Find Nearby Plumbers In Fairfield, California

MJ Plumbing presents a deeply split profile: a strong cohort of satisfied customers from roughly 2012–2019 praise Matt's punctuality, friendliness, technical skill, and fair pricing, while a cluster of serious negative reviews — spanning 2018 through 2024 — describe ghosting after appointments, abandoned jobs, incomplete work, and in one case an allegation of fraudulently cashing a check. Professionalism and project completion scores are significantly dragged down by multiple credible accounts of no-shows, non-responsiveness, and work left unfinished or done unsafely. Pricing scores remain relatively higher because even negative reviewers often acknowledged reasonable rates, but value is undermined when jobs are not completed. The recency trend is concerning: the most recent reviews (2022–2024) skew negative, suggesting a possible decline in service reliability over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2022–2024) are predominantly negative (ghosting, abandoned work, unsafe installation). Positive reviews are largely from 2012–2019. This trend strongly suggests a deterioration in service quality and reliability in recent years.
• GHOSTING PATTERN: At least 3 independent reviews (2022-05-13, 2022-10-06, 2023-01-27) explicitly describe being ghosted after initial contact or after work began. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One detailed 2018 review alleges Matt fraudulently cashed a check he had promised not to cash, failed to complete the job, and became unresponsive. This is a severe flag that materially impacts trustworthiness scores.
• UNSAFE WORKMANSHIP ALLEGATION: A 2023 review states a subsequent contractor found the heater installation was done unsafely and the unit was deemed unusable, requiring full replacement at the customer's expense.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One review describes Matt taking a deposit check ($2,500), receiving a second check ($3,500), and then cashing the original 'missing' check without authorization — totaling over $6,000 collected with incomplete work delivered.
• OLDER POSITIVE REVIEWS: The majority of 5-star reviews are from 2011–2019. While they appear genuine and specific, their age means they carry reduced weight under recency scoring rules.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Positive reviews contain specific job details, named tasks, and varied language. They do not appear fabricated, but their age limits their current relevance.

This WW Score is based on 27 reviews with high mention counts across all dimensions, giving it statistical reliability, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a clear negative recency trend — recent customers (2022–2024) report serious issues including ghosting, unsafe work, and financial misconduct, which substantially undermines confidence in current service quality.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2014–2022. Pricing is consistently praised as reasonable and fair (85/100), and technical skill is evident in successful repairs and installations (80/100). However, professionalism is severely undermined by poor scheduling, unreturned calls, and lack of follow-up communication (52/100). Most critically, project completion is the weakest dimension (45/100), with one major incident of abandoned work lasting 4+ months despite promises to return, and another recent review citing scheduling failures. The 2022 review suggests deterioration in service quality over time. The business appears to have been stronger in 2011–2018 but has experienced a notable decline in reliability and responsiveness.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2017–2018; most recent review (2022) is highly negative, suggesting service quality decline over time.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: One review documents a 4-month failure to complete promised work (drain stopper installation), indicating serious follow-through issues.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews cite scheduling vagueness ('might be able to come') and unreturned calls, suggesting systemic responsiveness problems.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews limits confidence; however, the pattern of complaints is consistent and specific rather than generic.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size and clear temporal decline in service quality; the 2022 review suggests current performance may be worse than the calculated average, and the documented project abandonment is a serious red flag for reliability.

Always Affordable Plumbing receives genuinely mixed feedback across all dimensions. On professionalism, several reviewers praised punctuality, communication, and courtesy, but two detailed 1-star reviews describe a bad attitude, extreme messiness, failure to clean up after work, and a deeply unprofessional response from staff including verbal abuse when complaints were raised — these significantly drag the professionalism score down. Pricing is a clear strength, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting costs far below competitor quotes and good value, earning a relatively strong score in that dimension. Project completion is a serious concern: one review describes a flooding incident caused by leaving plumbing open while turning water back on, water damage to rugs and ceilings, and no effort to help remediate — while another notes measurement errors requiring a callback, and a third warns against using them for large projects. On the experience dimension, workmanship quality is inconsistent — skilled enough to tackle jobs others won't, but with documented cosmetic errors, shoddy faucet installation, and a flooding incident suggesting lapses in technical care on larger jobs.

• Two detailed 1-star reviews describe serious incidents: flooding caused by leaving plumbing open during water restoration, and a faucet installed with a visible gap and damaged wood mount — these are significant quality and liability concerns.
• One 1-star reviewer reports that the company's listed email address is non-functional and that a staff member screamed profanities and hung up when a complaint was raised — this is a major customer service and business integrity red flag.
• The reviewer from 2023-04-10 explicitly notes their jobs were approximately 2 years prior to writing, meaning some positive experiences may reflect older service quality that may not represent current performance.
• Several positive reviews are relatively brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 2022-08-04, 2021-04-28, 2022-03-01), which limits their evidentiary weight compared to the highly detailed negative reviews.
• Recency note: The most recent review is from May 2024, but the two most damaging negative reviews are from 2022. The 2024 and early 2023 reviews are more positive, which may suggest some improvement, but the sample size is too small to confirm a trend.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, rating, and tone, suggesting authentic authorship.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions; while confidence is MODERATE to HIGH on individual dimensions due to mention counts, the small total review pool and the presence of two highly detailed, credible negative reviews — including a flooding incident and a reported abusive customer service interaction — mean this score should be treated with caution, particularly for large or complex plumbing projects.

Alejandro's Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across 42 reviews spanning 2014 to 2024. Positive reviews consistently praise fast response times, availability during emergencies and holidays, and genuine helpfulness from Alejandro personally — these are real strengths. However, a substantial volume of negative reviews describe serious recurring problems: workers arriving unprepared or intoxicated, warranty commitments not honored, prices changed after work was agreed upon, incomplete or incorrect work left unresolved, and owners becoming hostile or unresponsive when called back. Pricing is a particular concern, with multiple reviewers describing bait-and-switch tactics, undisclosed charges, and no receipts provided. Project completion scores are dragged down significantly by repeated patterns of jobs not being fully resolved and follow-up calls being ignored. The experience dimension is mixed — some technicians are praised as skilled, while others are described as not knowing how drainage systems work or requiring supervision.

• Three reviews posted on the same date (2017-10-22) within hours of each other, all 5-star, all brief and generic — these are highly suspicious and may be fake or coordinated reviews. Scores were not inflated based on these.
• Two reviews are near-identical duplicates posted on the same date (2019-02-18) within minutes of each other, suggesting a system glitch or duplicate submission — only counted once for scoring purposes.
• Recurring pattern of warranty non-compliance: at least 3 independent reviewers (2021-12-21, 2022-03-22, 2021-02-03) describe being denied warranty service after paying for work that failed within weeks.
• Multiple reviews describe workers arriving without tools, without knowledge of the job, or under the influence of alcohol — indicating inconsistent vetting of technicians sent on jobs.
• Multiple reviews describe price changes after work was completed, no receipts provided, and verbal agreements not honored — a pattern consistent with deceptive billing practices.
• One review (2020-09-30) explicitly states workers are not licensed plumbers, which is a serious legal and safety concern.
• Review from 2024-04-06 notes a technician who did not understand drainage systems and snaked downstream of the blockage — suggesting ongoing quality control issues as recently as 2024.
• Many negative reviews are older (2014–2020), but negative patterns persist into 2022–2024, indicating issues have not been resolved over time.
• Overall rating distribution is highly polarized: reviews are predominantly either 1-star or 5-star with very few in between, which is a common indicator of an inconsistent service operation.

This WW Score is based on 42 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it strong statistical reliability — however, the deeply polarized review history, suspected fake reviews, and persistent negative patterns across nearly a decade mean the score of 54.3 should be treated as a genuine warning signal rather than a borderline pass.

This review set is a tale of two distinct companies whose reviews appear to have been merged or co-mingled: NA Plumbing (NAP) based in North Alabama, and Plumber By Trade (PBT) based in Vacaville, California. NA Plumbing reviews are overwhelmingly positive, praising responsiveness, professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. Plumber By Trade reviews are overwhelmingly negative, with dozens of customers citing extreme rudeness, no-shows, failure to complete jobs, overcharging, and dangerous incompetence including a gas leak incident. The blended WW Score of approximately 52 reflects this severe split — NAP alone would score in the high 80s, while PBT alone would score in the low 20s. Consumers should treat this score with extreme caution and identify which company they are actually engaging before proceeding. The volume and specificity of negative reviews for Plumber By Trade represent serious, credible concerns about safety and business ethics.

• CRITICAL: Reviews appear to belong to TWO SEPARATE COMPANIES — 'NA Plumbing' (North Alabama) and 'Plumber By Trade' (Vacaville, CA). These are distinct businesses and their reviews should not be evaluated together. The WW Score is unreliable as a result of this data contamination.
• Plumber By Trade has a large volume of 1-star reviews spanning 2014–2024 with highly consistent, specific complaints: chronic no-shows, extreme rudeness from owner 'Joe' and staff member 'Adriana/Theresa', overcharging on top of home warranty fees, failure to complete jobs, and at least one documented gas leak caused by technician negligence.
• Multiple reviewers across different years independently describe the same pattern for Plumber By Trade: assigned via Fidelity Home Warranty, technician visits but does not complete work, company becomes unresponsive, warranty fees collected without service rendered. This pattern is consistent enough to suggest a systemic business model issue, not isolated incidents.
• One Plumber By Trade review documents a technician breaking a gas line and failing to check for leaks, creating a potentially lethal scenario. This is a serious safety flag.
• Several NA Plumbing reviews dated 2024-06-09 share identical dates and are brief or generic (e.g., 'Highly Recommend.', 'Prompt and thorough', blank text with 5 stars). This cluster raises a moderate concern about possible review solicitation or padding, though many others in the same period contain specific details.
• Three reviews in the dataset contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One negative review for NA Plumbing (March 2025, 1-star) is detailed and credible: customer was overcharged $425 for a shower cartridge replacement, owner admitted the overcharge but refused a refund. This is a legitimate pricing and integrity concern specific to NAP.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly for NA Plumbing and are positive. The most recent Plumber By Trade reviews extend through mid-2024. Both companies have recent activity.

This WW Score of 52.1 should NOT be trusted as a reliable indicator for either company individually, as it is calculated from a merged dataset of two unrelated businesses with diametrically opposed performance records — consumers must first confirm which company they are researching before drawing any conclusions from this report.

This contractor exhibits a stark and troubling pattern of inconsistency. While 5 reviews (2021–2023) praise his professionalism, punctuality, knowledge, and fair pricing, 3 recent reviews (2023–2024) document serious failures: no-shows despite confirmed appointments, refusal to provide insurance information after property damage, abandonment of jobs mid-work, demand for unauthorized payment increases, and aggressive behavior including profanity and threats. The most recent review (October 2024) alleges non-completion, money retention, and potential fraud. Professionalism and project completion scores are heavily depressed by documented failures in communication, follow-through, and accountability. Experience remains relatively strong based on technical praise, but cannot offset systemic behavioral and contractual breaches.

• CRITICAL: Severe pattern of project abandonment and non-completion documented in 3 reviews (Feb 2023, Mar 2023, Oct 2024). Two reviews explicitly state contractor did not return to finish work.
• CRITICAL: Multiple allegations of financial misconduct: unauthorized price increases mid-job ($500 to $700), refusal to refund deposits, demand for payment after no-show, and alleged fraud ('con man' language used by 2 reviewers).
• CRITICAL: Documented behavioral red flags including refusal to provide insurance information after property damage, cursing at customer, yelling profanities, and aggressive confrontation months after initial incident.
• CRITICAL: Possible name inconsistency — reviews reference 'David Macy,' 'Mr. Macy,' 'Dave Macy,' and one review mentions 'David Manson' (Oct 2022), which may indicate a different person or a data entry error. This creates ambiguity about whether all negative reviews apply to the same individual.
• TEMPORAL CONCERN: Positive reviews cluster in 2021–2023 (older); negative reviews cluster in 2023–2024 (recent). This suggests deterioration in service quality or behavioral issues over time, or possible business closure mentioned in one review.
• One review (Oct 2022) references 'David Manson' rather than 'Macy,' creating potential confusion about identity.
• Negative reviews contain specific, detailed allegations (dates, amounts, witness accounts, security footage) that carry high credibility. Positive reviews, while detailed, predate the serious incidents.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the WW Score of 52.3 reflects the mathematical average of conflicting evidence, the recent pattern of abandonment, financial disputes, and aggressive behavior (Oct 2024, Mar 2023, Feb 2023) is deeply concerning and suggests the contractor may be unreliable or operating unethically. The positive reviews are older and do not address the serious failures documented in recent reviews. Potential customers should prioritize the recent negative reviews and documented incidents over the older positive feedback. The name inconsistency ('Manson' vs. 'Macy') should be clarified before engaging this contractor.