Find Nearby Plumbers In Clovis, California

This contractor's review profile is deeply polarized, with three highly detailed negative reviews describing serious misconduct — including installation of undersized and used parts without disclosure, double-billing within 48 hours for the same unresolved issue, and alleged wage theft and legal disputes involving the owner Ruben Barriga. The three positive reviews are brief, lack specific detail, and two are over three years old, significantly reducing their evidentiary weight. The most damaging reviews are recent (2021–2023) and contain specific, verifiable claims about deceptive business practices, fraudulent billing, and substandard workmanship. The combination of dishonest pricing practices, incomplete or failed repairs, and serious ethical allegations from a former employee drives all four dimensions to low scores. No dimension escapes the shadow of the negative evidence.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: A former employee (2023) alleges the owner installs used parts while billing for new parts, and withheld final paychecks — a lawsuit was reportedly filed.
• DECEPTIVE PRICING: One customer (2022) reports the owner substituted a lower-capacity HVAC brand (Tempstar, 32,000 BTU output) for the agreed brand (Rheem/Goodman, 52,000 BTU output) without prior disclosure, and attempted to charge more to correct his own error.
• FAILED REPAIR / DOUBLE BILLING: A 2021 review documents the same plumbing problem recurring within 48 hours, with the company charging an additional $150 for a callback on work that was never properly completed.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR THIN POSITIVE REVIEWS: The three 5-star reviews are very brief, generic, and lack specific detail. Two are from 2020–2021 and one from 2021. None address the serious issues raised in negative reviews. These reviews carry limited evidentiary weight.
• RECENCY BIAS APPLIED: The most recent and most detailed reviews (2021–2023) are predominantly negative. Positive reviews are older and less substantive. Greater weight has been given to recent reviews per scoring rules.
• LEGAL ACTIONS NOTED: At least two reviewers mention filing or intending to file legal action (BBB complaint, court, lawsuit). The restraining order filing by the owner against a former employee was dismissed by a judge.

Despite HIGH confidence labels on all dimensions due to mention counts, the overall WW Score should be treated with caution given the small total review pool of only 7 reviews; however, the negative reviews are highly detailed and credible, making the low scores a reliable signal of significant risk in hiring this contractor.

Both reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of a contractor who fails to resolve issues and behaves dismissively toward customers and neighbors alike. The first reviewer describes two separate incidents where the plumber refused to properly diagnose or address active leaks, leaving a wet wall unresolved and offering no actionable solution. The second reviewer, who was not even a direct customer, describes a worker carelessly flooding an adjacent patio with questionable water and responding with indifference when confronted. Professionalism scores are near the floor due to dismissive attitudes and poor communication in both accounts. Project completion scores are similarly very low, as neither situation resulted in a resolved problem. Experience scores reflect an apparent inability or unwillingness to diagnose and fix plumbing issues competently.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — no score assigned.
• Both reviews are dated 2020 — all data is over 4 years old and may not reflect current contractor performance.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews contain specific, distinct details and unique writing styles consistent with genuine customer experiences.
• Second reviewer was not a direct customer but an affected neighbor — their experience is valid for professionalism assessment but should be noted as an indirect interaction.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 4 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable as a basis for hiring decisions — significantly more recent reviews are needed before any meaningful confidence can be placed in these findings.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided, which does not meet the minimum threshold of 3 reviews. Additionally, the single review contains no evaluable information about professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience. The review expresses uncertainty about business status and contact information but provides no substantive feedback on service quality.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old) — recency is severely compromised
• Review contains no actionable data on any of the four scoring dimensions
• Review does not describe any actual service experience or work performed

This score cannot be calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume and lack of substantive service feedback.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions professionalism (communication and kindness/honesty), but provides no information about pricing, project completion, or technical experience. No specific details about work quality, timeliness, or job scope are provided. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old) — recency is a concern
• Generic praise with minimal specifics — no details about actual work performed, timeline, or outcomes
• Vague language ('best of the best', 'great') without concrete examples

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A minimum of 3 recent reviews with substantive detail is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

The single review provided contains no usable text — only a rating of 4.0 stars and a date from January 2015. Because no dimension (professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience) is explicitly mentioned in the review text, no scores can be calculated. A star rating alone is insufficient to derive meaningful dimension-level insights. The WW Score cannot be produced from this data.

• Only 1 review was provided, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score.
• The review text is empty (contains only a period), providing zero usable qualitative data.
• The review is dated January 2015, making it over 9 years old. Even if content were present, recency weighting would significantly discount its value.
• Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably.

This score report cannot be trusted for any decision-making purpose, as there is effectively zero usable review data — the sole review is nearly a decade old, contains no descriptive text, and falls well below the minimum review count required for reliable scoring.

This single review paints a negative picture across multiple dimensions. The contractor failed to identify pre-existing rotten wood panels during his professional walkthrough, which is a core competency failure for someone hired specifically to assess and replace damaged paneling. When the issue was discovered two months later, the owner deflected responsibility by claiming the work was done and suggesting the customer missed the rot — a significant professionalism failure. Project completion is scored very low because the job was effectively incomplete, leaving rotten panels behind that the contractor should have caught. Experience is also scored low given the inability to distinguish rotten from sound wood during a professional inspection. Pricing could not be assessed as it was not mentioned in the review.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — pricing dimension returned null.
• The review is from January 2023, which is over 12 months old at most evaluation points — recency weighting is reduced.

This score report is based on a single 1-star review and should not be used to draw firm conclusions about this contractor — far more review data is needed before any dimension score can be considered trustworthy.