Find Nearby Plumbers In Lincoln, California

A Sewer Guy Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, technical skill, and professional demeanor, particularly from the 2014–2018 period. However, several serious negative reviews significantly drag down the scores, most notably a 2023 complaint involving a grossly overpriced water heater installation, a subsequent leak caused by shoddy workmanship, and resulting floor damage estimated at $2,000–$4,000 to repair. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing bait-and-switch quoting, unexpected upcharges, and prices far above what competitors charged for identical work. Professionalism is mixed — many customers praised friendly and courteous technicians, but at least two reviews described poor attitude, tardiness of two hours, and a technician who arrived chewing gum and appeared disengaged. Project completion scores moderately well given the volume of jobs described as fully resolved, but the 2023 leak incident and a 3-hour callback delay on a claimed 24-hour line are meaningful deductions.

• The most recent review (2023) describes serious workmanship negligence — an unchecked leak after water heater installation caused significant floor damage. This is a high-severity flag and was weighted heavily in project completion and experience scoring.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2015–2019 are brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Stephen is really an excellent, professional, talented plumber. Thank you for your services on our home.' and 'A very helpful and honest plumber who helped us to keep our project done right with affordability. Thank you.'). These may be low-effort or potentially inauthentic reviews and were treated as low-evidential-value.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most clustered between 2014 and 2019. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2023), and it is the most negative. Recency weighting therefore pulls scores downward.
• Pricing complaints span multiple years (2017, 2018, 2023), suggesting a recurring pattern of inconsistent or inflated quotes rather than isolated incidents.
• A claimed 24-hour callback service failed to respond within 3 hours in one review, indicating a gap between advertised and actual service levels.

This WW Score is based on 29 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderated by the age of most positive reviews, a pattern of recurring pricing complaints, and a recent high-severity workmanship failure that suggests quality may have declined over time.

Calvin at CAC Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions from every reviewer. Professionalism is the most frequently cited strength, with all five reviewers explicitly praising his attitude, punctuality, and responsiveness — including same-day and next-morning service in multiple cases. Pricing is described as reasonable or fair by three reviewers, supporting a solid but not exceptional price-friendly score. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing fully resolved issues ranging from emergency drain problems to a complete master bathroom remodel, with no mention of abandoned or incomplete work. Experience is evidenced by the breadth and complexity of jobs completed, including tankless water heater installations, drain line relocation, and full bathroom plumbing remodels, though the sample size remains small.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific job details and varied language, reducing the likelihood of fabrication.
• Two of the five reviews are dated 2020, making them over four years old. These carry reduced weight under recency rules. Only three reviews fall within the past 24 months, and only two within the past 12 months.
• Sample size is very small (5 reviews total). Scores should be treated as directionally useful but not statistically robust.

This WW Score is directionally trustworthy given the specificity and variety of the reviews, but should be treated with caution due to the small sample size of 5 reviews and the fact that two reviews are more than four years old.

Casey/KC Construction demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across multiple reviews, with customers praising punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality. However, project completion is significantly undermined by one detailed 2024 review documenting severe follow-through failure—incomplete work, broken callbacks, and non-delivery of promised services over a month-long period. Pricing feedback is limited but positive. The stark contrast between five 5-star reviews and one 1-star review with specific, credible complaints suggests inconsistent execution rather than fake reviews.

• CRITICAL: One detailed 1-star review (2024-01-01) documents serious project completion failures including abandoned work, broken promises, and non-responsiveness over 4+ weeks. This directly contradicts the company's stated values of 'Honesty, Quality, Integrity' and significantly impacts the project completion score.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2023 or earlier. The most recent review (2024-02-16) is positive but brief. The most recent detailed review (2024-01-01) is highly negative, suggesting potential recent deterioration in service quality.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total limits confidence in overall score. A larger sample would be needed for robust assessment.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Five 5-star reviews vs. one 1-star review with no middle-ground ratings suggests either highly variable service delivery or potential selection bias in review collection.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with caution due to small sample size (6 reviews) and a recent serious service failure that contradicts earlier positive feedback. The score reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and expertise, but the project completion dimension is materially weakened by documented non-delivery and poor follow-through. Prospective customers should prioritize payment terms (withhold final payment until all work is complete) based on the 2024 complaint.

Marriaha demonstrates strong technical skills and reasonable pricing, with many clients praising her knowledge, friendliness, and quality workmanship on completed tasks. However, a significant pattern of project abandonment and non-responsiveness severely undermines her overall reliability. Multiple reviews (at least 6) document instances where she failed to return for follow-up work, stopped responding to client communications, or sent inadequately supervised staff to complete jobs. While early interactions are consistently positive, the contractor's inability to follow through on commitments and maintain communication creates substantial risk for clients.

• CRITICAL PATTERN: At least 6 reviews explicitly document project abandonment, non-responsiveness, or failure to complete work after initial contact. This is not isolated—it is a recurring behavioral pattern.
• DELEGATION CONCERN: Multiple reviews mention Marriaha sending a teenage son or young assistants to complete work without adequate supervision, resulting in poor quality outcomes and property damage (deck staining, tarp installation).
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: Several clients report being ghosted after initial contact or mid-project, with no response to multiple follow-up attempts via text, email, or phone over weeks.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Strong 5-star reviews for completed work contrast sharply with 1-2 star reviews citing incomplete work, missed spots, and damage. This suggests execution quality varies significantly or deteriorates when projects extend beyond initial scope.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2020-2021 (2+ years old). Only 3 reviews are from 2022 or later, limiting ability to assess current business practices.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While Marriaha demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism during active project phases, the consistent pattern of project abandonment and communication failure across multiple independent reviews represents a material business risk that outweighs her technical strengths. Clients should be aware that initial positive interactions do not guarantee project completion or follow-through.

Fletcher's demonstrates inconsistent performance across all dimensions. While technicians are frequently praised for politeness, professionalism, and technical knowledge (9 mentions of professionalism, 6 of experience), the company suffers from severe deficiencies in project completion and pricing transparency. Multiple reviews document incomplete work, failure to return for callbacks, and lack of follow-through on promised repairs. Pricing is a major complaint across 7 reviews, with customers citing lack of transparency, no set pricing structure, and charges significantly above market rates. The most recent detailed reviews (2016, 2020, 2022) are overwhelmingly negative, suggesting deteriorating service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2007–2015 (8+ years old). The three most recent detailed reviews (2022, 2020, 2016) are all 1-star ratings with serious complaints about incomplete work and poor follow-up.
• INCOMPLETE REVIEWS: Three reviews contain only 'unknown' text with ratings (2015, 2015, 2014), and one contains only a period (2014). These 4 reviews provide no actionable data and suggest data quality issues.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAGS: Multiple reviews explicitly document abandoned work, failure to return for callbacks despite promises, and incomplete installations (water system not tested, hose disconnected and charged to fix, multiple no-shows for scheduled appointments).
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Consistent complaint across multiple reviews that Fletcher's lacks set pricing, charges above-market rates, and does not negotiate. One review notes they charge $29.50 just for an estimate, then use flat quotes from a book with no hourly option.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: The 2016 review documents five separate instances of having to reschedule around promised appointments that were not honored, with no communication. The 2020 review documents a manager who promised a callback 6 weeks prior with no follow-up.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant data quality issues (4 unusable reviews) and a stark temporal divide: older reviews (2007–2015) are predominantly positive, while recent reviews (2016–2022) are uniformly negative, suggesting either service degradation or a shift in customer base. The HIGH confidence in project completion and professionalism scores is undermined by the recency problem—recent evidence contradicts older praise. The overall WW Score of 62.8 reflects serious concerns about follow-through and pricing, but should be considered a floor rather than a definitive assessment given the limited number of recent, detailed reviews.

Beutler Air Conditioning and Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile: individual field technicians are frequently praised for being professional, knowledgeable, courteous, and thorough, which partially elevates the professionalism and experience scores. However, these positives are severely undermined by a massive and consistent pattern of no-shows, repeated appointment cancellations without notice, failure to return calls, and unresolved warranty and repair issues that span years — dragging project completion to a critically low score. Pricing concerns are substantial, with numerous reviewers citing excessive quotes, suspected upselling of unnecessary services, and charges that were multiples of what competitors offered for identical work. The experience dimension reflects a split between competent individual technicians and systemic installation failures including undersized systems, incompatible components, failed inspections, and units that never worked correctly after installation. Overall, the company's operational and customer service infrastructure appears to be the primary driver of negative outcomes, not always the individual technicians.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the HVAC undersized system complaint appears twice on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; the 'Excellent experience' 5-star appears twice; 'Very thorough and honest A/C inspection' appears twice; the Courtney review appears twice; the Chase 'pleasant and knowledgeable' review appears twice; the $90 useless service call review appears twice; the Chase 'professional, thorough and informative' review appears twice; the warranty part no-callback review appears twice; the 'worst in Sacramento county' review appears twice). These duplicates have been counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INFLATED REVIEWS: A significant number of 5-star reviews consist of single words ('Excellent', 'Good', 'Through'), blank text with only a rating, or 'unknown' text. These provide no usable data and inflate the raw star average without contributing evidence of quality. Approximately 40-50 reviews fall into this category.
• FOUR IDENTICAL LONG-FORM REVIEWS: The same lengthy positive review about a 20-year customer experience (April 2016) appears four times verbatim on the same date. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation and has been counted only once.
• CSLB COMPLAINTS FILED: At least two reviewers explicitly state they have filed formal complaints with the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB), and multiple others reference BBB complaints. This is a significant legal and regulatory flag.
• PATTERN OF WARRANTY AVOIDANCE: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe Beutler refusing to honor warranties, failing to show up for warranty service calls, or attempting to charge for labor on parts covered under warranty. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PATTERN OF PREDATORY UPSELLING: Numerous reviewers across multiple years describe technicians recommending expensive unnecessary repairs or full system replacements that second-opinion providers confirmed were not needed. In several cases, reviewers allege deliberate sabotage to create repair needs.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly negative and show no improvement trend. Positive reviews are disproportionately older (pre-2018) or lack substantive detail. The operational problems appear to have worsened over time rather than improved.
• SCHEDULING SYSTEM FAILURE: No-show and cancellation complaints are the single most common complaint type across the entire review set, spanning from 2006 through June 2025. This represents a chronic, unresolved systemic failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence given the very large number of reviews analyzed (295 total, with well over 100 containing substantive usable data across all four dimensions); however, consumers should note that the score likely slightly overstates actual performance due to the presence of suspected duplicate and content-free 5-star reviews, and the true project completion and pricing scores may be even lower than reported.