Find Nearby Plumbers In Sherman, Texas

Pruitt Plumbing has a deeply mixed and concerning review history. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is heavily dragged down by multiple explicit accounts of rudeness, threatening behavior toward customers, and complete failure to communicate or show up — including a no-call no-show for a sewage emergency. Project completion is similarly damaged by accounts of abandoned visits, excessive delays, and unresolved scheduling over multiple weeks. Pricing received both positive mentions (one reviewer felt they saved $50–$100, another praised affordability) and strongly negative mentions (opaque receipts, charging for unworked time, threatening billing tactics), resulting in a below-average score. Experience scores slightly higher, as a few older reviews describe knowledgeable and skilled work, but these are outweighed in recency by negative or neutral accounts.

• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review with substantive content is from 2021, and the majority of reviews are from 2011–2018. The single most recent review (2021) is positive, but the overall dataset is heavily dated. Scores should be treated with caution as they may not reflect current business quality.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — LOW LEVEL: One review contains only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no content. This review was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• BEHAVIORAL RED FLAG: Multiple independent reviewers (2015, 2016) describe nearly identical threatening behavior — specifically threatening to bill by the hour unless paid immediately. This pattern across separate reviews suggests a consistent and serious conduct issue with at least one technician.
• NO-CALL NO-SHOW: One reviewer explicitly describes a no-call no-show for a sewage backup emergency (2017), which is a critical reliability failure.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: One reviewer (2018) reports calling 3 times over 2 weeks with no callback, indicating a systemic communication failure.
• SCORE SKEW WARNING: Positive reviews are predominantly older (2011–2014), while negative reviews span 2015–2021. This recency trend suggests a possible decline in service quality over time.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable number of mentions across dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given that most positive reviews are over 10 years old, the most recent substantive feedback trends negative, and multiple reviews document serious professionalism and reliability failures.

Select Plumbing Solutions demonstrates severe and consistent failures across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically deficient, with documented instances of no-shows, missed callbacks, rude behavior, and the owner using profanity and verbal abuse toward customers. Project completion is severely compromised, with multiple jobs abandoned, delayed for weeks or months, and left incomplete or requiring third-party remediation. Pricing concerns emerge in one review involving fraudulent permit handling and inflated costs. The single positive review (5-star) praising technical diagnosis is vastly outweighed by nine 1-star reviews documenting systematic failures. This company exhibits a pattern of abandoning work, lying to customers and warranty companies, and failing to honor commitments.

• CRITICAL: Nine of ten reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints. This is not a pattern of isolated incidents but systemic failure.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document dishonesty and fraud, including false permit registration, lying about calling warranty companies, and misrepresenting work completion status.
• CRITICAL: Owner (Thomas Sledge) documented using profanity and verbal abuse toward a customer on the phone, with the customer reporting this to the warranty company.
• CRITICAL: Repeated pattern of no-shows, missed callbacks, and abandonment of jobs across multiple reviews spanning 2018-2021.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews indicate work was either incomplete, required redoing by other plumbers, or caused customer harm (scalding shower incident).
• The single 5-star review (2018-07-09) is generic and lacks detail, appearing incongruous with the overwhelming pattern of 1-star reviews. However, it is not flagged as fake due to its brevity being plausible for a positive experience.
• All reviews except one are from 2018-2021, with most from 2019. Recency is limited, but pattern is consistent across the entire period.

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 10 reviews with 9 detailed, specific 1-star complaints documenting fraud, abandonment, dishonesty, and abusive behavior, plus one generic 5-star review. The overwhelming consensus and specificity of negative evidence, combined with documented legal/warranty company complaints, indicate this company poses significant risk to customers.

Melton Plumbing's review record is one of the most consistently negative in all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is catastrophically low, with dozens of reviews documenting no-shows, missed appointment windows, unreturned calls and emails, rude and hostile behavior from the owner, technicians arriving without proper tools or parts, and outright lies told to both customers and home warranty companies. Project completion is nearly non-existent as a positive trait — the overwhelming majority of reviews describe jobs left unfinished, abandoned mid-repair, or never started at all despite weeks or months of waiting. Pricing and experience fare only marginally better in score, but only because a small number of positive reviews exist; multiple reviewers allege fraudulent upselling, inflated out-of-pocket charges, and misrepresentation of work scope to insurance companies, while technical errors include broken gas lines, mold contamination from improper cleanup, damaged flanges, and incorrect diagnoses. Only a handful of reviews (approximately 7 out of 72) describe a satisfactory experience, and these are vastly outweighed by the volume and severity of negative accounts spanning from 2018 through late 2024.

• PATTERN OF FRAUD ALLEGED: Multiple independent reviewers across multiple years allege that Melton Plumbing submitted false reports to home warranty companies (AHS, HSA, HMS) including marking jobs as complete when no work was performed, misrepresenting the nature of defects to avoid warranty coverage, and lying about site visits.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Numerous reviews specifically name the owner (Tom Melton / Tom) as hostile, verbally abusive, accusatory toward customers, and unresponsive. One review documents the owner threatening legal action against a customer for leaving a negative review.
• SAFETY INCIDENTS: At least two reviews describe serious safety failures — one involving a ruptured gas line left leaking overnight in a home with a pregnant woman and toddler, and another involving black mold being spread throughout a home via an unfiltered shop vac.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CREDIBILITY: The 7 positive reviews (all 5-star or high-rated) are sparse in detail relative to the volume and specificity of negative reviews. While not conclusively fake, they are insufficient to meaningfully offset the documented pattern of failure and do not address the systemic issues raised across dozens of negative accounts.
• RECENCY: Negative reviews are consistent and continuous from 2018 through October 2024, indicating no meaningful improvement over time. The most recent reviews (October 2024) describe the same patterns as reviews from 2018-2019.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / ABANDONMENT: A dominant pattern across 40+ reviews is jobs being started and then abandoned, with no follow-up communication for weeks or months, even for urgent situations such as active leaks, no hot water, and flooding.

This WW Score is based on 72 reviews spanning over six years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and the extremely low score should be treated as a reliable and well-evidenced assessment of this contractor's performance.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely undermined by repeated no-shows, broken commitments, zero communication, and a complete failure to respond to service calls on completed work. Project completion is the lowest-scoring dimension, with one job taking four times longer than promised, another resulting in $20,000 in rework, and a third where the contractor simply never showed up. Pricing scores marginally higher only because large sums were paid upfront, but the value received was described as catastrophically poor — with expensive equipment failing within a year and no warranty support honored. The one positive review (5 stars, 2018) mentions professionalism and timeliness favorably, but it is a single outlier against four detailed, specific, and credible negative accounts spanning multiple years. The most recent review (2023) describes an expired plumbing license and referral to a personal injury attorney, which is a serious red flag.

• EXPIRED LICENSE FLAG: The 2023 review explicitly states the plumbing license associated with this contractor is expired. This is a critical legal and safety concern.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Multiple reviews describe the contractor taking payment and then failing to complete work, failing to respond to service calls, or disappearing entirely.
• SINGLE POSITIVE REVIEW ANOMALY: The only 5-star review (2018) is vague in some respects and stands in stark contrast to four detailed negative reviews. It cannot be confirmed as fake, but it carries very limited weight given the volume and specificity of negative accounts.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent negative review is from 2023, indicating problems are not historical only — issues appear to be ongoing.
• OLDER REVIEWS NOTED: Two reviews date from 2014 and 2018, which are outside the 12-month recency window. However, the 2020 and 2023 reviews confirm the pattern has persisted over time.
• LEGAL ESCALATION: The 2023 reviewer was directed to communicate with a personal injury attorney when attempting to resolve disputes, suggesting the contractor is not engaging in good-faith resolution.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning nearly a decade, but the consistency of serious complaints across professionalism, completion, and experience — combined with an expired license flag and legal escalation — makes the low score highly credible and the overall assessment reliable despite the limited sample size.

With only two reviews, the data is highly polarized and insufficient for a reliable WW Score. The first review (2024) describes an exceptionally professional experience — friendly and thorough project management, proactive communication from a superintendent, and a crew that went above and beyond, resulting in a strong outcome. The second review (2023) is a serious red flag: the customer alleges the company accepted full payment and then failed to complete a house-leveling project, with the owner ignoring calls and making false promises, leaving the home in worse condition. These two reviews pull in completely opposite directions across professionalism, project completion, and experience, making any aggregate score misleading without more data.

• CRITICAL: One review alleges the company accepted full payment and abandoned the project entirely, with the owner (Paul Kinser) allegedly ignoring calls and lying to the customer. This is a serious unresolved complaint involving potential fraud.
• CRITICAL: The negative review mentions legal action (attorney involvement) and a contractor assessment of damage — this elevates the severity of the complaint beyond a typical dissatisfied customer.
• WARNING: Only 2 reviews total. This is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score. Results should not be used as a definitive assessment.
• WARNING: The two reviews are diametrically opposed (5-star vs 1-star), suggesting either inconsistent service quality, different crews or project types, or the possibility that one review does not reflect the typical customer experience.
• NOTE: The positive review references a French drain project while the negative review references house leveling — these are different service types, which may indicate variable quality across service categories.
• NOTE: No pricing information was mentioned in either review, so the Price Friendly dimension cannot be scored.

This score is NOT reliable — with only 2 reviews, a severe unresolved complaint alleging abandonment after full payment, and no pricing data available, no meaningful WW Score can be calculated; significantly more reviews are needed before this contractor can be assessed with confidence.

Both reviews are from 2020–2021 and contain only positive feedback with no critical details. Review 1 praises punctuality, communication (Sonny), and reasonable pricing. Review 2 highlights rapid response time, technical problem-solving under pressure, and prioritization of safety. However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. All dimensions show LIMITED confidence due to insufficient mention count (1–2 each). No negative feedback or specific complaints are present, but absence of criticism does not constitute evidence of quality.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably. Minimum 3 reviews required.
• Both reviews are 3+ years old (2020–2021). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language and no specific complaints or areas for improvement. Pattern suggests potential selection bias or incomplete review dataset.
• Review 1 uses generic praise ('fabulous,' 'amazing,' 'refreshing') without detailed technical specifics.
• No mention of warranty, follow-up service, or long-term satisfaction in either review.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). All data is 3+ years old with no recent performance indicators. Recommend collecting at least 5–10 recent reviews before making contractor selection decisions.