-hire review (2019) and the pattern of complaints suggest the company may selectively deprioritize warranty jobs, which inflates the negative signal for warranty customers specifically.
• INTEGRITY CONCERN: At least two reviews explicitly allege that the company misrepresented findings to the warranty company in ways that denied customer claims, which if accurate represents a serious ethical violation beyond mere incompetence.

This WW Score of 18.7 is based on 33 reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered highly reliable as a reflection of this contractor's performance, particularly for customers assigned through home warranty programs.

Every single review analyzed is a 1-star review, and the feedback across all four dimensions is overwhelmingly negative. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated no-shows, failure to communicate appointment changes, rude technicians, and unprofessional on-site behavior including entering homes with muddy shoes and making inappropriate comments to customers. Project completion is critically low, with multiple reviews describing work that failed city inspections, jobs left unfinished, broken fixtures not repaired, and technicians abandoning service calls without notice. Pricing concerns are significant, with reviewers citing charges of $360 for 18 minutes of work, inflated bids of $8,000 for unnecessary repairs, and an alleged instance of a technician stealing a cash payment. Technical experience is rated extremely low, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling technicians inexperienced, describing incorrect installations, broken components caused by technicians, and misdiagnoses that would have cost customers thousands of dollars unnecessarily.

• ALL 12 reviews are 1-star ratings — this is a strong and consistent negative signal, not a fake review pattern, but rather a pattern of genuine and detailed complaints.
• Multiple reviews reference the same technician by name ('Tanner') across different dates and incidents, corroborating authenticity of complaints.
• All reviews are dated between 2016 and 2018 — all reviews are older than 5 years. No recent reviews were provided. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• Alleged financial misconduct appears in at least two reviews: one reviewer claims a technician stole a $65 cash trade fee, and another describes an $8,000 bid for work a competing plumber confirmed was unnecessary, ultimately resolved for $875.
• Two separate reviews describe work that failed official city/municipal inspections, indicating potential licensing or code compliance issues.
• A pattern of home warranty assignment is present in nearly every review — this company appears to operate heavily through home warranty referrals, which may limit customer recourse and accountability.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence given that all 12 reviews contain detailed, specific, and corroborating negative evidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with the caveat that all reviews are from 2016–2018 and no data exists to assess whether the company's performance has changed in recent years.

Both reviews are strongly negative and describe serious misconduct, including allegations of fraud, deceptive insurance claims, and demanding cash upfront. One reviewer explicitly states the leak was not fixed after payment, directly indicating failed project completion. Pricing transparency is rated at zero due to allegations of inflated quotes and misrepresentation of insurance coverage. Professionalism is near zero given descriptions of refusal to refund, predatory behavior, and unresponsiveness after payment. Experience receives a marginally non-zero score only because some work was reportedly attempted, though it was ultimately unsuccessful.

• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Both reviews independently allege deceptive practices including false claims that insurance would cover inflated costs and demands for immediate cash payment.
• PREDATORY BEHAVIOR PATTERN: Both reviews describe a consistent pattern of targeting customers in emergency plumbing situations, suggesting a deliberate scheme rather than isolated incidents.
• FAILED WORKMANSHIP: At least one reviewer explicitly states the plumbing leak was not resolved after payment was collected, and the contractor refused to refund or return.
• REVIEW COUNT TOO LOW: Only 2 reviews are present, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• DATE WARNING: Both reviews are from 2012 and 2015, making them 9–13 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current behavior or business status.
• NO POSITIVE REVIEWS PRESENT: The complete absence of any positive reviews, combined with the severity of allegations, is a significant red flag for this contractor.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 9 years old, and should be treated as highly unreliable for current decision-making; however, the severity and consistency of fraud allegations across both reviews warrants serious caution regardless of sample size.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. The first review (2015) praises project completion and work quality but provides no detail on professionalism or pricing. The second review (2014) documents severe unprofessional behavior by the owner during a traffic incident but explicitly states it cannot assess actual plumbing service quality. Both reviews are older than 12 months, limiting recency relevance.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are significantly older than 12 months (2014–2015); no recent data available
• SECOND REVIEW CONTEXT: The 1-star review documents unprofessional behavior in a traffic incident, not service delivery; reviewer explicitly states inability to assess actual plumbing work
• EXTREME SCORE VARIANCE: Ratings span 1.0 to 5.0 with no middle ground; insufficient data to determine true performance pattern
• LIMITED DIMENSION COVERAGE: Only 2 of 4 dimensions have any mention; pricing and experience not addressed in any review

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required) and extreme age of all reviews (9+ years old). No WW Score should be assigned or relied upon at this time.