Find Nearby Plumbers In San Antonio, Texas

Legend Plumbing demonstrates critically poor performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by repeated no-shows without notification, rude staff behavior, and unprofessional communication—documented in 14 reviews. Project completion is consistently failed, with multiple instances of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and broken promises across 13 reviews. Pricing practices are predatory, featuring hidden charges, dramatic markup from quoted estimates, excessive service fees, and exploitation of vulnerable elderly customers, mentioned in 10 reviews. Technical experience shows marginal competence with instances of incorrect diagnostics and incomplete work. The company exhibits a pattern of taking customer money without delivering promised services.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: Multiple reviews (2023, 2022, 2020, 2018) document repeated failures to show for scheduled appointments without advance notification, forcing customers to reschedule multiple times.
• PREDATORY PRICING PRACTICES: Consistent pattern of bait-and-switch pricing—quoting low estimates then charging 3-5x more (e.g., $49.50 quote became $675.51; $189 diagnostic fee; $250 additional charges after initial service). Multiple reviews mention hidden credit card processing fees and taxes not disclosed upfront.
• EXPLOITATION OF ELDERLY CUSTOMERS: At least 3 reviews explicitly describe targeting senior citizens, charging excessive fees, submitting charges without itemized statements, and pressuring them into credit applications.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple documented instances of incomplete jobs (clogged toilet still clogged after service, only one of two tank lids drained, partial drain field restoration with nothing retrieved).
• HOSTILE OWNER BEHAVIOR: Owner Brett Brown documented screaming at customers over the phone, refusing follow-up service, and dismissing legitimate complaints.
• UNRESPONSIVE TO COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews document inability to reach company, being placed on hold for 30+ minutes, calls being hung up on, and promises to follow up never honored.
• RECENCY: Most reviews are 4+ years old (2014-2020), with only 2 reviews from 2023. However, the 2023 reviews show identical patterns (no-shows, poor communication, unprofessional staff), suggesting systemic issues persist.
• CONTRACT DECEPTION: One review documents deliberately vague contract language ('no set deadline for initiation or completion') used to avoid accountability.

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 16 detailed reviews with consistent, specific documentation of failures across all dimensions. The pattern of complaints is systematic rather than isolated, with corroborating evidence of the same problems (no-shows, pricing deception, incomplete work) repeated across multiple years and different customers. This company presents significant risk to consumers.

JC Enriquez & Son Plumbing demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Pricing is the most critical failure point, with 18 reviews documenting systematic overcharging, hidden fees, price gouging of elderly customers, and bait-and-switch tactics (quotes ranging from $89 to $268 for service calls; water heater installations quoted at $3,200 vs. $1,200 elsewhere; routine work inflated to $12,600+). Professionalism is severely compromised by no-shows, non-responsiveness to callbacks, rude owner behavior, false claims of completed work, and refusal to honor warranties. Project completion shows incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and failure to deliver promised results. Only one positive review (5-star, 2016) acknowledges decent workmanship and warranty honoring, but this is overwhelmed by 20 consistently negative reviews spanning 2016–2024, with most concentrated in 2021–2024.

• CRITICAL: 20 of 21 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints. This is not a pattern of fake reviews but rather consistent, corroborated evidence of systemic business failures.
• Multiple reviews describe identical predatory patterns: initial low quotes followed by dramatic mid-job price increases; targeting elderly/vulnerable customers; refusal to honor warranties; non-responsive follow-up.
• One 5-star review (2016) stands in stark contrast to all others and appears genuine but isolated. It does not offset the overwhelming negative pattern.
• Recency concern: Most damaging reviews are from 2021–2024 (8 reviews), suggesting ongoing or worsening practices. Older reviews (2017–2020) show the same patterns, indicating this is not a recent decline but a long-standing business model.
• Multiple reviews reference the same individuals (Joe, JC, Isaac) and describe identical tactics, strengthening credibility of complaints rather than suggesting fake reviews.
• No positive reviews mention pricing, completion, or responsiveness—only the single 5-star review mentions workmanship and warranty honoring.

This WW Score of 8.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 21 reviews with consistent, detailed, corroborated complaints spanning 8 years, with no evidence of fake reviews. The overwhelming consensus across independent reviewers, combined with specific dollar amounts, named individuals, and repeated patterns, provides exceptionally strong evidence of systemic failure in pricing, professionalism, and project completion. This company should be considered high-risk.

This company exhibits severe and consistent failures across all dimensions. Every single review (7/7) rates the company 1 star and documents serious problems: unprofessional behavior including cash-only demands, poor communication, lack of transparency, incomplete work, unnecessary upselling, and incompetent technicians. Multiple reviews describe technicians who appear unqualified, refuse to provide written estimates, leave jobs unfinished, or perform work incorrectly. Pricing practices are consistently predatory with unexplained charges, inflated quotes, and demands for cash payments. Project completion is critically deficient with multiple instances of abandoned work and unresolved issues months after service calls.

• CRITICAL: 100% of reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly negative assessments — this is not a mixed-quality business but a systematically problematic operation
• Multiple reviews document cash-only payment demands, which reviewers flag as suspicious and potentially indicative of financial impropriety
• Consistent pattern of upselling, unnecessary parts recommendations, and inflated quotes across multiple independent reviews
• Named technicians (John, Joe, Dale) appear repeatedly in negative contexts with accusations of dishonesty and incompetence
• One review explicitly notes the company has a D rating from the Better Business Bureau
• Reviews span 2012–2021, indicating this is a long-standing pattern, not a temporary issue
• Multiple reviews describe incomplete work, abandoned projects, and failure to honor warranty agreements
• No positive reviews exist to provide counterbalance or context

This score is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. Seven independent reviews, all 1-star, all documenting specific failures in professionalism, pricing, completion, and experience, create an overwhelming and consistent picture of a company that should not be hired. The uniformity of negative feedback across a 9-year period is not suspicious — it reflects genuine, systemic business failures.

With only 3 reviews, this dataset is too small to produce a reliable WW Score. The reviews are heavily polarized: two 5-star reviews from 2020 and 2023 praise punctuality and technical problem-solving, while one 1-star review from 2020 documents severe professionalism failures including rudeness, non-responsiveness, and poor communication from reception staff. The negative review explicitly addresses customer service and follow-through issues, which directly impact professionalism and project completion confidence. The positive reviews lack specificity about actual work quality or pricing.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews total — insufficient for reliable scoring. Minimum 5 reviews recommended.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2020 (4+ years old). Only one review from 2023.
• POLARIZATION: Extreme split between 5-star and 1-star with no middle-ground reviews suggests potential service inconsistency or selection bias.
• LACK OF DETAIL: Positive reviews are generic and lack specific work descriptions. Negative review is detailed and credible.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: One review documents unprofessional receptionist behavior, non-responsiveness to callback promises, and rude communication — serious concerns for a service business.
• MISSING DATA: No reviews mention pricing, making value assessment impossible.

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. The sample size is far too small, reviews are outdated, and the extreme polarization combined with documented professionalism failures suggests significant service quality inconsistency. Obtain at least 5-10 recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, friendliness, and quality work, but neither explicitly addresses project completion timelines or follow-through. Pricing is mentioned only once. The review sample is too small to establish confidence in any dimension.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Both reviews use generic praise language ('awesome', 'great service', 'wonderful company') with minimal specific details about actual work performed. Review 1 lacks specifics about which plumbing issues were resolved. Review 2 is attributed to 'Donovan M' but contains suspiciously polished language.
• NO PROJECT COMPLETION DATA: Neither review explicitly mentions job completion, timeliness, or follow-through on callbacks.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 1 mention of pricing ('priced affordable') with no detail on quotes, transparency, or value comparison.
• RECENCY MIXED: One review from August 2024 (recent), one from October 2023 (older than 12 months).

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and suspected generic/potentially fabricated review language. Do not rely on this assessment for contractor selection decisions.

Both reviews describe Raymond positively, noting fair pricing and good service, but they are extremely brief and lack specific detail about actual work performed. Professionalism scores are supported by mentions of his pleasant demeanor and convenience-focused scheduling. Pricing is explicitly mentioned in both reviews as fair, lending some support to that dimension. Project completion cannot be scored at all, as neither review describes a specific job, outcome, or whether work was fully delivered. Experience receives a conservative score because 'outstanding service' is mentioned but no technical detail or workmanship specifics are provided.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• Both reviews are highly generic with no specific job details, locations, or technical descriptions — this pattern is consistent with potentially unverified or low-detail reviews.
• Both reviews were posted within 2 days of each other (June 11–13, 2024), which is a timing pattern worth noting.
• No negative feedback or nuance present in either review — all praise is vague and non-specific, reducing confidence in authenticity.
• Project completion dimension has NO DATA — a critical scoring dimension is entirely unaddressed.

This score should be treated as highly unreliable due to only 2 reviews being available, both of which are generic, lack job-specific detail, and were posted within 48 hours of each other — far too little evidence to draw meaningful conclusions about this contractor's performance.