Find Nearby Plumbers In Chico, California

Precision Plumbing draws a large volume of strongly positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for professionalism, punctuality, clear communication, and technical skill — these positives are consistent and span many years and locations. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15–18% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, scheduling failures, poor communication, alleged price gouging, overcharging, warranty disputes, substandard workmanship, and in at least two cases regulatory investigations by the Nevada State Contractors Board. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call pricing fair or reasonable, a notable cluster of negative reviewers describe charges they considered grossly excessive (e.g., $528/hour, $750 for a $1.99 fix, $1,400 for a 20-minute job, $650 for a cartridge replacement). Project completion is moderately strong but is dragged down by multiple documented no-shows, abandoned jobs, and at least one case of work left incomplete for weeks. Experience scores well overall given the volume of praise for diagnostic skill and quality workmanship, but is tempered by a handful of reviews describing incompetent diagnosis or dangerous substandard work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., multiple identical 'Fast, affordable, friendly, and super reliable' reviews on 2018-02-22; identical 'Great family business' reviews on 2022-09-08; identical 'Will hire again' reviews on 2022-09-12; identical 'Great and quick service' and 'Excellent customer service' reviews on 2022-09-06; identical 'He did a good job and was nice to work with' reviews on 2022-10-20; identical 'Friendly service, great job' reviews on 2022-10-01; identical 'Kieth was very easy to work with' reviews on 2022-10-22; identical 'Very high quality work promp service' reviews on 2023-01-24; identical 'The young man did an expert job' reviews on 2022-12-16; identical 'Precision Plumbimg is a great Company' reviews on 2020-10-24 and 2020-10-25). This pattern strongly suggests review manipulation or system duplication and reduces confidence in the raw positive review count.
• REGULATORY FLAG: At least two reviews (dated August 2024) allege that Precision Plumbing (dba aaa Precision Plumbing, Las Vegas) was under investigation by the Nevada State Board of Contractors for substandard work, failed city inspection, a life-threatening gas leak, and deceptive practices. These are serious allegations that, if accurate, represent significant safety and integrity concerns.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference multiple distinct businesses operating under the 'Precision Plumbing' name across different geographic markets (Las Vegas NV, Bay Area CA, Michigan, South Carolina, California Central Valley, etc.) as well as references to 'Plumbing Squad' and 'Budget Water Heaters.' Scores may reflect an aggregation of different companies rather than a single contractor, which limits the reliability of any single composite score.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS PATTERN: A recurring pattern of pricing complaints exists across multiple reviewers and years — including allegations of price gouging against elderly or disabled customers, charges not matching quotes, refusal to provide itemized receipts, and hourly rates described as $600+ per hour for simple jobs. This is not isolated and depresses the pricing score significantly.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and failure to return calls. This is a consistent pattern affecting the project completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2019 through mid-2025, with the most recent cluster from May–June 2025. Reviews from 2025 are predominantly positive and recent, which is a positive signal, but the negative regulatory and safety reviews from mid-2024 are also recent and carry significant weight.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 40–50 reviews contain no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules, but their volume inflates the apparent star average.

This WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting possible manipulation, multi-entity ambiguity across geographic markets, serious unresolved regulatory allegations from 2024, and a consistent minority pattern of pricing, scheduling, and workmanship complaints that cannot be dismissed as outliers.

Able Plumbing & Electrical has a strong and consistent record of professional, courteous technicians — particularly Trevor, Bryan A., Bryan B., Alex, and Christian — who are frequently praised for punctuality, communication, and friendly demeanor, driving a solid professionalism score. Experience scores are similarly positive, with many reviewers highlighting knowledgeable diagnostics, thorough explanations, and competent workmanship across a wide range of plumbing and electrical tasks. Project completion is generally strong in recent reviews, though it is tempered by a meaningful cluster of older negative reviews citing incomplete work, a wax seal failure requiring a return visit, a technician leaving gas on after a job, and at least one instance of shoddy electrical installation. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension across the review history, with numerous reviewers — spanning 2010 through 2025 — explicitly describing charges as excessive, opaque, or significantly higher than competitors, including complaints about the paid estimate fee, lack of itemized receipts, and upselling; this drives the pricing score well below average. The overall WW Score reflects a business with genuinely skilled and professional staff but a persistent and well-documented pricing concern that meaningfully undermines overall value.

• PRICING CONCERN — PERSISTENT AND MULTI-YEAR: Pricing complaints appear across a wide date range (2010–2025) from multiple independent reviewers, citing charges 2–4x competitor quotes, non-itemized receipts, paid estimate fees, and upselling. This is a structural pattern, not isolated incidents.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES IN OLDER REVIEWS: At least three reviews cite quality issues — a wax seal failure causing ceiling damage with no remediation discount offered (2019), shoddy electrical outlet installation requiring a second contractor (2013), and a technician leaving gas on after a job (2012). These reduce project completion and experience confidence for older work.
• ETHICAL CONCERN — ONE REVIEW: One reviewer (2021) alleges a technician intentionally crimped a gas inlet to manufacture a repair need. This is a serious allegation. It is a single data point and the company has many positive reviews, but it warrants flagging.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE COMPLAINT — RECURRING: Multiple reviews (2014, 2015, 2016, 2025) cite the paid estimate/diagnostic fee as a negative differentiator, with some reviewers feeling it was used to trap them into overpriced work.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating, dated 2025-05-10). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are from 2010–2021. Reviews from 2024–2025 are predominantly positive and suggest meaningful improvement in recent service quality. Scores have been weighted accordingly, but older negatives are numerous enough to materially affect pricing and project completion scores.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While many recent reviews are positive and some are brief, they reference specific technician names, job types, and situational details. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews was found.

This WW Score is based on 101 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence overall — the large volume and date range provide a reliable picture of the business, though prospective customers should note that pricing concerns are deeply consistent across time and represent the single greatest risk factor when engaging this contractor.

Absolute Best Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising Tom and his crew for responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and fair pricing across a large volume of smaller jobs. However, the review set contains several serious negative reviews that significantly temper the scores across all dimensions. Professionalism is dragged down by complaints about phone rudeness, no-callback behavior from the owner after billing disputes, and an employee ignoring mask requirements. Pricing scores are reduced by two credible accounts of inflated or questionable charges — one involving an $800 overquote for a job that needed only a washer, and another involving a disputed $142 strainer labor charge with no owner follow-up. Project completion is the most heavily penalized dimension, with multiple detailed negative reviews describing incomplete or defective work on larger jobs including a failed gas line installation with a week-long leak, a botched whole-house replumb and shower installation that required a third party to remediate, ongoing problems five years after a plumbing replacement, and a snake allegedly broken off in a drain with no evidence found by a subsequent plumber. Experience scores reflect strong positive feedback on smaller repairs but are pulled down by credible accounts of code-failing water heater installation, improper gas line fittings, and an inexperienced technician sent alone who caused additional damage.

• 8 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews (2018-04-08 and 2018-03-08) are nearly identical in content and wording, describing the same billing dispute. These appear to be duplicate submissions by the same customer and were counted as a single incident for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews dated 2020-12-06 and 2021-06-10 are word-for-word identical ('Tom was great. He was very busy but still made time for me...'). This is a likely duplicate or copied review and was counted only once.
• A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2021-06-10, 2022-06-10, and 2020-06-10 with no text or vague text and all rated 1 or 5 stars may indicate platform date-rounding artifacts or potentially inauthentic submissions. Treat with caution.
• Several 5-star reviews use generic praise with no job-specific detail ('Service was excellent', 'unknown', 'His company name says it all'). These were not counted toward dimension scores due to lack of usable evidence.
• The majority of detailed positive reviews describe small, quick jobs (faucets, disposals, minor leaks). The most detailed negative reviews describe larger, multi-day projects. This suggests a possible skill or capacity gap between routine and complex work that prospective customers should weigh carefully.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2023–2025) include a disproportionate number of negative experiences relative to the overall review set, which may indicate a decline in service quality over time. Recent reviews should be weighted more heavily by prospective customers.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (101 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but prospective customers should note that the most serious negative reviews involve complex or large-scale jobs and that recent reviews trend more negative, suggesting the score may overstate current service quality for anything beyond routine plumbing repairs.

MD Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, reasonable pricing, and solid workmanship across many years of service. However, several serious negative reviews significantly temper the overall score: one reviewer describes a no-show emergency call with zero follow-up communication, another details a catastrophic new-home plumbing job with a near-fire incident and arrogant ownership, and a third describes a broken sink with the owner responding aggressively and refusing accountability. A pricing complaint emerged after a reported merger with Urban Design, where customers were charged for time the plumber was not on-site. The positive reviews are numerous but span a wide date range, with the most recent substantive reviews dating to 2023 and 2022, while the most damaging reviews are older — though the pattern of ownership conduct issues across multiple negative reviews is a meaningful signal.

• One review (rated 'unknown', 5 stars, 2016-05-04) contains no text and was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• The business appears to have operated under multiple names: Grimes Plumbing, MD Plumbing, and later merged with Urban Design. Reviews span these different business identities, which may affect consistency of service quality over time.
• The 2021 negative review explicitly notes a pricing model change after the merger with Urban Design, suggesting the business may have undergone structural changes that affect comparability of older vs. newer reviews.
• The oldest negative reviews (2009, 2011, 2013) describe ownership-level conduct issues — aggression, hostility, and negligence — that are serious but may reflect a prior era of the business. However, similar themes of poor communication and dismissiveness appear in the 2018 negative review as well, suggesting these issues were not fully resolved.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months relative to a current analysis date. Only two reviews (2022, 2023) are within the past two years, limiting confidence in the current state of the business.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, and sentiment. Named technicians (Randy, Eric, Donnie, Mark) appear across multiple reviews, adding authenticity.

The WW Score of 72.1 is based on a reasonable volume of reviews with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but should be treated with caution given the multi-name business history, a cluster of serious negative reviews describing ownership misconduct and project failures, and the fact that only 2 of 26 reviews are from the past two years.

BKG Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and enthusiastically mentioned quality — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, cleanliness, responsiveness, and courteous communication. Project completion scores are also high, with multiple reviewers describing jobs that were finished fully, on time, and with follow-through on additional requests. Experience is well-supported by specific examples including slab excavation, tankless water heater diagnostics, and commercial plumbing installs, demonstrating technical breadth. Pricing is mentioned positively in three reviews as reasonable and competitive, though the limited mention count keeps confidence at MODERATE for that dimension. The primary caveat is that all 8 reviews are older than 3 years, with the most recent dating to August 2020, which meaningfully limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• ALL 8 REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 3 YEARS: The most recent review is from August 2020 and the oldest from 2016. These scores may not reflect current business quality or practices.
• POTENTIAL RECENCY BIAS: No reviews from the past 12 months are present. The WW Score should be treated as a historical snapshot, not a current performance indicator.
• MILD GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews use similar superlative language ('would give more stars if possible', 'highly recommend') with limited operational specifics, though most reviews do include enough concrete detail to be considered credible.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 8 reviews total. While scoring thresholds are met, the dataset is limited and a small number of negative experiences could significantly shift the score.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to consistent positive signals across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given that all reviews are over three years old and the total sample size of 8 reviews is small.

Gordon receives consistently strong praise across all four dimensions from every reviewer. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with all five reviewers noting his friendliness, responsiveness, cleanliness, and respectful communication. Pricing is described as reasonable and fair by three reviewers, with one explicitly noting no hidden charges or added costs. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting he followed through on commitments, handled emergencies promptly, and completed work without drama. Experience scores are bolstered by mentions of broad skill sets beyond standard plumbing, problem-solving ability, and a construction management background, though all reviews are older than 12 months, which limits recency confidence.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 6 YEARS: The most recent review is from June 2018, and the oldest is from November 2012. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total. While all are positive and contain specific details, the limited volume reduces statistical reliability.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, writing style, and specific detail, which increases authenticity confidence.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small but detail-rich review set; however, all reviews are significantly outdated (2012–2018), meaning this score should not be treated as a current performance indicator without more recent data.