Find Nearby Plumbers In Round Rock, Texas

This small review set covers multiple different contractors, which significantly undermines the reliability of any aggregate score. Professionalism is a mixed picture: two reviews praise responsiveness and friendly attitudes, but two others cite significant tardiness and one describes a contractor who became completely unresponsive after being paid. Project completion is the most damaging dimension — one review describes a severely abandoned job with a hole in the ceiling, stained drywall, non-functional water heater, and $3,100 collected without finishing the work, which heavily drags this score down. Pricing feedback is moderately positive where mentioned, with one reviewer noting competitive pricing and another praising a fair quote, but the abandoned-job review raises serious concerns about financial trustworthiness. Experience scores modestly positive overall, with some reviewers expressing genuine confidence in workmanship, but the botched water heater installation undermines this dimension as well.

• CRITICAL: Reviews appear to reference at least three different contractors or companies (Eric, Bibiano/BMC Plumbing, Bruce Claytor). Aggregating these into a single score is methodologically unreliable and potentially misleading.
• ABANDONED JOB WARNING: One review (2011-12-04) describes a contractor collecting $3,100, failing to return as promised, and going completely silent — a serious red flag for financial and professional integrity.
• RECENCY WARNING: All five reviews are between 6 and 13 years old (2011–2019). None fall within the past 12 months. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current contractor behavior.
• LOW REVIEW COUNT: Only 5 reviews total. This is above the minimum threshold of 3 but far too few to produce a reliable aggregate score. Treat all scores with caution.
• MIXED CONTRACTOR POOL: Because reviews cover different individuals and companies, positive reviews for one contractor do not offset negative reviews for another. The WW Score here should not be applied to any single contractor without filtering by contractor identity.

This WW Score has very low practical reliability due to the small review count, extreme age of all reviews, and the fact that they appear to cover multiple distinct contractors rather than a single business or individual.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across all dimensions. Professionalism is severely dragged down by three separate reviews describing no-shows, ignored voicemails, and complete failure to follow up — a pattern that is hard to dismiss. Project completion tells a similar story: while two reviewers describe successful, timely job completions, two others explicitly describe abandoned work or unresolved problems after payment. Pricing and experience receive modestly positive scores, but these are based on only a handful of reviews and cannot offset the serious reliability concerns. The most recent reviews with usable detail are from 2014 and earlier, meaning there is no recent evidence of improvement.

• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are from 2011–2018, with the most recent being January 2018. No reviews from the past several years exist, making it impossible to assess current service quality.
• PATTERN OF NON-RESPONSE: Three separate reviews (2012, 2012, 2014) independently describe the contractor failing to show up, not returning calls, or abandoning work after payment. This is a consistent and credible pattern of unreliability.
• ABANDONED WORK AFTER PAYMENT: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor failed to fix the problem and then stopped returning calls after being paid in full — a serious red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 total reviews span a 7-year period, which is insufficient to establish reliable trends. All dimension scores should be treated with caution.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting they are likely authentic. However, the two 5-star reviews that mention positive experiences are older and lack the specificity to fully offset documented failures.

This WW Score has LOW overall reliability due to a small review pool, all reviews being over 5 years old, and a documented pattern of no-shows and abandoned work that significantly undermines confidence in this contractor.

Alta Vista Plumbing Services receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four dimensions, with the most severe failures concentrated in professionalism and project completion. Repeated no-shows, ignored callbacks, and broken promises of follow-through appear across at least 10 separate reviews, indicating systemic reliability failures rather than isolated incidents. Workmanship quality is also seriously compromised, with multiple reviewers documenting incorrect installations, failed city inspections, and repairs that required a second plumber to fix at additional cost. Pricing complaints are significant, with multiple customers reporting charges far exceeding initial quotes and one customer paying nearly $2,800 for a water heater installation after being quoted $1,200–$1,300. The handful of positive reviews are largely older (2014–2017) and describe a notably different experience than the more recent reviews, suggesting a meaningful decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews (5-star) are from 2014–2017, while the majority of negative reviews are from 2020–2024. This strongly suggests a decline in service quality over time. Recent performance should be weighted far more heavily.
• PATTERN — FAILED FOLLOW-THROUGH: At least 6 reviews explicitly describe the company failing to return calls, respond to emails, or honor scheduled appointments, indicating a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• PATTERN — INCOMPLETE OR DEFECTIVE WORK: At least 5 reviews describe work that was done incorrectly, failed inspection, or required a second plumber to repair, including an upside-down system installation, a loose heating element, a pipe cut too short, and an incorrectly installed shut-off valve.
• PATTERN — PERMIT/INSPECTION FAILURE: One review documents a failed city inspection followed by a two-year lapse in resolving an expired permit violation, with no response from the company despite multiple contact attempts.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe final charges significantly exceeding initial quotes, with no upfront disclosure of fixed or variable rate structures.
• POSITIVE REVIEW AGE: All 5-star reviews are from 2014–2017 with the exception of one from 2020 and one from 2021. These older reviews may not reflect current business practices and should be treated with caution when assessing present-day reliability.

This WW Score is based on 20 reviews with strong data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted as reflecting a contractor with serious and recurring service failures — particularly in recent years — and prospective customers should exercise significant caution.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Four of six reviews are 1-star accounts detailing abandoned projects, non-payment of equipment rentals, fraudulent liens, no-shows, and financial instability. Two positive 5-star reviews from 2019-2020 are vastly outweighed by detailed, corroborated negative accounts from 2020-2021 showing a pattern of taking deposits without completing work, poor communication, and combative behavior when confronted. The contractor's professionalism score is critically low due to frequent no-shows, late arrivals, excuses, and hostile interactions. Project completion is near-zero as multiple projects were abandoned mid-work. While two reviews mention reasonable pricing, this is irrelevant given the work was never completed. The WW Score of 28.3 reflects a contractor with serious legal and ethical issues.

• CRITICAL: Multiple detailed reviews document identical pattern of behavior: deposit taken, work abandoned, equipment not paid for, fraudulent liens filed, combative responses to complaints. This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• LEGAL RED FLAG: Reviews reference multiple court judgments against this contractor, hundreds of thousands in owed judgments, and multiple mechanics liens filed on other properties. Public records verification recommended.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Negative reviews cluster in 2020-2021 (most recent and detailed). Positive reviews are from 2019-2020 and lack specificity. Pattern suggests deterioration or escalation of problematic behavior.
• DEPOSIT MISAPPROPRIATION: Multiple reviews allege deposits were taken but equipment rentals were never paid by contractor, suggesting funds were diverted. One review explicitly documents $6,500 deposit with no accounting.
• FRAUD INDICATORS: Notarized mechanics lien filed for work never begun; false claims about permits and inspections; contradictory statements about contract terms; victim-playing behavior when confronted.
• The two positive reviews are generic and lack detail compared to the extensive, specific documentation in negative reviews. However, they do not appear to be fake—they describe legitimate small jobs (trench digging, leak repair) that may have been completed before the contractor's pattern of abandonment escalated.

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be treated as a strong warning signal. The score is based on six reviews with consistent corroboration across multiple detailed accounts, public records references, and a clear temporal pattern of escalating problems. This contractor should not be hired without extensive legal and financial verification.

These three reviews paint a consistently troubled picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by allegations of hidden costs from the owner, employees sent to work in unsafe conditions, and a billing practice that withholds the final invoice until after the job is done. Pricing is a clear red flag: one reviewer was billed nearly $80 more than the quoted amount, with the discrepancy only corrected after the customer raised a complaint. Project completion is similarly weak, with reports of sloppy installations and work that did not meet expectations. The one positive signal — a full refund offered after a bad experience — reflects some accountability, but does not offset the pattern of problems described.

• BILLING CONCERN: Review 2 explicitly describes being billed ~$80 more than the quoted price, with the overcharge only corrected after the customer complained. This suggests a systemic pricing transparency issue.
• REVIEW MANIPULATION RISK: Review 2 notes the customer was asked to leave a review BEFORE receiving the final bill — a practice that can artificially inflate ratings by soliciting feedback before problems are discovered.
• OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT CHANGE: Review 1 explicitly references a change in ownership and oversight as the cause of declining quality, suggesting scores may not reflect a consistent business over time.
• SAFETY CONCERN: Review 1 alleges employees were sent to work in unsafe conditions, which is a serious operational and ethical flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: All three reviews are from 2020–2022. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, so current service quality cannot be assessed.
• LOW REVIEW COUNT: Only 3 reviews are available. The WW Score is calculated but should be treated with very low confidence due to the small sample size.
• REVIEW 3 CREDIBILITY: The third review is vague, contains no specifics, and appears to be an edited review (originally negative, changed to 5 stars after a refund). Its 5-star rating does not reflect the underlying experience and may distort aggregate ratings on other platforms.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 12 months old, and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of current or consistent service quality.

All three reviews are overwhelmingly negative, painting a consistent picture of serious failures across nearly every dimension. Professionalism was severely undermined by broken promises, ignored complaint letters, unreturned calls, and in one case a contractor reportedly calling a customer to yell and curse after a complaint was posted online. Pricing transparency was flagged explicitly in one review, where a $460 charge for drain pipe was levied post-installation without prior disclosure, representing a dramatic and unjustified markup over retail cost. Project completion was a recurring failure across all three reviews, with permits either never pulled, pulled incorrectly, or left unresolved for months to over a year, forcing customers to handle issues themselves or face city inspector consequences. The only partial credit in experience comes from one reviewer noting the physical installation itself was acceptable, though even that was undermined by the failure to complete the required inspection process.

• All three reviews are dated between 2011 and 2012 — all reviews are over 12 years old and should be treated with significant recency caution. This score does not reflect current contractor performance.
• Two of the three reviews reference the same underlying issue (water heater installation via Home Depot/Olshan/Buck's Plumbing), which may indicate a narrow slice of the contractor's work rather than a representative sample.
• The reviews appear to reference two distinct but related entities — Olshan and Buck's Plumbing — making it difficult to cleanly attribute all failures to a single contractor. Scores reflect the combined experience as described.
• Sample size of only 3 reviews is at the minimum threshold for WW Score calculation. Confidence in this score is LOW and should not be used as a definitive assessment of contractor quality.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 12 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable as a reflection of current contractor quality — treat with extreme caution and seek recent, independent verification before making any hiring decision.