Find Nearby Plumbers In Plano, Texas

24 Hour Key Plumbing shows a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily penalized dimension: while many positive reviewers praise Bobby's friendliness, responsiveness, and courtesy, a significant cluster of negative reviews documents repeated no-shows, missed appointment windows, poor communication, and in one case alleged unprofessional conduct on-site (alcohol smell). Project completion is similarly compromised — multiple reviewers report incomplete repairs, misdiagnosed problems, and a pattern of becoming unreachable after payment, which substantially drags down what would otherwise be a reasonable completion record. Pricing receives a moderate score because the majority of reviewers who mention cost describe it as fair or reasonable, but two serious complaints — one involving a charge nearly triple the market rate with no prior quote, and another involving a bill $330 above the quoted price — prevent a higher score. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, as most reviewers who comment on workmanship describe Bobby as knowledgeable and skilled, though the misdiagnosed shower leak and incomplete leak repair in separate reviews introduce meaningful doubt.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with most positive reviews concentrated between 2011 and 2017. Only 3 reviews are from 2019 or later, and the two most recent reviews (2022) are split — one positive, one strongly negative. Current performance may differ significantly from historical patterns.
• PATTERN OF CONCERN — NO-SHOW / GHOSTING: At least 5 independent reviews (2016, 2017, 2017, 2018, 2019) describe Bobby becoming unreachable after payment or failing to show up for scheduled appointments. This is a recurring and specific pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PATTERN OF CONCERN — POST-PAYMENT ABANDONMENT: Three reviewers (Amber C. reference in 2019 review, the 2018 faucet review, and the 2019 shower leak review) explicitly describe paying for work and then being unable to reach Bobby for follow-up or warranty callbacks. One reviewer successfully disputed the charge via credit card.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: One reviewer was charged $680 against a quoted $350, and another was charged with no prior quote at all and later found the rate to be approximately 3x market rate. These are serious transparency failures, not minor discrepancies.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR MACHINE-TRANSLATED REVIEW: The review dated 2016-07-12 contains unusual phrasing consistent with machine translation (e.g., 'hole in my laundry sink spigot,' 'those would need to be supplanted,' 'holding up 3 days,' 'turned out that evening'). This review has been included but treated with reduced weight.
• STAR RATING POLARIZATION: Reviews cluster heavily at 1-star and 5-star with very few mid-range ratings, which is a common pattern when a contractor has a vocal base of loyal customers alongside a separate group of customers with serious grievances. This does not indicate fake reviews per se but does suggest the experience is highly variable.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews spanning over a decade, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by the age of most positive reviews, a documented recurring pattern of no-shows and post-payment ghosting, and at least one suspected machine-translated review — prospective customers should weight the post-2018 negative reviews heavily when making a hiring decision.

Still Waters Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competency and project completion capabilities, with multiple reviews praising technicians like Kyle, Jeremy, and Jeramie for thorough diagnostics, timely service, and follow-through. Professionalism is generally solid with positive comments on punctuality, communication, and courtesy. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing concerns: multiple customers report lack of transparency regarding costs, with one customer charged $449 for a 5-minute drain unclog (market rate $65–$200) and another charged $79 diagnostic fees that were supposed to be waived. Additionally, corporate-level business practices are criticized for poor appointment scheduling, unresponsive communication, and aggressive collection agency involvement without proper customer notification. The stark divide between field technician quality and corporate management failures creates an inconsistent customer experience.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CRISIS: Multiple reviews (2021-08-10, 2022-11-14) explicitly cite lack of upfront pricing disclosure and charges perceived as excessive or deceptive. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• CORPORATE MANAGEMENT FAILURES: Reviews from 2024-03-21, 2023-01-06, and 2022-07-23 describe poor appointment systems, ghosting customers, unresponsive communication, and aggressive collection practices without proper notification. These suggest organizational dysfunction separate from field technician quality.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2020–2021 (older than 2 years). Recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality or business practices may have deteriorated after acquisition.
• ACQUISITION IMPACT: 2024-03-21 review explicitly notes decline in service quality after acquisition by Stillwaters, suggesting organizational changes may have negatively affected customer experience.
• INCONSISTENT EXPERIENCE: Stark contrast between 5-star field technician reviews and 1-star corporate/pricing reviews suggests two different companies operating under one name.

This WW Score should be treated with caution: while field technician performance is genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), the company's pricing practices and corporate management are seriously flawed (MODERATE confidence on pricing). The overall score of 68.2 reflects a company with excellent technical staff undermined by poor business practices; customers should expect good workmanship but verify pricing in writing before service and be prepared for potential billing disputes.

GnR demonstrates strong technical expertise and problem-solving ability, with multiple reviews praising their knowledge and skill. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a critical no-show incident and poor communication practices. Pricing integrity is a major concern, with evidence of billing substantially above quoted amounts without customer authorization or advance notice. Project completion shows mixed results, with one severe service failure (no-show, delayed rescheduling) offsetting otherwise positive completion records. The company's response to the pricing dispute—refusing service and blaming the customer—further damages trust.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2019) describes serious billing practices—customer was quoted $150-$250, charged $400 for single installation without advance notice or authorization. Company later reduced bill to quoted amount but refused further service.
• No-show incident on scheduled appointment with no phone call; rescheduled 8 days later instead of next day.
• Two positive reviews (2021) are older than 12 months and lack specificity on pricing or project completion details.
• Positive reviews mention 'reliability' and 'standing behind work' but provide no concrete examples of warranty claims or callbacks honored.
• Recency bias: Most recent substantive review is from 2019; two positive reviews from early 2021 lack detail and may not reflect current operations.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical expertise appears solid, the single detailed negative review raises serious concerns about pricing transparency and customer communication that are not adequately offset by generic praise in older reviews. A score of 68.2 reflects these material trust issues, but with only 3 reviews total, the sample size is too small for high confidence. Recent customer feedback is needed to assess whether practices have improved.

Three of the four reviews are positive and describe Bruce at QHR as skilled, honest, and fair-priced, with two detailed accounts of complex slab leak and re-plumbing work completed successfully and at significantly lower cost than competitors. However, the most recent review (March 2024) is a 1-star complaint explicitly citing rude and disrespectful behavior from Bruce and his wife, poor workmanship, and failure to clean up after the job — which directly contradicts the positive pattern and carries the most recency weight. The two positive reviews with pricing mentions suggest strong value, but the negative review tempers confidence across all dimensions. With only four total reviews and a significant negative outlier from 2024, scores have been kept conservative across the board.

• Only 4 reviews total — sample size is too small for high-confidence scoring across any dimension.
• The most recent review (2024-03-26) is a 1-star complaint citing rudeness, poor workmanship, and no cleanup — this is the highest-recency data point and weighs heavily against positive older reviews.
• Two of the three positive reviews are from 2020 or earlier (one from 2017), making them 4–7 years old. Their relevance to current service quality is reduced.
• The 2017 and 2020 reviews are detailed and specific, reducing fake review concern for those entries. The 2024 negative review is also specific and credible.
• No pattern of fake reviews detected, but the small sample size limits reliability significantly.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — it is based on only 4 reviews spanning 7 years, with the most recent being a negative 1-star complaint, making it insufficient to draw confident conclusions about current service quality.

Casto Leak has a mixed track record across only 4 reviews spanning 2021–2023. Three positive reviews highlight Brian's responsiveness, same-day availability, affordability, and technical skill in locating leaks precisely. However, one significant negative review describes a failure to actually locate a leak in the yard, followed by a $675 charge for inconclusive work and an unsolicited $4,500 upsell — a serious concern for both project completion and pricing transparency. This single negative review carries substantial weight given the small sample size and directly contradicts the positive pattern seen elsewhere. Scores have been kept conservative across all dimensions due to the low review count and the severity of the complaint.

• Very small sample size (4 reviews total) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for high-stakes hiring decisions.
• One review (1-star, May 2023) describes a potentially predatory pricing pattern: charging $675 without completing the diagnostic task, then quoting $4,500 for a new line without confirming leak location. This is a significant red flag.
• Review dates span 2021–2023; the most recent reviews are from mid-2023, meaning no data exists from the past 12 months relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation window. Business quality may have changed.
• The three positive reviews are somewhat generic in praise ('very nice people,' 'good work,' 'highly recommend') with limited specific detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though they are not identical in phrasing and do not appear to be fake.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with a significant negative outlier present, making it LOW reliability — do not use this score as a primary basis for hiring without seeking additional recent references.

J&K Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile with significant operational inconsistencies. While individual technicians (particularly Jake, Dustin, and Antonio) frequently receive praise for technical competence and friendliness, systemic issues severely undermine overall service quality. The company struggles with professionalism due to persistent complaints about rude office staff (especially the receptionist), poor communication, failure to return calls, and aggressive scheduling practices (15-minute notice windows). Project completion is compromised by incomplete repairs, failure to follow up on warranty claims, false reporting to insurance companies, and abandonment of work. Pricing concerns emerge around hidden charges, cash-only payment demands, and inflated quotes. The company's apparent strategy of collecting service fees while avoiding actual repairs—particularly through AHS warranty assignments—is documented across numerous reviews spanning over a decade.

• SYSTEMIC FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (spanning 2008-2025) document identical schemes: marking jobs 'complete' to AHS without performing work, providing false diagnoses to deny warranty coverage, and collecting service fees without resolution. This pattern is too consistent to be coincidental.
• OFFICE STAFF CONDUCT: Receptionist (identified as 'Kathy' or 'Cathy') repeatedly described as rude, dismissive, and unprofessional across 40+ reviews. Multiple customers report being blamed for missed appointments despite company's own 15-minute notice policy.
• INTENTIONAL MISDIAGNOSIS: Documented pattern of technicians providing false information to warranty companies (roof leaks that don't exist, uneven floors, 'Act of God' clauses, foreign objects in toilets) to deny coverage. Licensed inspector review (2024) explicitly states company avoids work 'at all costs.'
• PAYMENT COERCION: Company demands cash/check only, refuses credit cards, and collects fees upfront before work completion. Multiple reviews note this prevents documentation and enables fee collection without service delivery.
• SCHEDULING ABUSE: Consistent complaints about 15-minute notice windows, technicians leaving immediately if customer is 2-5 minutes late, and charging $75 service fees for no-shows caused by company's own unrealistic timelines.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: Extensive documentation of unreturned calls, abandoned repairs, parts ordered but never installed (3+ months delays), and tickets marked complete without resolution.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While recent reviews (2025) show some positive experiences, negative patterns persist consistently through entire review history (2008-2025), suggesting systemic rather than isolated issues.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: Some highly generic 5-star reviews lack specific details; however, negative reviews are overwhelmingly detailed and specific, reducing likelihood of fake negative reviews. One review mentions company offers 'prizes for good reviews,' suggesting potential review manipulation.
• INSURANCE COMPANY COLLUSION: Multiple reviews suggest company benefits financially from AHS assignments regardless of work completion, creating perverse incentive to avoid repairs.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be trusted as a reliable indicator of significant service quality problems, though it may understate the severity of systemic issues given the company's apparent strategy of collecting fees without completing work. The HIGH confidence is based on 365 reviews with consistent patterns across 17 years, but the score reflects a company with serious operational and ethical concerns that warrant extreme caution.