Find Nearby Plumbers In Tyler, Texas

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent performance issues across multiple dimensions. Project completion is critically weak, with multiple reviews documenting incomplete work, failed repairs, and jobs that required other plumbers to finish. Professionalism is significantly compromised by poor communication, rudeness, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and aggressive debt collection tactics including lawyer referrals. Pricing concerns emerge across several reviews, with customers reporting overcharges and payment demands for incomplete work. While two older positive reviews (2013–2014) mention reasonable pricing and professionalism, they are heavily outweighed by five detailed negative reviews (2016–2019) documenting systemic failures. The stark polarization and severity of documented failures indicate serious operational and ethical problems.

• CRITICAL: Extreme polarization — 5 one-star reviews with detailed, specific complaints vs. 2 five-star reviews with generic praise. The negative reviews are highly detailed and credible; positive reviews lack specificity.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2016–2019 (5–8 years old). Only one recent positive review from 2024. Cannot determine if company has improved or if recent review is anomalous.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple independent reviews document unfinished jobs, failed repairs, and customers forced to hire second plumbers. This is not isolated — it is systemic.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Multiple reviews document rudeness, non-responsiveness to callbacks, and aggressive debt collection including lawyer threats. One review explicitly calls the company 'FRAUD' and 'CHEATERS.'
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: The 2024 review ('Great company fixe my toilet great working well, highly recommend') uses generic language, poor grammar, and lacks specifics. It stands in stark contrast to detailed negative reviews and may not be credible.
• LEGAL/ETHICAL CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document the company pursuing debt collection and legal action against customers for incomplete work. This suggests either unethical business practices or a pattern of customer disputes over quality.

This score should be treated with CAUTION despite MODERATE confidence. While the negative reviews are detailed, credible, and consistent, most are 5–8 years old, making it unclear if the company's current operations match historical performance. The single recent positive review is generic and may be unreliable. The WW Score of 42.3 reflects severe documented failures in project completion and professionalism, but customers should seek current references and verify whether the company has addressed these systemic issues before engaging.

The overwhelming majority of reviews paint a deeply negative picture of this contractor across all four dimensions. Four out of five reviews describe serious failures including taking payment upfront and abandoning work, dangerous construction (sharp handrails, unsupported structures), extremely poor workmanship (cracked grout, misaligned molding, improperly hung doors), and a complete lack of follow-through on commitments. The single positive review (5-star, 2016) describes a favorable experience with storm damage repair, but it stands alone against four detailed, specific negative accounts. Pricing concerns center on upfront payment demands followed by non-delivery, and the one reviewer who found the quote reasonable ultimately received work far below acceptable standards. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing unfinished work, missed timelines, and money taken without services rendered.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: The single 5-star review uses generic praise language ('very professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'timely manner') with limited specificity compared to the highly detailed negative reviews. It cannot be ruled out as potentially inauthentic, though it does reference a specific scenario (tree/roof damage) which adds some credibility.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews date from 2016–2017, meaning this data is approximately 7–9 years old. Current performance of this contractor is entirely unknown and may differ significantly.
• PATTERN WARNING: Multiple reviewers independently use the phrase 'Buyer BEWARE' and describe the same core behavior — upfront payment followed by abandonment or substandard work — which suggests a consistent and systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• FINANCIAL HARM REPORTED: At least two reviewers explicitly state they lost money to this contractor with no refund or recourse, including one reviewer still awaiting a refund for a shower door at time of writing.
• SAFETY CONCERN FLAGGED: One reviewer explicitly described a dangerous handrail installation with sharp exposed lumber ends that did not meet safety standards, indicating potential liability risk for homeowners.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to a small review pool of only 5 reviews, all of which are more than 7 years old, but the four negative reviews are highly detailed, specific, and independently corroborating, making the low score directionally reliable as a historical signal of poor performance.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe serious and recurring failures across all four dimensions. Pricing complaints dominate the dataset: multiple reviewers report being charged for travel time, duplicate trips, unauthorized work, and inflated labor hours. Project completion is severely undermined by at least two independent accounts of a leak being missed on the first visit, requiring a costly second call, and one review explicitly states that $3,000 worth of prior work had to be entirely re-done. Professionalism scores are dragged down by reports of workers calling customers from personal phones in what felt threatening, work being performed without authorization after explicit instructions not to proceed, and harassment of a disabled elderly customer over payment. The only positive signals come from two brief, vague reviews (one from 2013, one from 2015) that lack specific detail and are now over eight years old, providing minimal counterweight to the volume of detailed negative accounts.

• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are between 2 and 11 years old. The most recent review is from August 2022. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current service quality is unknown.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LIMITED: The two positive reviews (2013 and 2015) are extremely brief, generic, and contain no specific details about the work performed, pricing, or job scope. This contrasts sharply with the detailed negative reviews and warrants skepticism about their authenticity.
• DUPLICATE INCIDENT PATTERN: Two separate reviewers (October 2019) describe nearly identical experiences involving the same property and the same sequence of events — missed leak on first visit, unauthorized work on second visit, and false claims about cell coverage. This corroborates both accounts and significantly increases credibility of the negative scoring.
• UNAUTHORIZED WORK: At least two reviews explicitly state that work was performed and billed without prior customer authorization, which is a serious professional and legal concern.
• THREATENING BEHAVIOR: One reviewer reports being contacted by a worker via personal cell phone in a manner described as threatening after disputing charges. This is flagged as a significant professionalism and safety concern.
• BILLING INTEGRITY: Multiple reviews allege billing for time not worked, including travel to gather parts the worker should have had, and charging two hours when one was appropriate. This pattern across multiple independent reviewers is a strong signal of systemic overcharging.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a sufficient number of detailed, corroborating negative reviews, but is limited by the complete absence of reviews from the past 12 months and the presence of two suspiciously vague positive reviews that may not reflect genuine customer experiences.

All four reviews describe severe failures across multiple dimensions. Customers report incomplete projects, unfinished work, repeated requests for additional payment beyond agreed amounts, non-responsiveness to calls and texts, and poor workmanship (botched installations, unfinished tasks). The owner is described as unresponsive after payment and unwilling to stand behind work or honor agreements. Two reviews explicitly mention poor technical execution (teflon tape omission, installation errors). This contractor demonstrates consistent patterns of non-completion, financial misconduct, and lack of accountability across all reviewed projects.

• CRITICAL: All four reviews are 1-star ratings with consistent allegations of fraud, incomplete work, and financial misconduct. While not identical in phrasing, they describe remarkably similar patterns: initial agreement on price/timeline, repeated requests for additional draws/payments, work left unfinished, and owner becoming unresponsive.
• All reviews are from 2018-2019 (4-6 years old). No recent reviews available to assess if business practices have changed.
• Multiple customers report hearing similar complaints from others, suggesting a pattern rather than isolated incidents.
• Allegations include potential fraud and breach of contract, not merely quality issues.
• No positive reviews present to provide balance or alternative perspective.

This assessment is based on limited data (4 reviews, all from 2018-2019), but the consistency and severity of allegations across all reviews—combined with explicit fraud claims and corroborating reports from other customers—suggests extremely high risk. The absence of any positive reviews and the age of all reviews warrant caution; however, the uniformity of serious complaints indicates this score should be treated as a strong warning signal rather than an unreliable outlier.

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. The reviews present sharply contradictory evidence: one 5-star review from 2018 praising professionalism, pricing, and experience, and one 1-star review from 2015 citing severe communication failures and unresponsiveness. The extreme polarity and small sample size make it impossible to determine which experience is representative. Additionally, both reviews are older than 12 months, limiting recency relevance.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation
• EXTREME POLARITY: Reviews are contradictory (5-star vs 1-star) with no middle ground, suggesting inconsistent service or potential data quality issues
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are significantly older than 12 months (2015 and 2018); no recent data available to assess current performance
• CONFLICTING PROFESSIONALISM EVIDENCE: One review praises helpfulness and responsiveness; the other explicitly criticizes lack of customer service and failure to return calls

This score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume (n=2), extreme contradictions between reviews, and lack of recent data; a minimum of 3-5 recent reviews is required before any meaningful WW Score assessment can be made.

Both reviews speak positively about Goettle Plumbing across multiple dimensions, including professionalism, workmanship, and job completion. The second review is notably detailed, describing timely communication, prompt arrival, successful drain clearing, and an additional water pressure issue resolved without being asked — suggesting solid technical skill and follow-through. Fair pricing is explicitly mentioned in the second review, though only once, keeping that score conservative. All dimension scores are held conservative due to the very small sample size of only two reviews.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review dates span from 2022 to 2024, meaning one review is over 2 years old. Recency weighting is limited.
• No negative feedback present, but this is not treated as evidence of perfection — scores are held conservative accordingly.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns definitively, but both reviews contain specific details (names, dates, plumbing issues) which reduce fake review suspicion.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension score or overall assessment can be trusted with confidence.