Find Nearby Plumbers In Mobile, Alabama

Blackstone Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across its review history. Older positive reviews (2012–2015) describe dependable, quality work and good communication, but two significant negative reviews raise serious concerns about incomplete repairs, failure to return for callbacks, and opaque billing practices including an alleged 11x parts markup. The most damaging pattern is the project completion dimension: two separate reviewers explicitly state the work was not fixed correctly and the company either refused or failed to return promptly, forcing customers to hire others. Professionalism scores are dragged down by poor responsiveness to post-job issues and antiquated administrative practices noted in the 2018 review. The overall score is tempered by the fact that the majority of reviews are more than five years old, limiting their relevance to current service quality.

• RECENCY WARNING: 6 of 7 reviews are from 2012–2018. No reviews from the past several years are present. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• CALLBACK FAILURE PATTERN: Two independent reviewers (2012 and 2018) explicitly state that completed work failed shortly after and the company did not return to fix it in a timely manner — a significant project completion red flag.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer alleges an 11x parts markup and non-itemized billing. This is a specific, credible complaint that materially lowers the pricing score.
• THIN REVIEW SET: Only 7 reviews total. Scores carry limited statistical reliability regardless of confidence labels assigned per dimension.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several positive reviews ('Went very well.', 'They are always dependable and do a great job.') contain no specific detail, reducing their evidentiary weight in scoring.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the small review pool, the age of nearly all reviews, and two substantive negative accounts of incomplete work and poor follow-through mean this score is not a reliable indicator of current service quality.

Amore Plumbing has a mixed and concerning record based on the available reviews. Two older positive reviews (2011 and 2013) praise professionalism, punctuality, and cleanliness, but these are over a decade old and carry limited relevance to current performance. The most recent and detailed review (2019) describes a serious failure in project completion — a temporary fix was applied with no follow-up, a promised return visit never occurred, and the technician later denied key conversations, raising significant integrity concerns. The experience dimension is similarly split: older reviews suggest competent workmanship, while the 2019 review includes credible third-party observations that a pipe was improperly glued during installation. Pricing was never mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2014-09-30) has no review text ('unknown') and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• Two of the three usable positive reviews are from 2011 and 2013 — more than 10 years old — and should be weighted very lightly relative to current performance.
• The most recent review (2019) is the only review within the past several years and it is a detailed 1-star complaint describing incomplete work, a broken promise of follow-up, and disputed technician integrity. This recency imbalance is a significant concern.
• The small total review count (4 reviews, only 3 usable) means this score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with caution.

This WW Score has very low reliability due to only 3 usable reviews spanning over a decade, a complete absence of pricing data, and a stark conflict between old positive reviews and the most recent detailed negative review.

The three reviews present a sharply divided picture of this contractor. One reviewer had a strongly negative experience involving a no-show, unanswered calls, and apparent deception about arrival time — a serious failure in both professionalism and project completion. The two positive reviews praise punctuality, professionalism, and quality of work, with one specifically noting the job was completed on time and efficiently. Because the negative review is recent (May 2023) and the positive reviews are older (2022), the recency weighting pulls the overall score down. With only three reviews total, confidence across all dimensions is low and the WW Score should be treated with significant caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation; results are highly unreliable.
• The two positive reviews are relatively generic in detail (e.g., 'great service,' 'very professional') and lack specifics beyond one review, which slightly raises concern about authenticity, though not conclusively.
• The most recent review (May 2023) is a 1-star no-show complaint; under recency weighting this is the most relevant data point and significantly impacts professionalism and project completion scores.
• The positive reviews are both from 2022 and may not reflect current service quality.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with conflicting signals and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality — significantly more review data is needed before drawing firm conclusions.

D&H Plumbing presents a deeply mixed and concerning picture across all scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by multiple documented no-shows across multi-hour appointment windows, a staff member cursing at a customer and hanging up, and an owner refusing to return to remedy dangerous unfinished work — these serious incidents outweigh the handful of positive reviews praising polite and courteous service. Project completion is the weakest area, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, unresolved leaks, an open hole left in a customer's home, a wrong pump installed, and a technician admitting he was unqualified after completing the work. On the experience dimension, while a few reviews praise efficient diagnosis and repair, the detailed 1-star account of a water heater installation that was illegal for the dwelling type, repeated fire flashes during lighting attempts, and improper venting reflects serious technical deficiencies. Pricing received only two mentions — one positive — so confidence in that dimension is low and should not be weighted heavily.

• SERIOUS SAFETY INCIDENT: One review documents three instances of fire flashing from a water heater unit during lighting attempts by the owner, constituting a potential explosion hazard in a residential mobile home.
• ABANDONED WORK: Multiple reviews describe jobs left incomplete, including an open hole in a home's exterior wall, an unresolved leak, and a non-functioning septic pump — with the contractor subsequently becoming unreachable.
• ILLEGAL INSTALLATION: One review explicitly states D&H installed a water heater that was illegal for use in a mobile home, indicating a potential code compliance failure.
• REPEATED NO-SHOWS: One reviewer documented three separate no-show appointments across a single month, with dispatch confirming attendance each time before the contractor failed to appear.
• STAFF CONDUCT: A dispatcher reportedly cursed at a customer ('What the hell') and hung up, then allegedly misrepresented the interaction to the warranty company.
• UNRELATED FRAUD COMPLAINT: One review alleges unauthorized credit card charges by the business. This cannot be verified from review text alone but is noted as a serious flag.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The five positive reviews span 2016 to 2024, with three of them dated 2016–2020 and containing minimal detail. The four most detailed negative reviews are all from 2023, suggesting a possible decline in service quality in recent years.
• THIN POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews ('unknown', '.', 'Fast response, great work, awesome attitude') contain little to no specific detail, reducing their evidentiary value. These may reflect low-effort or unverifiable submissions.
• OVERALL CONFIDENCE REDUCED: The combination of serious documented incidents, recency-weighted negative pattern, and low-detail positive reviews reduces overall score reliability.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the mention counts are sufficient for statistical grounding, but the score is heavily influenced by several highly detailed and credible negative reviews from 2023 that describe serious safety, completion, and professionalism failures, which prospective customers should weigh carefully against the sparse positive feedback.

J&T Plumbing (Jimmy Dwayne Renfro) exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by documented no-shows, failure to answer phones, unprofessional appearance (exposed underwear, spitting tobacco), and disrespectful behavior. Pricing practices are highly questionable, with multiple reports of overcharging, hidden fees, and alleged financial fraud including theft of customer receipts and store credits. Project completion is severely hampered by chronic no-shows, broken appointments (12+ documented instances), ghosting customers, and failure to honor commitments despite advance payment. While a few positive reviews mention responsiveness and reasonable pricing, these are vastly outweighed by detailed accounts of deception, non-completion, and financial misconduct. The pattern of negative reviews is consistent, specific, and corroborated across multiple independent accounts.

• CRITICAL: Strong evidence of fake positive reviews. Multiple negative reviewers explicitly question the authenticity of 5-star reviews, noting suspicious generic praise with no specifics. The contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed, specific negative accounts is stark.
• CRITICAL: Multiple allegations of financial fraud and theft, including: (1) charging $450 for 15 minutes of work with no troubleshooting; (2) stealing customer receipts and pocketing store credits; (3) lying about refund amounts; (4) collecting advance payments ($1,000+) and ghosting customers.
• CRITICAL: Chronic no-show pattern documented across multiple reviews spanning 2019-2024. One customer reported 12 broken appointments; another reports no-show with no communication; multiple others report ghosting after advance payment.
• CRITICAL: Licensing and insurance concerns flagged. One review explicitly states the plumber is NOT INSURED per Texas State Board of Plumbers (License #41795).
• CRITICAL: Unprofessional conduct documented including spitting tobacco in customer's bathroom, exposing underwear, cursing, belching, and disrespectful demeanor.
• Recency note: Negative reviews span from 2019-2024, indicating this is not a historical problem but an ongoing pattern. Most recent review (Jan 2024) shows same no-show/overcharging behavior.
• Pattern analysis: Positive reviews (5 of 12) are generic, lack specifics, and use similar phrasing ('very responsive,' 'reasonably priced,' 'professional'). Negative reviews (7 of 12) are highly detailed, specific, include dates/amounts/names, and describe consistent patterns of deception.

This WW Score of 38.2 should be treated as highly reliable and conservative. The score is driven by overwhelming evidence of systematic failures in professionalism, pricing integrity, and project completion, corroborated across multiple independent detailed accounts with specific dates, amounts, and documented incidents. The positive reviews appear to be fabricated or from unverified sources, as explicitly questioned by multiple negative reviewers. This contractor should be considered high-risk.

This contractor's reviews reveal a deeply polarized customer base. Professionalism scores a modest 52 because while many individual technicians are praised for punctuality, courtesy, and communication, the company-level responsiveness is frequently criticized — including failure to return calls, vague scheduling windows, and high-pressure sales tactics. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with an overwhelming majority of reviewers explicitly calling out prices as grossly inflated, sometimes 3–5x market rate for parts and labor, driving the pricing score to a very low 12. Project completion suffers significantly due to multiple accounts of abandoned or incomplete work, misdiagnoses leading to unnecessary replacements, and failure to follow through on callbacks — earning a 38. Experience scores 45 because while some technicians demonstrate genuine skill and problem-solving ability, there are serious documented cases of misdiagnosis, substandard HVAC installation, and technicians admitting they could not handle commercial jobs, undermining confidence in technical competence overall.

• PRICING PATTERN — EXTREME: An overwhelming majority of reviewers (42 out of 52) explicitly cite grossly inflated pricing. Quotes documented in reviews are frequently 3x to 10x market rate for parts and labor. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, including a partially installed HVAC system abandoned for 6+ weeks, a plumber who refused to complete a sink hookup mid-job, and a bathroom fan repair that was never completed after payment of a service fee.
• MISDIAGNOSIS FLAG: At least two reviews document significant financial harm caused by incorrect diagnoses — one customer replaced an entire HVAC unit unnecessarily due to a misdiagnosed thermostat issue, costing thousands of dollars.
• HIGH-PRESSURE SALES TACTICS: Multiple reviews describe technicians pressuring customers to commit to large purchases the same day, repeated calls and texts after declining service, and upselling by fear during inspections.
• SERVICE FEE CONCERN: The non-refundable dispatch/service fee ($39–$89) is a recurring complaint. Customers report paying this fee only to receive quotes they cannot afford, with no credit applied toward work performed.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2014–2024. The most recent reviews (2022–2024) continue to reflect the same pricing and service complaints, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time. Positive reviews are more concentrated in the 2015–2018 period.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The positive reviews (mostly 5-star) tend to be specific about technician names and situations, which reduces suspicion of fabrication. However, the stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star complaints with specific dollar amounts suggests the positive reviews may reflect a genuinely different subset of experiences rather than fake reviews. No fake review flag raised, but the bimodal distribution warrants caution.
• MEMBERSHIP/CONTRACT CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe customers paying annual membership fees ($200+) and still being charged full rates for service calls, with the membership providing little to no tangible benefit.

This WW Score of 34.1 is based on 52 reviews with a HIGH volume of dimension-specific data across all four categories, making it a reliable and conservative representation of this contractor's overall performance — the score should be trusted as an accurate reflection of a company with serious systemic pricing and project completion issues, partially offset by individual technicians who perform professionally.