Find Nearby Plumbers In Plano, Texas

Bacon Plumbing, Heating, Air & Electric has a deeply polarized review history spanning over a decade. Individual technicians are frequently praised for being courteous, professional, and knowledgeable, which keeps the professionalism score from falling further. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension: dozens of reviewers across multiple years describe quotes that were 3x to 10x higher than competitors, aggressive upselling, high-pressure sales tactics, and in several cases outright misdiagnosis to justify expensive work that was never needed. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are finished satisfactorily, but a meaningful number of reviews describe abandoned work, incomplete repairs, missed appointments, and follow-up failures. Experience scores are dragged down by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, recommending unnecessary full system replacements, and in some cases causing additional damage during service calls. The Friends and Family membership program is a recurring source of complaints regarding hidden charges, difficulty canceling, and failure to deliver promised value.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Dozens of independent reviewers across multiple years describe quotes that were 3x to 10x higher than competitors for identical work. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• UPSELLING / MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending full system replacements (sewer lines, HVAC units, water heaters) that second-opinion plumbers confirmed were unnecessary. This pattern appears across different technicians and years, suggesting a company-wide sales culture.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Several reviews describe jobs left incomplete — open holes, disconnected pipes, missing access panels, and missed follow-up appointments. One detailed review describes a broken pipe fitting left after service that caused sewer water to leak under the house.
• MEMBERSHIP PROGRAM COMPLAINTS: The Friends and Family subscription plan is cited in numerous negative reviews for hidden monthly charges, difficulty canceling, and failure to deliver promised discounts or priority service.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews from 2025 and May 2025 are extremely brief (e.g., 'Good job', 'Brad B gave great service very happy with the results', 'Ryan is very good!') with no substantive detail. Several reviews have no text at all with a 5-star rating. This pattern is consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive signal from these reviews is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 6 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) continue to show both the positive technician praise and the negative pricing/upselling patterns seen throughout the company's history, indicating these issues have not been resolved over time.
• ETHICAL CONCERNS: Multiple reviews allege technicians lied about diagnoses, one review alleges an unauthorized credit card charge of $10,700, and one review describes a technician recommending hydro-jetting on old cast iron pipes — a practice known to cause damage — suggesting potential bad-faith recommendations.

This WW Score of 52.1 is based on a large volume of reviews (185 total) spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence; the score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and courteous individual technicians undermined by a deeply problematic and well-documented pattern of price gouging, aggressive upselling, and inconsistent project completion that has persisted across many years.

This contractor's review profile is deeply split between a cluster of recent 5-star reviews (2025) and a series of highly detailed, credible 1-star reviews from 2009–2013. The older negative reviews describe severe and repeated failures: chronic no-shows, unanswered phones, abandoned jobs, billing disputes, and a specific employee ('Jerry') cited multiple times for misconduct and poor workmanship. The recent positive reviews, while numerous, are largely generic, lack specific detail, and several share nearly identical phrasing and structure, raising significant fake review concerns. Professionalism and project completion scores are heavily penalized by the older reviews, which describe some of the most egregious service failures possible. Pricing is mixed — one reviewer saved significantly versus a competitor, while another was charged $225 for 30 minutes with no explanation, and one was billed over $800 with no itemization for unfinished work.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A large cluster of 17 reviews posted between January and June 2025 are highly suspicious. Many use near-identical sentence structures ('The plumber was professional, completed the work efficiently...'), generic superlatives with no specific details, and suspiciously uniform 5-star ratings. Several pairs of reviews from the same date (e.g., 2025-04-10, 2025-02-09, 2025-03-11) share nearly identical phrasing and tone. Confidence in the positive review cluster is significantly reduced.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The 17 recent 5-star reviews (2025) may be an attempt to bury 8 detailed 1-star reviews from 2009–2013. The older negative reviews are far more specific, credible, and internally consistent than the recent positive ones.
• NAMED EMPLOYEE PATTERN: Multiple independent negative reviews specifically name 'Jerry' as responsible for no-shows, shortcuts, hanging up on customers, and incomplete work. This is a strong signal of a real, recurring problem rather than isolated complaints.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least 3 separate reviewers explicitly state the job was never finished and they had to hire another plumber to complete the work.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 4 independent reviews describe repeated no-shows, missed appointments, and unanswered phones despite being advertised as a 24/7 service.
• BILLING IRREGULARITIES: One reviewer received a bill over $800 with no itemized breakdown. Another was charged $150 for a water heater repair that was never completed. A third was charged $225 for under 30 minutes with no explanation.
• ONE REVIEW ('See above', 5-star, 2012) contains no usable content and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• TEMPORAL WARNING: The majority of detailed, credible negative reviews are from 2009–2013 and may not reflect current operations. However, the suspicious nature of the 2025 positive reviews means the older data cannot simply be discounted.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust: the recent positive reviews show strong indicators of inauthenticity, while the older negative reviews are highly specific and credible, creating a profile where the true service quality is likely significantly worse than the blended score suggests.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions, with a significant volume of serious negative reviews pulling scores down substantially. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is heavily damaged by multiple accounts of rude behavior, canceled appointments, dismissive attitudes, and unprofessional appearance and conduct — offset only partially by a handful of genuinely positive experiences. Pricing is a major concern, with multiple reviewers citing dramatically inflated quotes, charges for work not completed, and suspected price gouging, though a few reviewers found pricing reasonable or even lower than expected. Project completion is similarly split: several reviews describe incomplete or inadequate work (particularly around slab leak detection), missed appointments, and abandoned jobs, while others praise timely and thorough follow-through. Experience scores are dragged down by credible accounts of failed leak detection, incorrect diagnoses, and a plumber unable to locate a standard shutoff valve, though some positive reviews cite skilled use of electronic equipment and quality materials.

• Multiple reviews describe nearly identical slab leak detection failures — charging $250 flat rate, refusing to mark the leak location, and withholding information to secure repair business. This pattern across independent reviewers (2013–2017) suggests a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• One reviewer explicitly accused the company of price gouging a woman, and another female reviewer noted she was treated respectfully — both accounts are credible and reflect inconsistency rather than fabrication.
• The positive reviews tend to be generic in praise ('amazing,' 'fantastic,' 'highly recommend') with limited technical specifics, while negative reviews contain granular, verifiable detail. This asymmetry slightly reduces confidence in the positive reviews.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; the most recent review is from July 2023, but the majority of reviews span 2013–2022. The recency-weighted picture is limited — only 1 review is within the past 12 months from a typical analysis date of mid-2024.
• No fake review pattern detected, but the volume of detailed negative reviews with consistent themes (leak detection fraud, rudeness, overbilling) is a strong reliability concern for prospective customers.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence in its accuracy, but the score reflects a genuinely troubled contractor record — prospective customers should treat the low scores as meaningful warnings rather than statistical noise.

Manning Remodeling shows a stark divide between highly positive early reviews and severely negative recent experiences. While the first three reviews praise quality workmanship and project management, the three most recent reviews (2020–2022) document serious failures in professionalism, communication, project completion, and financial transparency. Critical issues include absent project managers, surprise cost increases, incomplete work lasting over a year, substandard plumbing and cabinetry, unresponsiveness to customer concerns, and alleged non-refund of permit fees. The contractor's owner is described as argumentative and unavailable. The weight of evidence from multiple detailed negative reviews substantially outweighs generic praise from earlier reviews.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: The first review uses suspiciously generic, repetitive praise ('best cabinet makers anywhere,' 'best tile installers, electricians, and plumbers ever') with no specific project details, dates, or measurable outcomes. This reads as a testimonial rather than an authentic customer experience review.
• RECENCY BIAS: Three of six reviews are from 2020–2022 and document severe, ongoing problems. The two most recent detailed reviews (Oct 2022, Mar 2020) are overwhelmingly negative with specific, corroborated complaints (incomplete kitchen after 1 year, permit fraud, code violations, unresponsive owner). These carry more weight than older generic praise.
• CREDIBILITY CONCERN: Multiple reviewers independently report the same pattern of failures (poor project management, communication breakdown, incomplete work, financial disputes, unresponsiveness). This consistency across independent accounts suggests systemic issues, not isolated incidents.
• FINANCIAL INTEGRITY ISSUE: Two reviews allege financial misconduct (surprise invoices due to undisclosed cost changes, non-refund of permit fees charged but never paid to city). These are serious allegations that undermine trust.

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. The WW Score of 52.3 reflects a contractor with documented serious failures in professionalism, project completion, and financial transparency, despite some earlier positive reviews. The recent negative reviews are detailed, specific, and corroborated by multiple independent customers, whereas the positive reviews lack specificity and show signs of being promotional. The contractor's business model and management practices appear to have created systemic problems that persist across multiple projects.

This contractor shows highly polarized performance across a small sample of reviews. Two recent positive reviews (2024, 2023) praise punctuality, reliability, reasonable rates, and skilled workmanship, suggesting strong professionalism and experience. However, a 2020 review documents serious project completion failure: incomplete work, non-responsiveness, refusal to refund or complete the job, and poor communication. The stark contradiction between glowing testimonials and documented abandonment raises concerns about consistency and reliability. The low mention counts across all dimensions and the extreme rating variance (5.0, 5.0, 1.0) limit confidence in any single score.

• CRITICAL: Extreme rating polarization (two 5-star reviews vs. one 1-star) with no middle ground suggests potential inconsistency in service delivery or review authenticity.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most damaging review (project abandonment, non-communication, refusal to refund) is from 2020, but recent positive reviews do not address or acknowledge this incident, raising questions about whether issues were resolved.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Scores are unreliable for decision-making.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The first review reads as unusually formal and generic corporate praise with no specific details about the furniture repair work. The second review is vague sentiment without substantive information. Both contrast sharply with the detailed complaint in review 3.
• GEOGRAPHIC RELOCATION: Review 2 mentions contractor moved to Texas; unclear if reviews 1 and 3 refer to same person or if service quality changed post-move.

This score should NOT be trusted for hiring decisions. The sample is too small (3 reviews), the ratings are extremely polarized, and there is insufficient evidence of whether past failures were resolved or are recurring issues. Additional recent reviews and direct communication with the contractor are essential before engagement.

The three reviews present a sharply divided picture of this contractor. Two positive reviews from 2020 praise professionalism, timeliness, and fair pricing, while a detailed 1-star review from 2019 describes serious issues including poor appearance, no protective gear, property damage, incomplete work, deceptive billing practices, and a failure to follow up after complaints. The negative review is highly specific and credible, covering nearly every dimension and dragging scores down significantly. The positive reviews lack granular detail, which limits their ability to fully offset the documented failures. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with inconsistent quality and at least one serious service failure on record.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with caution.
• The 1-star review alleges potential fraud: the plumber reportedly requested payment by check written to his personal name rather than the company, and claimed to have resolved more clogs than actually existed to inflate the bill.
• The negative review also alleges the company failed to follow through on a promised manager callback, suggesting a systemic responsiveness issue.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (most recent is from 2020-08-12), meaning there is no recent data to assess current service quality.
• The two positive reviews are relatively brief and lack specific operational detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight compared to the highly detailed negative review.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 4 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers should seek more current and numerous reviews before making a hiring decision.