Find Nearby Plumbers In Davis, California

Larry's service shows strong technical skill and knowledge (82.5), with multiple reviews praising his expertise, responsiveness, and honest recommendations. However, professionalism is inconsistent (72.5)—while Larry personally receives high marks for friendliness and clarity, other technicians have been reported as rude and unprofessional. Project completion is the weakest dimension (65.0), with documented failures including a misdiagnosed toilet repair, unresolved callbacks, and extended service delays leaving customers without utilities. Pricing appears fair when work is completed correctly, but one customer paid significantly for a failed repair. The business shows a two-tier quality problem: Larry delivers excellent service, but other technicians and follow-up systems are unreliable.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent positive reviews are from 2022-2023, but critical negative reviews span 2019-2020. Recent data is limited to 2 reviews.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews explicitly contrast Larry's professionalism with poor performance by 'other technicians' and 'his people,' suggesting systemic training or quality control issues.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: One review documents repeated failed callback attempts after a misdiagnosed repair, indicating follow-up systems are broken.
• EXTENDED SERVICE FAILURE: One customer left without cold water for 1.5 weeks, suggesting incomplete work and poor project management.
• ATTITUDE ISSUE: One review documents refusal to wear a mask during pandemic while coughing in customer's home—potential health/safety concern.

This score should be treated with caution. While Larry personally demonstrates strong skills and professionalism, the business has documented systemic failures in technician training, callback responsiveness, and project completion. The limited recent review data (only 2 reviews from past 12 months) and stark quality variance between Larry and other technicians suggest the score may not reflect current service reliability. Customers should specifically request Larry and verify callback procedures before engaging.

All three reviews speak positively about Armando Pastora's professionalism, describing him as friendly, responsible, trustworthy, and a pleasure to work with, which drives a strong professionalism score. Project completion is supported by references to long-term repeat use and specific completed jobs such as irrigation systems and main water line repair, suggesting reliable follow-through. Experience is evidenced by mentions of handling tricky problems, multi-decade relationships, and a specific complex repair involving a ruptured main water line. Pricing was not mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored. The overall score is tempered by the very small review pool and the age of all reviews, all of which are over 10 years old.

• All 3 reviews are dated between 2013 and 2014 — over 10 years old. These reviews do not reflect recent performance and should be weighted accordingly.
• The review pool is very small (only 3 reviews), which significantly limits reliability of any score produced.
• Mild pattern concern: all three reviews mention irrigation systems specifically, use similarly warm personal language, and are all 5-star ratings. While this could reflect genuine long-term client relationships, the similarity in framing warrants mild caution.
• Pricing dimension has zero data — this dimension was entirely excluded from the WW Score calculation.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence due to the extremely small and outdated review sample — all reviews are from 2013–2014 and no recent customer feedback is available to validate current performance.

The contractor received positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and workmanship from four reviews, with multiple reviewers noting punctuality, reliability, and fair job-based pricing. However, the single negative review (1-star, most recent at October 2024) raises a concern about responsiveness and geographic availability, which tempers the professionalism score. The bulk of positive reviews are extremely dated — three of the four positive reviews are from 2012–2014, making them over 10 years old and of limited relevance to current performance. Only one positive review (June 2024) is recent, and it is brief with minimal detail. Given the age of most data and the small sample size, all scores are held conservative.

• RECENCY WARNING: Three of the four positive reviews are from 2012–2014, more than 10 years old. Only one positive review (June 2024) is recent. Historical performance may not reflect current quality or availability.
• RESPONSIVENESS CONCERN: The most recent review (October 2024, 1-star) explicitly states the contractor did not respond to a message, which is a direct negative signal for professionalism and communication.
• LOW SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 total reviews across a span of 12+ years. This is insufficient to establish reliable patterns and all scores should be treated with caution.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Some positive reviews (e.g., 'Very efficient, quick response and fair price') lack specific detail, reducing their evidentiary weight.
• CONTRACTOR IDENTITY INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference both 'Mike' and 'Shawn' as the contractor's name, which may indicate multiple workers or a business with staff changes over time.

This WW Score has LOW overall reliability due to a very small review pool, the majority of positive reviews being over a decade old, a recent unresolved responsiveness complaint, and generic language in several positive reviews — prospective customers should seek more current references before hiring.

APS Remodeling and Construction has a small but mixed review base. Three positive reviews highlight professionalism, friendliness, punctuality, and quality workmanship on patio and eave repair jobs. However, one negative review from 2017 explicitly describes a complete failure to respond to calls and emails, which is a meaningful professionalism concern that meaningfully drags down that dimension. Pricing and experience are mentioned positively but only by a small number of reviewers, limiting confidence in those scores. The most recent review is from January 2023, while two of the four reviews are from 2017–2018, reducing the overall reliability of the picture painted.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable until more reviews are available.
• One review (2017) explicitly reports zero responsiveness — no callbacks, no email replies, and a non-functional voicemail system. This is a direct negative signal for professionalism.
• Two of the four reviews are over 5 years old (2017 and 2018), and one is from 2021. Only one review falls within the past 12 months (2023). Recency is low overall.
• The three positive reviews use somewhat generic praise language ('amazing,' 'friendly,' 'respectful,' 'highly recommend') with limited job-specific detail in some cases. While not conclusive, this warrants mild caution.
• No reviews mention pricing in specific dollar terms or quote transparency — the 'fairly priced' mention is vague and treated conservatively.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 6 years, with mixed signals including one explicit negative experience, and should be considered LOW RELIABILITY until a larger and more recent review sample is available.

Quality Home Repair operates across multiple technicians and service lines, and the majority of positive reviews praise punctuality, friendliness, and responsive communication — particularly from named technicians like Zav, Austin, and David D. However, a significant and recurring cluster of 1-star reviews describes serious failures: no-shows, unresponsive communication, incomplete work, deceptive billing practices, and jobs abandoned mid-project — particularly in home warranty contexts. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating work was never finished, technicians failed to return, or jobs were closed fraudulently. Pricing feedback is mixed: many customers found prices fair and transparent, but several reported undisclosed minimums, surprise upcharges mid-job, and demands for payment without receipts. Experience scores are buoyed by specific, detailed praise for skilled workmanship, but are tempered by at least one incident involving a dangerous water heater installation and a technician sent without knowledge of the job.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — HIGH: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly 2023-06-10 and 2024-06-09 share identical formatting, vague generic praise ('professional and on time', 'great service', 'very professional and friendly'), no specific job details, and several are blank (rating only). This pattern is consistent with review padding or bulk submission. These reviews were counted but weighted with reduced confidence.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Multiple reviews dated 2025-05-10 reference 'David D.' in nearly identical phrasing across 7 reviews submitted on the same date. While some contain specific detail, the clustering and repetition raises concern about coordinated submission.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 9 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONFUSION: Reviews appear to reference at least 4-5 distinct business entities or operating names (Quality Home Repair, Quality Home Services, Quality Repair Services, Quality Home Renovations, QHR). It is unclear if these are the same business or related entities, which may artificially inflate or conflate the review pool.
• SERIOUS PATTERN — NO-SHOWS AND ABANDONED WORK: At least 10 distinct reviews explicitly describe the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments, not returning calls or texts, or abandoning jobs mid-completion. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SERIOUS PATTERN — HOME WARRANTY FRAUD INDICATORS: Multiple reviewers assigned through home warranty companies (First American, American Home Shield, Old Republic) describe QHR closing tickets without completing work, making false claims to warranty companies, and demanding cash payments without providing receipts.
• DANGEROUS WORKMANSHIP FLAG: One reviewer (1-star, 2024-07-17) explicitly states QHR installed an atmospheric vent water heater into a direct vent system, creating a fire hazard that persisted for 6 months. This is a serious safety concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive and reference specific technicians. The most damaging reviews span 2020–2024. The business may have improved in some service lines while problems persist in others, particularly home warranty work.

This WW Score of 68.2 carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously — the score reflects a deeply split operation where direct-hire customers frequently report positive experiences while home warranty customers report systemic failures, and multiple indicators of review manipulation reduce the trustworthiness of the positive review pool.

Moore Home Services (formerly McDonald Plumbing, Heating & Air) presents a deeply mixed picture across a large review set spanning roughly 2010 to 2025. Individual technicians — particularly named staff like Jeff, Jesse, Darryl, Emanuel, Wyatt, and others — are frequently praised for professionalism, punctuality, communication, and technical knowledge, which keeps the professionalism and experience scores in positive territory. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension: dozens of reviews independently and specifically describe charges that are 3x to 10x market rate for parts and labor, with multiple reviewers obtaining second opinions at a fraction of the quoted cost, and several alleging outright deceptive or predatory practices targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. Project completion is also significantly impacted by a recurring pattern of missed or cancelled appointments (sometimes multiple times for the same customer), failure to follow through on promised callbacks, and in several cases work that was left incomplete or required multiple return visits to resolve. The experience score is moderated downward by a meaningful subset of reviews describing misdiagnoses — including at least three cases where a second-opinion technician found a simple, inexpensive fix after Moore quoted thousands of dollars for unnecessary replacements.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Pricing complaints are the single most consistent theme across the entire review corpus, spanning 2010 to 2025. Multiple reviewers independently documented parts marked up 300–2,000% over retail (e.g., $11 capacitor billed at $300, $20 part billed at $463, $7.50 capacitor quoted at $700+). This is not isolated; it is a systemic pattern.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 4–5 reviews explicitly describe Moore technicians recommending expensive system replacements ($7,000–$22,000) that second-opinion contractors found to be unnecessary, with the actual repair costing under $200–$750. This materially reduces confidence in the experience score.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews across different years describe Moore failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, sometimes repeatedly for the same customer. One reviewer noted this happened three years in a row. This is a structural reliability issue, not isolated incidents.
• PREDATORY PRACTICES ALLEGATIONS: Several reviews allege targeting of elderly or cognitively impaired customers with inflated quotes or unauthorized contract enrollment. One review describes a blank check being solicited from a blind 85-year-old woman. These are serious allegations that, while unverified, are specific and detailed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, the pricing and appointment reliability complaints are consistent across the full 2010–2025 date range, suggesting these are not legacy issues that have been resolved.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED: 7 reviews contained no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring. Three of these were 5-star and one was 3-star, which would have marginally improved scores if included, but they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Despite the high volume of 5-star reviews, they are sufficiently varied in language, specificity, and named technicians to not trigger a fake review flag. The negative reviews are also highly specific and detailed, lending credibility to the overall corpus.

This WW Score is based on a large, diverse, and temporally broad review set (175 reviews, 2010–2025) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given the severe and consistent pricing complaints, documented misdiagnosis incidents, and serious predatory practice allegations that suggest significant risk for customers who are not price-savvy or who lack the ability to obtain second opinions.