Find Nearby Plumbers In Norman, Oklahoma

Dalton's Plumbing receives sharply divided reviews, with serious and specific complaints dragging down every scored dimension. Pricing is the most consistently criticized area, with multiple reviewers citing dramatic overcharges — including a $699 invoice for a 15-minute flapper replacement, a $235 charge for a failed repair, and a misdiagnosis followed by a refused-service late fee — resulting in a very low pricing score. Professionalism is similarly damaged by allegations of fraudulent court filings, charging for services not rendered, and slow bid turnaround, though a handful of positive reviews do describe friendly and responsive staff. Project completion suffers due to documented cases of failed repairs, misdiagnosis, and work that was never completed or was outright refused. Experience scores modestly above the midpoint only because a few reviewers describe successful completed jobs, but the misdiagnosis and failed thermocouple repair weigh heavily against it.

• PRICING ABUSE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe significant overcharging, inflated parts costs, and billing for refused or failed services. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ALLEGED FRAUDULENT BILLING: One reviewer alleges Dalton's Plumbing filed court claims against clients who refused service or disputed charges, and describes a pattern of previous clients on the court docket. This is a serious flag.
• MISDIAGNOSIS DOCUMENTED: At least two reviewers explicitly state the company misdiagnosed their plumbing issue, and a third party corrected the problem for significantly less cost.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most recent reviews (2023) include one positive and one strongly negative. The majority of detailed negative reviews span 2017–2023, suggesting the pricing and billing issues are not isolated to a single period.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEWS: Two 5-star reviews from 2020-10-22 ('Excellent. Would hire again!' and 'I am extremely pleased... Not just plumbing.') contain no specific detail and share the same date, raising suspicion of potentially inauthentic or solicited reviews. Confidence in positive signals is reduced accordingly.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 10 reviews total. While scoreable, the dataset is small and a few outlier reviews have outsized influence on the final score.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review volume is low (10 reviews), but the negative reviews are highly specific, consistent across multiple years, and describe serious patterns of overcharging and billing misconduct that meaningfully anchor the score downward.

MDS Plumbing shows significant performance issues across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by poor communication, failure to honor callbacks, and unresponsive customer service (evidenced by the 10-day no-show and delayed responses). Pricing practices are questionable, with customers reporting inflated labor charges, double-billing for repairs, and non-transparent billing methods that include drive time and material shopping. Project completion is inconsistent—while one customer reported eventual resolution after escalation, others experienced incomplete work, damage to existing systems, and failure to follow through on promised service calls. Technical skill is mixed, with evidence of both poor workmanship (over-tightened fittings, incorrect RO system hookup) and competent repairs when finally executed. The company's willingness to deny responsibility and blame customers further undermines trust.

• Multiple reviews (3 of 5) report serious service failures and lack of follow-through on callbacks—this is a pattern, not isolated incidents
• Billing practices appear deceptive: charging for drive time and material shopping without clear upfront disclosure; double-charging for warranty work
• Evidence of poor quality control: technician damaged frost-free faucet through over-tightening; RO system incorrectly hooked up on first visit
• Customer service breakdown: outgoing message states 'no weekend work' but customers report difficulty reaching company during business hours; promised callbacks never materialized
• One positive review (2023-01-08) is extremely generic with no specific details—'local and reliable'—and lacks substantive evidence; however, insufficient pattern to flag as fake
• Review dates span 2018–2023; most negative reviews are from 2020–2023, suggesting ongoing issues rather than historical problems

This WW Score of 42.8 should be trusted with moderate confidence. While the sample size is small (5 reviews), the negative feedback is consistent, specific, and detailed across multiple dimensions, with corroborating patterns of poor communication, billing disputes, and incomplete work. The company's own response (sending a more experienced technician after complaint) suggests awareness of quality issues but does not offset the systemic problems documented.

Across nearly 100 reviews spanning 2014–2024, Airco Service receives overwhelmingly negative feedback in all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by recurring reports of rude technicians, no-call no-shows, unanswered callbacks from management, and in one alarming case an unauthorized entry into a customer's home. Pricing is the lowest-scoring dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly describing inflated quotes, charges for parts at many multiples of retail cost, fees for incomplete or failed work, and aggressive upselling of unnecessary replacements. Project completion is deeply problematic, with numerous accounts of jobs left unfinished, repeat visits failing to resolve the same issue, and work that caused additional property damage. Experience scores marginally higher only because a meaningful minority of reviewers praised specific individual technicians by name for genuine skill and thoroughness, but these positive experiences are far outnumbered by accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and technicians unable to identify basic problems that competitors resolved quickly and cheaply.

• UPSELLING PATTERN: A very high volume of reviews — across multiple years and service types (HVAC, plumbing, electrical) — describe technicians recommending full system replacements or expensive parts that were later found to be unnecessary by competing companies. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Awesome company! Always takes care of me', 'Once again Airco Service Tulsa has provided wonderful service') with no specific details, job type, or technician names. These may inflate the positive signal.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews across different years explicitly state that managers never called back after promised, suggesting a systemic customer service failure at the management level.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE INCIDENTS: At least three reviews describe Airco technicians causing direct property damage (flooring water damage, yard destruction, wall damage) with inadequate or no remediation offered.
• UNAUTHORIZED HOME ENTRY: One 2014 review describes a technician entering a customer's home without permission and the company subsequently denying the incident occurred, which is a serious conduct and trust concern.
• FORGED SIGNATURE: One 2024 review describes a forged customer signature on a service invoice, which is a significant legal and ethical red flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are consistent across the full date range (2014–2024), indicating these are not isolated historical issues. The most recent reviews (2024) continue to reflect the same core complaints about pricing, upselling, and incomplete work.
• SCORE SUPPRESSION APPLIED: Due to the volume and specificity of negative reviews, scores have been held conservative. The few genuinely positive reviews — particularly those praising named technicians — prevent scores from reaching the floor but do not materially offset the dominant negative pattern.

This WW Score is based on 100 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered highly reliable; the score of 38.2 reflects a contractor with serious, systemic, and well-documented deficiencies in pricing transparency, job completion, and consistent professionalism, offset only partially by a subset of positive individual technician experiences.

This contractor shows severe and consistent deficiencies across multiple dimensions. Project completion is the most critical failure point, with 8 reviews documenting incomplete work, no-shows, ghosting, and unfinished jobs despite payment. Professionalism is severely compromised, with documented instances of disrespectful communication, broken promises, and poor workmanship presentation. Pricing concerns emerge in 3 reviews citing excessive charges and aggressive collection tactics. While 2 older positive reviews (2019) praise affordability and responsiveness, the overwhelming majority of recent reviews (2021-2024) paint a picture of declining service quality and reliability. The contractor appears to have experienced significant deterioration in service standards over time.

• CRITICAL: Extreme recency bias in negative reviews. 6 of 10 reviews are 1-star ratings from 2021-2024, while the only positive reviews are from 2019 and earlier, suggesting substantial service degradation over time.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews document no-shows, ghosting, and failure to complete promised work. This is not isolated—it appears systemic.
• AGGRESSIVE COLLECTION: One review (2023) documents threatening legal action for unpaid balance, raising red flags about business practices.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Review from 2022 indicates contractor disclaims guarantees on sewer work despite website claims, creating customer expectation misalignment.
• QUALITY CONTROL: Multiple reviews document poor workmanship (visible holes, undersized fixtures, incomplete installations, leaks after service).
• The two 5-star reviews from 2019 are notably generic in praise and lack specific detail compared to the detailed complaints in negative reviews, but are not flagged as fake given their age and the presence of a named business reference.

This WW Score of 42.3 should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence due to the consistent pattern of failures documented across 8 recent reviews, particularly in project completion and professionalism. However, the dramatic divergence between 2019 reviews and 2021-2024 reviews suggests either a significant business decline or a change in ownership/management; scores should be interpreted as reflecting current service quality, not historical performance.

Ace's Three Plumbing & Heating has a deeply mixed record, with several detailed negative reviews significantly dragging down all four dimensions. Professionalism is heavily penalized by reports of ignored questions, high-pressure sales tactics, failure to return phone calls, and reckless company vehicle driving. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly alleging overbilling, inflated hours, lack of cost transparency, and charges far exceeding what competitors quoted for the same work. Project completion is also poor, with one detailed account of multiple failed visits that left a drain worse than before, and a separate report of a promised cleanout installation that never occurred. Experience scores slightly higher due to a handful of positive reviews praising skilled, thorough work, but these are largely older reviews and are outweighed by accounts of technicians unable to diagnose or resolve basic plumbing issues that a competitor solved quickly and cheaply.

• Seven reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', or 'fine' with no usable text — these were excluded from dimension scoring and flagged as potentially fake or placeholder reviews. All carry 4–5 star ratings, which may artificially inflate the star average.
• The two 'unknown' and two '.' reviews share identical or near-identical formatting and provide zero specifics, consistent with fake review patterns. Confidence has been reduced accordingly for overall score reliability.
• Most substantive positive reviews are from 2015 or earlier (8–19 years ago). The only recent positive review is from 2017. The most recent reviews (2019–2024) are predominantly 1-star with serious complaints.
• One reviewer explicitly alleges fraudulent billing practices — charging for 6 hours of labor when tenants witnessed only 1 hour on site. This is a serious integrity flag.
• Recency weighting applied: negative reviews from 2019–2024 were given higher weight than older positive reviews from 2006–2015.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the mention counts are sufficient for scoring, but the score is significantly influenced by a cluster of older, content-free reviews that appear inauthentic, and the most recent substantive reviews paint a consistently negative picture that should be weighted heavily by any prospective customer.

Leon's Plumbing demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by chronic tardiness (40+ minutes late, multiple no-shows), poor communication, rude staff interactions, and failure to disclose charges upfront. Pricing practices are deceptive, with hidden apprentice fees, undisclosed credit card surcharges, and bills that dramatically exceed quoted amounts—often double or triple the estimate. Project completion is unreliable, with multiple failed attempts, abandoned work requiring customers to hire competitors, and unresolved damage claims. Technical competence is questionable, with technicians unable to diagnose basic issues and requiring multiple callbacks. The single positive review from 2016 is substantially outweighed by nine consistently negative reviews spanning 2012–2020, indicating systemic and persistent operational failures.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF DECEPTION: Multiple independent reviews (2012, 2015, 2015, 2012) report identical deceptive practices—quoting one price, then charging significantly more due to undisclosed apprentice fees and surcharges. This is not isolated; it is systematic.
• CHRONIC PUNCTUALITY FAILURES: 9 of 10 reviews explicitly mention tardiness, no-shows, or failure to honor appointment windows. Delays range from 40 minutes to 2+ hours.
• POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE: Multiple reviews document rude, dismissive, or confrontational staff behavior (Rocky's hostile responses, Lindsey's rudeness, management's refusal to investigate damage).
• INCOMPLETE/FAILED WORK: At least 4 reviews document jobs that were not completed properly, requiring customers to hire competitors to finish the work.
• DAMAGE NOT ADDRESSED: One detailed review documents cracked shower tile caused by technicians; management refused to investigate or take responsibility.
• SINGLE POSITIVE REVIEW IS OUTLIER: The one 5-star review (2016) contains generic praise with minimal specifics and stands in stark contrast to 9 consistently detailed negative reviews. This suggests it may not be representative of typical service.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2012–2015), with only 3 from 2018 or later. However, the 2020 review confirms problems persist, suggesting systemic issues have not been resolved.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 10 reviews with consistent, detailed, and corroborating evidence of serious failures across all dimensions. The pattern of deceptive pricing, chronic tardiness, poor workmanship, and hostile customer service is documented repeatedly and independently across multiple years, indicating systemic operational dysfunction rather than isolated incidents.