Find Nearby Plumbers In Elk Grove, California

This review set is deeply bifurcated between two distinct entities: 'Mike's Plumbing and Rooter' (reviews from approximately 2024–2025) and 'MSE Plumbing' (reviews from approximately 2012–2021), both appearing to be captured under the same listing. The Mike's Plumbing reviews are overwhelmingly positive, praising punctuality, fair pricing, strong communication, and complete job resolution. In stark contrast, the MSE Plumbing reviews are overwhelmingly negative, documenting repeated failures in professionalism (rude staff, no-shows, hung-up calls), project completion (abandoned jobs, unresolved issues over weeks or months), pricing transparency (hidden charges, alleged fraud against home warranty companies), and technical competence (misdiagnoses, gas leaks caused by improper installation, worsened problems). The blended score of approximately 52 reflects this severe split and should not be interpreted as representative of either business individually. The MSE reviews, which constitute the majority of the dataset by volume, drag all dimensions significantly downward.

• CRITICAL DATA INTEGRITY ISSUE: This review set appears to contain reviews for at least two entirely different businesses — 'Mike's Plumbing and Rooter' (2024–2025 reviews) and 'MSE Plumbing' (2012–2021 reviews). These are almost certainly not the same company. Scores are severely distorted by this mixing.
• The 2024–2025 'Mike' reviews (approximately 32 reviews) are uniformly 5-star with no negative feedback whatsoever. While many contain specific details, the complete absence of any criticism across 32 consecutive reviews raises a mild fake review flag for that subset.
• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates: the 1-star MSE warning review dated 2021-07-01 and 2021-06-29 share virtually identical text, suggesting a duplicate submission or coordinated posting.
• Two additional near-duplicate reviews appear: the 1-star review dated 2019-04-09 appears twice with identical text and timestamps seconds apart.
• Two more near-duplicate reviews appear: the 1-star review dated 2018-07-10 appears twice with identical text.
• Two more near-duplicate reviews appear: the 1-star review dated 2019-06-28 and 2019-12-13 share nearly identical text about 'Mason' and Roman tub repairs.
• Two more near-duplicate reviews appear: the 2014-04-26 and 2013-09-10 1-star reviews share nearly identical text about a no-show appointment.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are exclusively positive and relate to 'Mike's Plumbing.' The bulk of negative reviews are from 2012–2021 and relate to 'MSE Plumbing.' If this listing is now solely 'Mike's Plumbing,' the historical MSE reviews are not relevant to current service quality.
• MSE Plumbing reviews document multiple serious safety incidents including gas leaks caused by improper installation, alleged billing fraud against home warranty companies, and a technician reportedly telling a cancer patient she 'deserved to get cancer.' These are severe red flags for that entity.
• RECOMMENDATION: This WW Score should not be used for decision-making without first confirming whether the business being evaluated is 'Mike's Plumbing and Rooter' or 'MSE Plumbing.' If evaluating Mike's Plumbing only (2024–2025 reviews), the score would be substantially higher (estimated 88–92). If evaluating MSE Plumbing only, the score would be substantially lower (estimated 18–25).

This WW Score has LOW practical reliability as a single number because it aggregates reviews from what appear to be two entirely different businesses operating under the same listing; consumers should treat the 2024–2025 'Mike's Plumbing' reviews and the 2012–2021 'MSE Plumbing' reviews as completely separate datasets before drawing any conclusions.

This contractor's review pool is deeply polarized: a cluster of recent (2024) positive reviews praises responsiveness, professionalism, and quality workmanship, while a substantial body of older reviews (2012–2018) documents serious concerns including alleged scam pricing, bait-and-switch tactics, no-shows, incomplete work, and rude owner behavior. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out inflated quotes ($265 to clear a sink, $400 for a disposal install, $500 for a ball valve), hidden fees, and a $45 show-up charge that drew strong negative reactions. Project completion is mixed: several reviewers praised same-day or next-day resolution, but others reported abandoned jobs, return visits needed to fix errors, and technicians arriving without tools. Professionalism scores reflect a split between courteous, timely technicians praised by name in recent reviews and documented incidents of attitude problems, no-call no-shows, and an owner who reportedly hung up on a customer. The score is dragged down significantly by the volume and severity of negative reviews, many of which contain specific, credible detail.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The same 1-star review (dated 2014-03-27) appears three times with nearly identical timestamps (15:54, 15:55, 15:56). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation — either the reviewer submitted multiple times or the data source contains duplicates. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• RECENCY BIAS CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are concentrated in 2024, while the majority of negative reviews are from 2012–2018. This may reflect genuine improvement over time, but it could also reflect selective review solicitation. The 2024 reviews are given more weight per scoring rules, but the historical negatives are numerous and specific enough to materially affect all dimensions.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION (MILD): Several older 5-star reviews (2013) contain very similar phrasing patterns — 'within an hour,' 'friendly and knowledgeable,' 'will not need a plumber soon but will call again' — and were posted within days of each other with no reviewer names or specific job details. These may be seeded reviews and were treated with reduced confidence.
• SCAM ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2014, 2015, 2016, 2018) explicitly used the word 'scam' and described consistent patterns: refusal to quote over phone, $45 show-up fee, then dramatically inflated on-site quotes. This pattern is too consistent across unrelated reviewers to dismiss.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: At least two reviews describe jobs left unfinished — one where the technician had to return to fix electrical after a water heater install, and one where a hose bib was left unreplaced after a $500 job. One review also describes damage caused by a technician (boiler rod cap not replaced, causing months of water leakage and mold).
• OWNER CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One detailed review describes the owner (Todd) interrupting a customer, making dismissive statements ('I'm the owner, I can do whatever I want'), and hanging up mid-conversation. This is a significant professionalism flag at the leadership level.
• SERVICE AREA MISREPRESENTATION: Two reviews note that the company's listed location did not match its actual service area, suggesting misleading geographic listings.

This WW Score is based on 49 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the strong temporal split between recent positive reviews and a well-documented history of serious complaints, duplicate review submissions, and credible scam allegations from multiple independent sources.

The Clogfather shows a stark divide in customer experience. Positive reviews (5 of 9) consistently praise responsiveness, fair pricing, and technical competence, with customers highlighting quick service and reasonable rates. However, 4 reviews from 2018–2021 describe severe professionalism failures including rudeness, interrupting customers, erratic behavior, suspected substance abuse, and failure to honor commitments. The most recent positive reviews (2023–2024) suggest possible management or personnel changes, but the historical pattern of interpersonal dysfunction significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. Professionalism scores are heavily dragged down by explicit mentions of disrespect, bullying, and unprofessional conduct across multiple independent accounts.

• CRITICAL: Four independent reviews (2018, 2020, 2021 x2) describe identical patterns of rudeness, erratic behavior, and suspected substance abuse by the same individual (Tom). These are detailed, specific accounts with no generic language—high credibility.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Negative reviews cluster in 2018–2021; positive reviews cluster in 2023–2024. This suggests either personnel change or temporary improvement. Insufficient data to confirm sustained improvement.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Multiple customers report being talked over, interrupted, yelled at, and treated disrespectfully. One customer explicitly noted concern about substance abuse based on observed behavior (drinking from brown paper bag, van full of beer cans).
• RELIABILITY ISSUE: One customer reported failure to call within 48 hours and contradictory communication with warranty provider.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Negative reviews are highly detailed and specific; positive reviews vary in detail and language. No suspicious repetition or generic praise.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews are positive and suggest possible improvement, the historical pattern of severe professionalism failures (rudeness, erratic behavior, suspected substance abuse) across four independent detailed accounts creates significant reputational risk. The company may have changed, but insufficient recent data (only 3 positive reviews in past 12 months) prevents high confidence. Customers should request specific personnel and verify recent service quality before committing.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply mixed picture dominated by serious recurring failures. Professionalism is heavily penalized by multiple accounts of no-shows without notice, extreme tardiness with no courtesy calls, a technician arriving without promised PPE, and a dismissive or overly salesman-like attitude from staff and managers — though a handful of reviews do praise individual technicians like Donte, Keith, Carl, and Derek as courteous and personable. Pricing is a significant weak point, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out hidden charges, undisclosed fees, and rates described as nearly double the market average, including one manager who was rude when confronted about the lack of disclosure. Project completion is severely undermined by a no-show appointment with zero follow-up, a promised complimentary scope that never happened, a technician who could not complete a basic valve shutoff, and a highly alarming upsell pattern where a $50–100 repair was quoted at over $8,500. Experience scores modestly higher due to several positive mentions of skilled, knowledgeable individual technicians, but is offset by the technician who could not shut off a standard waterline and the egregious misdiagnosis in the upsell review.

• UPSELL PATTERN DETECTED: One review describes a repair quoted at $8,500+ that two independent plumbers and the homeowner resolved for under $100. This is a serious red flag for predatory or deceptive sales practices.
• HIDDEN CHARGES: Multiple reviews explicitly mention undisclosed fees and charges only revealed after the fact, with management defending the practice rather than correcting it.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least two reviews describe scheduled appointments where the technician never arrived and no call or text was made to the customer.
• COVID SAFETY VIOLATION (2021): A technician arrived without the mask, gloves, and boots explicitly promised by the dispatcher to a high-risk household, and admitted he had never been tested.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews are from early 2023. The majority of reviews (8 of 12) are from 2018–2021, meaning recent performance data is limited. The 2023 reviews are mixed (one positive, one noting miscommunication).
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, tone, and rating. Language is not repetitive or suspiciously generic. No fake review flag warranted.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews with strong dimension coverage across all four categories, but the score should be treated with caution given that most reviews are over two years old, the contractor shows a documented pattern of serious operational failures, and the positive reviews are heavily outnumbered by detailed, specific negative accounts.

Two of the three reviews are strongly negative, describing serious workmanship failures including improper material substitution (copper replaced with PVC), incomplete work (siding never repaired), incorrect water heater installation, and failure to advise customers on required inspections. Communication and responsiveness were also cited as poor, with unreturned messages noted in one review. The single positive review is vague, generic, and lacks any specific detail, reducing its credibility and weight. Pricing was explicitly flagged as excessive in one review, with a customer feeling overcharged for substandard work.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The sole 5-star review (2013) is extremely generic — 'Most excellent plumber with wide skills and experiences and not expensive, clean eficient work, highly recommned' — with no specifics, misspellings consistent with low-effort or inauthentic content, and no job details. Its credibility is low and it has been weighted conservatively.
• RECENCY WARNING: All three reviews are older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2021). The oldest usable negative review references work done in 2008 and 2010, meaning the underlying incidents are very dated. However, the 2021 review date for the 1-star review is within a more recent window.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: Two independent reviewers describe jobs that were left incomplete or done incorrectly, with no follow-through or callback honored — a consistent and serious pattern.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS FLAGGED: One reviewer explicitly states messages were left unreturned, indicating a breakdown in post-job communication and accountability.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. Per scoring rules, this is at the minimum threshold for calculation. Results should be treated with significant caution.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 3 reviews analyzed, a highly suspicious generic 5-star review, and all underlying incidents being more than 2 years old at time of review — consumers should seek more current and numerous reviews before making a hiring decision.

M S Plumbing demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Nine of ten reviews are 1-star ratings documenting failures to complete work, lack of technical competence, poor communication, and refusal to honor commitments. The company repeatedly charged customers (including warranty companies) without performing promised services, failed to diagnose or fix basic plumbing issues, and exhibited unprofessional behavior including rudeness and non-responsiveness. The single 5-star review from 2006 is substantially outweighed by nine recent negative reviews (2009–2024) documenting systemic operational failures. This score reflects a company with critical reliability and competence issues.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF FAILURE: 9 of 10 reviews are 1-star ratings with consistent complaints about non-completion of work, lack of technical knowledge, and refusal to perform contracted services.
• WARRANTY FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple reviews (at least 3) document the company accepting payment from home warranty companies (AHS, generic warranty) and then refusing to perform work or claiming inability to complete simple tasks.
• TECHNICAL INCOMPETENCE: Repeated documentation of failure to diagnose basic plumbing issues (rusty bolts, wax seals, simple clogs), refusal to use proper equipment, and misdiagnosis of problems.
• PROFESSIONALISM FAILURES: Multiple reports of rudeness, non-responsiveness to callbacks (one review documents 2.5+ days without response), and refusal to honor commitments (e.g., promised removal of old water heater never completed).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2021–2024 (recent), while the single positive review is from 2006 (18 years old), suggesting either significant deterioration or that the positive review may not reflect current operations.
• CODE VIOLATIONS: One review documents installation of water heater with multiple code violations (missing expansion tank, missing pan, improper installation) that created safety hazards.
• SINGLE POSITIVE REVIEW ANOMALY: The 5-star review from 2006 is substantially older than all negative reviews and uses generic praise language. However, it does not exhibit typical fake review markers (no identical phrasing to other reviews, specific details about 15-year relationship). Treat with caution given recency gap.

This WW Score of 18.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 10 reviews with strong consensus (9 of 10 are 1-star), recent data (most from 2021–2024), and consistent documentation of specific failures across all dimensions. The company demonstrates systemic operational and competence failures that pose financial and safety risks to customers.