Find Nearby Plumbers In Wichita Falls, Texas

Greg's Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning nearly a decade. While older reviews (2008–2014) consistently praise professionalism, punctuality, technical skill, and fair pricing, more recent reviews (2017–2022) reveal serious concerns: multiple customers report being quoted one price and charged 2.5× more, unprofessional conduct including vulgar language from staff, incomplete work with no follow-up, and aggressive upselling of unnecessary services. The professionalism score is dragged down by documented incidents of verbal abuse and poor customer service responses. Pricing confidence is limited by conflicting accounts—some call it reasonable, others report massive overcharges. Project completion shows mixed results with incomplete work and unresolved callbacks. Technical experience remains strong based on detailed positive feedback, but recent pricing and conduct issues suggest potential business practice changes.

• CRITICAL: Multiple independent reports of bait-and-switch pricing (quoted one amount, charged 2.5× more) in 2017 and 2022 reviews—suggests systemic billing practice issue.
• CRITICAL: Two separate incidents of aggressive/abusive behavior documented (profanity at customer on road, vulgar tirade in home during 2018)—raises serious professionalism and safety concerns.
• CRITICAL: Three reviews with minimal/no text content ('..', 'unknown', 'unknown') rated 5.0 with no substantive detail—suggests possible fake or placeholder reviews inflating ratings.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 6+ years old (2008–2014). Recent reviews (2017–2022) are predominantly negative or mixed, indicating potential business deterioration.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: 2018 review documents unfinished cabinet repair with dismissive company response—suggests follow-through and accountability issues.
• UPSELLING CONCERN: 2018 review alleges unnecessary water heater and pressure valve replacement recommendations with inflated pricing—suggests potential predatory sales practices.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 14 usable reviews, the data is heavily skewed by age (older reviews very positive, recent reviews very negative), contains 3 suspicious placeholder reviews, and documents multiple serious allegations (pricing fraud, abusive conduct, incomplete work) that are not isolated incidents but appear in separate, independent accounts. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects this volatility, but the trend toward negative recent reviews suggests current reliability is lower than the overall score indicates. Recommend requesting recent references and written quotes with binding price guarantees before engaging.

Wilbourn & McCabe Plumbing shows strong technical skill and work quality (95/100 based on explicit praise for Kyle's efficiency and cleanliness), but professionalism is significantly undermined by serious complaints about staff conduct and communication. One review praises responsive scheduling and polite technician behavior, while two reviews document unprofessional interactions: misinformation/miscommunication from office staff (Amanda and Bonnie) and a field technician's refusal to perform work due to home conditions and apparent judgment. Project completion data is limited but positive where documented. The company's score is dragged down by documented professionalism failures that directly contradict the positive experience, creating substantial inconsistency in service quality.

• RECENCY CONCERN: One negative review is from November 2021 (nearly 3 years old), which reduces its weight but the other two reviews are from 2024 and show ongoing issues.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly positive review (Kyle's work) and two negative reviews citing staff unprofessionalism (Amanda, Bonnie) and field technician refusal to work. This suggests inconsistent quality across team members.
• MISINFORMATION ALLEGATION: Review 2 explicitly states Amanda and Bonnie provided misinformation resulting in unnecessary expenses—a serious claim affecting both professionalism and pricing trust.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews limits confidence in overall assessment. Additional data needed for reliable scoring.
• NO PRICING DATA: No reviews explicitly address pricing fairness, transparency, or value—cannot score this dimension.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (3 reviews) and high internal inconsistency between positive and negative experiences. The company demonstrates strong technical capability but has documented professionalism and communication issues that warrant investigation before engaging their services.

Brian's Plumbing presents a deeply split profile across its review history. A substantial cluster of positive reviews — many from 2024–2025 in Wichita Falls, TX — praise specific technicians by name for punctuality, communication, and quality work, suggesting a capable field crew in the current operation. However, a large volume of older reviews (2012–2018), many referencing a 'Brian O'Regan' associated with 'Ronin Plumbing' in the Massachusetts area, describe serious misconduct including deposit theft, no-shows, incomplete work, aggressive behavior, and fraud. Pricing complaints span both eras, with multiple customers citing charges significantly above quotes, undisclosed fees, and billing for time not worked. Project completion is severely dragged down by multiple accounts of abandoned jobs, unfinished work, and work that failed shortly after completion. The overall score reflects a business with genuine capability in some contexts but a documented history of serious reliability, ethics, and pricing failures that cannot be ignored.

• CRITICAL: A large number of reviews (approximately 2012–2018) reference 'Brian O'Regan' and 'Ronin Plumbing' operating in Massachusetts, describing a pattern of deposit fraud, no-shows, and scam behavior. These may represent a different business entity or operator than the current Wichita Falls, TX operation, but they are associated with the same business name and were included in the review set.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR MANIPULATED REVIEWS: The 5-star review dated 2015-07-22 explicitly states 'I gave him five stars as I think they fit for being the biggest asshole' — this is a negative review disguised as a 5-star rating and was treated as a 1-star negative review in scoring.
• CLUSTER OF GENERIC REVIEWS: Multiple reviews from 2024-06-09 share identical date stamps, many are blank (no text, only a star rating), and several repeat the same technician names (Anthony, Conner) with very similar phrasing. This pattern is consistent with a coordinated review campaign and reduces confidence in those specific reviews.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 6 reviews contained no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most serious misconduct reviews (fraud, deposit theft, scam behavior) are predominantly from 2012–2018. Reviews from 2024–2025 are more positive and suggest possible improvement or a different operational context. However, negative reviews from 2024–2025 still cite pricing overcharges, incomplete work, and poor communication.
• PRICING OVERCHARGE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years cite being charged significantly more than quoted, being billed for travel time and tool retrieval, and undisclosed fees (e.g., city inspection fees). This is a consistent and credible pattern.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, work that failed shortly after completion, and technicians leaving without completing agreed scope. This pattern spans multiple years and multiple reviewers.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted with caution given the deeply polarized review history, evidence of possible coordinated positive reviews, and serious unresolved allegations of fraud and deposit theft in older reviews that materially affect trustworthiness.

This contractor shows highly inconsistent performance across reviews spanning 2012–2016. Professionalism is significantly compromised by multiple reports of poor communication, unfriendly phone interactions, missed appointments, and dismissive attitudes toward customers. Project completion is severely hampered by long delays (4–6 days to respond), incomplete work requiring callbacks, and at least one instance of a failed repair within a year. Pricing appears fair based on limited mentions, and technical skill is evident in successful repairs when work is completed. The contractor's reliability has deteriorated over time, with recent reviews (2014–2016) substantially worse than older ones (2012–2013).

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2014–2016; older reviews (2012–2013) are more positive. This suggests declining service quality over time.
• CRITICAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews explicitly cite long delays (4–6 days) before arrival and poor responsiveness to callbacks. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• QUALITY CONTROL: At least one faucet replacement failed within a year, indicating potential workmanship or parts quality issues.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Unprofessional tone and dismissive responses ('I will get to it when I get to it') documented in multiple reviews.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENTS: At least one review documents multiple no-shows despite confirmed appointments.
• TWO UNDATED REVIEWS: Ratings of 1.0 and 5.0 with 'unknown' text cannot be analyzed for dimension-specific evidence; they are counted in total but contribute minimal insight.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the data set is small (7 reviews) and heavily weighted toward older reviews, the consistency of complaints about delays, responsiveness, and professionalism across multiple independent reviews suggests genuine systemic issues. The contractor's performance appears to have declined significantly after 2013. Potential customers should be aware of substantial risk regarding timeliness and communication.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews. Two early reviews (2011-2012) praise professionalism, responsiveness, and expertise with dryer vent work. However, two later reviews (2010) reveal catastrophic project failures including incomplete work, poor craftsmanship, unprofessional behavior, and aggressive collection tactics. The 2010 bathroom remodel review documents extensive defects across multiple dimensions: drywall improperly finished, windows painted shut, tiles misaligned, electrical work incomplete, fixtures installed upside-down, and threatening lien behavior. The contractor's personality reportedly changed dramatically once payment was due. This pattern suggests either significant deterioration in service quality or inconsistent application of standards.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews from 2010 describe the same contractor (Loy Roper/Complete Handyman Services) with extremely negative outcomes. The detailed 2010 bathroom review documents systematic failures across professionalism, completion, and experience dimensions.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are from 2011-2012 (12-13 years old). Negative reviews are from 2010 (14 years old). All reviews predate 2013, limiting current relevance.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Early reviews praise expertise and professionalism; later reviews describe dishonesty, threats, and poor workmanship on the same contractor. This suggests either service degradation or selective reference checking.
• REFERENCE VERIFICATION ISSUE: The 2010 review explicitly states the contractor's main reference was a childhood friend, raising questions about reference authenticity.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple instances of unfinished work, callbacks required, and work left incomplete until payment demanded.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme review polarization, age of all reviews (10+ years), and apparent service inconsistency. The detailed negative reviews provide specific, verifiable claims of defects, but the small sample size (4 reviews) and temporal distance limit predictive value for current service quality. The contractor's identity and business status should be independently verified before reliance on this analysis.

Mike Graham's reviews are sharply divided between a small number of positive experiences and a substantial volume of serious complaints. Pricing is the most consistently flagged concern across the review set, with multiple reviewers independently reporting significant overcharges, hidden fees, and parts marked up far beyond retail value — driving the pricing score to a very low 22. Project completion is also problematic, with at least two reviewers explicitly stating that work was not completed correctly and the issue persisted after the technician left. Professionalism scores slightly higher due to a handful of positive reviews praising specific technicians like Chuck, Chris, and Tony by name, but these are offset by reports of rude behavior and dismissive responses to complaints. Experience scores similarly mixed, with some reviewers praising thorough explanations and problem-solving while others report technicians misdiagnosing issues that a second opinion quickly resolved for a fraction of the cost.

• PRICING ABUSE PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviews across multiple years (2014–2022) report significant overcharging or parts marked up far above retail. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FAILED REPAIRS: At least 2 reviews explicitly state the problem was not fixed after payment, and in one case a second technician resolved the issue for a fraction of the cost ($140 vs. ~$3000 quoted).
• ETHICAL CONCERN: One review alleges the company took advantage of a recently bereaved family member, overcharged by ~$2000, and failed to fully honor a refund agreement — resulting in a net loss of ~$4000 for the customer.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews span 2014–2021, with the most recent positive review dated July 2022. The reviewer from 2022 acknowledges reading 'numerous bad reviews' and suggests possible new management, but this is unverified. Older negative reviews should still be weighted as they reflect a long-standing pattern.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS DETECTED: Positive reviews reference specific technician names (Chuck, Chris, Tony, Layton) and specific scenarios, suggesting they are genuine. Negative reviews are similarly specific and independently corroborated. No suspicious uniformity detected in either direction.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 11 reviews total. While patterns are clear, the small sample size limits statistical reliability of exact scores.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the pattern of complaints is consistent and spans nearly a decade across independent reviewers, lending credibility to the negative findings, but the total review count of 11 is too small to produce high-confidence exact scores.