Find Nearby Plumbers In Fairfield, California

Roman's/Roroman Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers spanning over a decade, with many reviewers praising punctuality, responsiveness, honesty, and quality workmanship across a wide variety of jobs. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — including no-shows, missed appointments, price disputes, hidden charges, abandoned or incomplete work, and at least one allegation of fraudulent billing — meaningfully drag down all four dimensions. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers found prices fair or even below-market, a notable cluster of reviews explicitly complained about overcharging, vague estimates that ballooned, and failure to honor discounts or provide receipts. Project completion also carries risk, with multiple reviews citing jobs that required callbacks, were left unfinished, or were misdiagnosed. The overall picture is a company capable of excellent work but with inconsistent execution and customer service that varies significantly by technician and job complexity.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text ('Roman's plumbing are great people and provide honest and solid service...') were posted on 2025-05-10 and 2025-05-07 with the same 5-star rating. This is a likely duplicate or fake review and has been counted only once for scoring purposes.
• MULTIPLE NO-SHOW / MISSED APPOINTMENT COMPLAINTS: At least 5 distinct reviews describe the plumber failing to show up for scheduled appointments without calling, including reviews from 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2022. This is a recurring pattern that significantly impacts professionalism and project completion scores.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews allege that estimates were given verbally and then significantly increased upon job completion, that receipts/invoices were not provided, that discounts were not honored, and in one case that a stale check was cashed illegally. These are serious red flags beyond simple pricing disagreement.
• ABANDONED/INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 3 reviews describe work left unfinished, a job abandoned mid-project, or a callback situation where the company refused to return to fix a problem they may have caused.
• FAKE/FRAUDULENT DIAGNOSIS ALLEGATION: One detailed 2024 review alleges the company reported needing a $17,000 repair without actually inspecting the system, and a second detailed review from 2015 alleges unnecessary procedures were performed to inflate a bill. A third review from 2014 alleges a misdiagnosis that would have led to thousands in unnecessary work. These are serious credibility concerns.
• REVIEW SPAN IS VERY WIDE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2025. A large proportion of reviews are older than 3 years. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are more mixed, including both strong positives and a serious fraud allegation. Recency weighting has been applied conservatively.
• MANY BLANK/UNKNOWN REVIEWS: Approximately 25-30 reviews contain no text (labeled 'unknown', '.', or blank) with only a star rating. These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RUDE EMPLOYEE COMPLAINT: One 2023 review specifically calls out a rude employee who blocked traffic and had an attitude when asked to move. This is consistent with the variability in staff quality noted across multiple reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning 15+ years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should be aware that the score reflects significant variability in service quality — this contractor can deliver excellent results but has a documented pattern of no-shows, pricing disputes, and occasional serious misconduct that warrants caution and clear written agreements before hiring.

This contractor has a large and long-running review history spanning over two decades, with the majority of reviews being strongly positive across professionalism, technical skill, and responsiveness. Many customers praise prompt arrival, clear communication, and knowledgeable technicians by name. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and multiple employees — raises serious concerns: repeated allegations of overcharging, incomplete or abandoned work, warranty non-fulfillment, unprofessional and even abusive employee conduct (notably 'Wes'), and failure to respond to follow-up calls or emails. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing excessive charges, hidden fees, and unfair billing practices. Project completion also carries notable risk, with several reviews describing unfinished jobs, no-shows, and work that had to be redone by other companies.

• Multiple reviews (spanning 2007–2024) describe serious misconduct by employees, particularly 'Wes/Wesley', including verbal abuse of customers, showing up unannounced, and overcharging — these are not isolated incidents.
• Several reviews describe incomplete or abandoned work, including a 2022 review alleging the CEO threatened legal action after failing to complete a contracted job, and a 2024 review describing a walk-through with no follow-up quote or response.
• Pricing complaints are recurring and specific: hidden drive-time fees, charges for unresolved issues, markups on parts exceeding 200%, and estimates described as 'outrageous' by a pipe manufacturer.
• Warranty non-fulfillment is explicitly mentioned in at least two reviews, including a 2011 review about a water heater warranty and a 2023 review about faulty new construction work.
• A significant number of reviews (33+) contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews are not usable for dimension scoring and inflate the apparent review count without providing evidence.
• The review pool spans from 1999 to 2025 and appears to aggregate reviews from multiple business entities or locations (references to Vacaville CA, Evergreen CO, New Jersey, and other regions), suggesting this may be a merged or multi-location profile. Scores from different eras and locations may not reflect a single consistent operation.
• Several reviews from 2007 reference 'US Plumbing' and 'PRV' as the company name, not Adams Plumbing, suggesting data aggregation from multiple contractors — these were included in analysis but noted as potentially misattributed.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive and specific, which is encouraging, but the negative pattern from 2014–2024 is too substantial to discount.
• No clear fake review pattern detected, but the volume of generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Excellent work') warrants mild caution.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the contractor's track record is genuinely mixed, with a strong positive majority offset by a persistent and credible pattern of serious complaints about pricing, incomplete work, and employee conduct that prospective customers should investigate before hiring.

C&C Plumbing has a large volume of positive reviews praising responsiveness, punctuality, and professional demeanor, particularly from a long-running customer base spanning 2011–2025. However, several serious negative reviews — including multiple accounts of incomplete remodel work, lack of supervision, poor follow-through on large projects, and one instance of a customer being ghosted during a water shutoff — meaningfully drag down the project completion and professionalism scores. Pricing is a mixed picture: many reviewers praise fair or competitive rates, but at least two explicitly called out overcharging for short jobs. Experience scores are generally strong for routine plumbing but are undermined by credible accounts of inexperienced labor left unsupervised on remodel jobs. The score reflects a contractor who performs well on smaller, straightforward jobs but carries meaningful risk on larger or longer-duration projects.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 'Run away. Do not be bamboozled by Carlos' review appears verbatim on two different dates (2024-06-09 and 2023-07-27). This was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• LARGE VOLUME OF 'unknown' REVIEWS: Approximately 12 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2024-06-09 (approximately 10 reviews on the same date) show generic praise with limited specifics and may represent a coordinated review push. Confidence has been moderated accordingly.
• TEMPORAL CONCERN: A significant portion of detailed positive reviews are from 2011–2017 and reference a plumber named 'Steve,' while more recent reviews reference 'Carlos.' It is unclear if this is the same business entity or a change in ownership/operator, which may affect score continuity.
• SERIOUS COMPLETION FAILURES DOCUMENTED: At least 3 independent reviewers (excluding the duplicate) describe major project completion failures on remodel jobs — doubled timelines, unsupervised inexperienced labor, incomplete work after months, and non-responsiveness after partial payment. These are high-severity signals.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE COMPLAINT: One reviewer specifically called out a staff member named Michelle for rude and impatient behavior, resulting in loss of a customer despite satisfaction with the plumber's work.
• ONE REVIEW describes being accused of fraud (stolen credit card) by the company before any work was done, which is a serious customer service and reputational concern.

This WW Score is based on a high volume of reviews and carries HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should exercise caution for large or multi-phase remodel projects, as multiple credible and detailed negative reviews document a pattern of incomplete work, poor supervision, and non-responsiveness that is not reflected in the majority of shorter, simpler job reviews.

Jake's Plumbing demonstrates significant inconsistency across service dimensions. While technical expertise and workmanship quality are strong (82/100), the company struggles substantially with project completion (68/100) and professionalism (71/100). A substantial portion of negative reviews cite multiple failed visits, poor communication, no-shows, and difficulty completing complex jobs. Pricing concerns (73/100) emerge in several reviews regarding unexpected charges, diagnostic fees, and price increases mid-project. The company excels with simple, straightforward jobs but falters on complex work requiring coordination and follow-through.

• SIGNIFICANT POLARIZATION: 60+ five-star reviews vs. 30+ one-star reviews suggests two very different customer experiences—possibly dependent on technician assigned or job complexity
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Multiple detailed complaints (2024-10-02, 2024-09-15, 2022-07-01, 2022-06-13, 2021-12-16, 2021-01-28) describe multiple failed visits, no-shows, and incomplete work over extended periods
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Recurring pattern of unreturned calls, missed appointments, and lack of follow-up across reviews spanning 2012-2024
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews report unexpected charges, diagnostic fees not disclosed upfront, and price increases after initial quotes (2023-01-20, 2021-02-24, 2014-01-10)
• COMPLEX JOB STRUGGLES: Detailed 2024-10-02 review explicitly states company 'struggles to handle even modestly complex jobs' with wrong parts ordered and unprepared plumbers
• WARRANTY COMPANY ISSUES: Multiple reviews (2015-2016 era) suggest problematic relationship with home warranty companies, with accusations of misrepresenting customer situations to insurers
• EMPLOYEE VARIATION: Reviews explicitly note 'variation' in plumber capability and professionalism; some named technicians (Freddie, Erik, Kyle, Jon) receive consistent praise while others receive complaints
• RECENCY CONCERN: While recent 2024 reviews show both 5-star and 1-star ratings, negative reviews from 2024 are more detailed and specific about systemic failures than older reviews

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH confidence in data volume. The extreme polarization (40% five-star vs. 20% one-star) and recurring patterns of project completion failures, communication breakdowns, and pricing disputes suggest the company's quality is highly dependent on which technician is assigned and job complexity. The score reflects an average across fundamentally inconsistent service delivery. Customers should request specific technicians (Freddie, Erik, Kyle, Jon appear most reliable) and avoid complex multi-visit projects if possible.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

Able To Plumbing & Rooter has a strong base of loyal, repeat customers who consistently praise responsiveness, punctuality, and friendly service across many years of reviews. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by a recurring pattern of serious negative experiences: multiple reviewers describe incomplete work that worsened their situation (a whole-house drain failure, a flooded home requiring refloor, a fire sprinkler leak caused by the company), installation of outdated or used equipment billed as new (a 2012 toilet, a cracked 2012 circulating pump), and at least two accounts of aggressive or threatening behavior by the owner Travis when complaints were raised. Pricing is a mixed picture — many reviewers call it fair or reasonable, but several explicitly describe feeling overcharged, receiving no upfront quote, or paying significantly more than comparable market rates. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, as the negative reviews disproportionately describe jobs that were either incomplete, caused secondary damage, or came with warranties that were not honored. The volume of positive reviews is high, but the severity and specificity of the negative reviews prevent a high score in any dimension.

• Two reviews contain only a period or the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no text — these are not usable and were excluded from scoring. They may represent placeholder or fake entries.
• One review (2015-08-27) appears to be a near-exact duplicate submitted on the same date with slightly different formatting — treated as a single review for scoring purposes.
• Multiple negative reviews describe a pattern of installing outdated or used equipment (2012 toilet model, cracked 2012 circulating pump) while billing for new parts at full price — this is a serious and recurring workmanship/integrity concern.
• At least two independent reviewers describe the owner Travis becoming verbally aggressive or threatening when complaints were raised. One reviewer (2013) describes 11 calls at 6am with profanity and legal threats. Another (2024) describes Travis as 'aggressive, unprofessional and incompetent.' This is a significant professionalism flag.
• The 1-star review from January 2024 describes a house flooding and full refloor due to Travis's work, and the 2-star review from January 2022 describes a whole-house drain failure after incomplete snaking — both are high-severity project completion failures.
• A 1-star review from 2018 describes a sump pump warranty being refused service without an additional fee just weeks after installation, and a 1-star from 2016 describes a fire sprinkler repair that caused a new leak with warranty not honored — warranty non-compliance is a repeated concern.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2024) include both strong positives and a severe negative (house flooding). Reviews span 2009–2024, so older reviews carry reduced weight. The negative pattern is not isolated to older reviews — it persists into 2024.
• One reviewer (2011) describes a water heater visit where Travis missed four serious issues including a carbon monoxide leak, later discovered by PG&E — a significant safety and competence concern.
• No fake review pattern detected among the positive reviews — most contain specific names, job details, and contextual information consistent with genuine experiences.

This WW Score is based on 83 reviews spanning 15 years with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the presence of multiple severe, specific, and independently corroborated negative reviews — including safety failures, warranty refusals, property damage, and owner misconduct — means the score should be treated as a genuine mixed signal rather than a simple average, and prospective customers should read the negative reviews in full before hiring.