Find Nearby Plumbers In Modesto, California

This contractor shows severe and consistent professionalism deficiencies, particularly around communication, responsiveness, and scheduling reliability. Multiple reviews from 2015-2019 document chronic issues with callback failures, rude office staff, and poor coordination. Project completion is compromised by delayed service, unresolved issues requiring callbacks, and incomplete follow-through. Pricing concerns are minimal in the dataset but one review flagged excessive charges for minor work. Recent reviews (2023) show marked improvement in service quality and customer care, suggesting possible management or operational changes, but the weight of historical evidence remains heavily negative.

• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: 6 of 10 reviews are from 2015-2019 (5+ years old). Only 2 recent reviews from 2023 show positive experiences. Historical pattern of poor service may not reflect current operations.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVE: Early reviews (2014-2015) describe severe systemic failures (communication breakdown, rude staff, scheduling chaos). Later reviews (2018, 2023) describe improved service. This suggests either significant operational restructuring or inconsistent service quality.
• STAFF INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews name specific office staff (Kelly, Christine) and technicians (Anthony, Daniel Cardenas) with wildly different characterizations—some praised, others criticized harshly. Suggests variable quality depending on who handles the job.
• PATTERN OF COMMUNICATION FAILURE: 5 reviews explicitly mention callback failures, non-responsiveness, or poor communication. This is the most consistent negative theme across the dataset.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: At least 2 reviews describe issues recurring after service or work not completed as promised.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 10 reviews, the data is heavily skewed toward older reviews (2015-2019) documenting severe operational failures, with only 2 recent positive reviews suggesting possible improvement. The dramatic shift in tone between historical and recent reviews makes it unclear whether the current company reflects the poor historical pattern or the improved recent pattern. A current score would require more recent reviews to establish reliability.

T&N Plumbing & Electric exhibits severe and consistent operational failures across multiple dimensions. While individual technicians (Anthony, Isaac, Kevin, Alexis, Omar) frequently receive praise for technical competence and courteous behavior, the company's office operations, scheduling, communication, and project follow-through are deeply problematic. The most damaging pattern is systematic dishonesty: misdiagnoses submitted to warranty companies, false claims about work performed, hidden charges, and refusal to honor callbacks. Professionalism scores are dragged down by rude office staff, missed appointments, cancellations without notice, and hang-ups on customers. Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete repairs requiring multiple callbacks, abandoned jobs, and failure to address problems identified during initial visits. Pricing concerns are substantial, with widespread reports of inflated modification fees, unnecessary replacements, and charges for work not performed.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pattern of dishonesty detected across 25+ reviews. Company submits false diagnostic reports to warranty companies that contradict what technicians told customers on-site. This is not isolated—it is repeated behavior.
• CRITICAL: Office staff dysfunction is pervasive. Multiple reports of rude behavior, hang-ups on customers, failure to return calls, and poor communication. Named individuals (Sonia, Kevin, Paul, Liz) appear repeatedly in negative contexts.
• CRITICAL: Appointment reliability is severely compromised. 20+ reviews document missed appointments, cancellations without notice, failure to call customers, and operating outside promised time windows.
• CRITICAL: Hidden and inflated charges are systematic. Repeated reports of $50-$415 'modification fees' for work that required no modifications, charges for work not performed, and refusal to provide itemized invoices.
• PATTERN: Company appears to deliberately over-diagnose problems to justify larger charges and warranty denials. Multiple customers report being told repairs were unnecessary after getting second opinions.
• PATTERN: Selective service quality. Individual technicians (Anthony, Isaac, Kevin, Alexis) are consistently praised, but office operations and follow-through are consistently terrible. This suggests good field staff undermined by poor management.
• PATTERN: Home warranty dependency. Company appears to operate primarily through home warranty contracts (First American, Choice, Old Republic). Multiple reviews suggest company prioritizes warranty company payments over customer satisfaction.
• PATTERN: Retaliation and non-cooperation. Several reviews document company refusing service, hanging up, or stopping communication after customers questioned charges or complained.
• RECENCY: 70+ reviews are from 2024 (past 12 months), indicating these are current, ongoing problems, not historical issues.
• BBB RATING: Multiple reviews reference F rating and 1.27 stars on BBB, corroborating the severity of complaints.
• LEGAL CONCERNS: One review mentions California State Licensing Board awareness of company; another mentions potential police report for safety violations (improper water heater venting).
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW. Positive reviews are specific (name technicians, describe work, mention follow-up). Negative reviews are detailed with dates, amounts, and specific failures. No suspicious repetition detected.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 100 recent reviews (70+ from 2024) with consistent, detailed, and corroborated patterns of failure. The score is conservative—it reflects only explicitly stated problems and does not assume issues from silence. The company's core business model appears compromised by systematic dishonesty, poor office management, and prioritization of warranty company relationships over customer outcomes. Individual technician quality cannot overcome systemic operational and ethical failures.

Highway Plumbing & Rooter receives a critically low WW Score of 42.3, driven by severe and consistent failures across all dimensions. While a small subset of reviews (approximately 12 out of 50) praise specific technicians like Isaac, Alfredo, and Vincent for punctuality and professionalism, the overwhelming majority document patterns of dishonesty, incomplete work, poor communication, and overcharging. The company repeatedly misrepresents findings to warranty companies, abandons jobs without completion, fails to return calls, and provides inadequate diagnoses that require customers to hire competing plumbers. Project completion is particularly problematic, with multiple reviews documenting the same issue requiring 2-3 service calls or external contractors to resolve. Pricing concerns emerge in numerous reviews alleging unnecessary charges, inflated estimates, and refusal to complete warranty-covered work.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pattern of dishonesty to warranty companies documented in 15+ reviews (false claims about missing cleanouts, lack of access, misdiagnosis to deny claims)
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document same technician (Lorenzo) refusing work, lying about home features, and abandoning jobs
• CRITICAL: Repeated failure to complete jobs on first visit—many customers required 2-3 service calls or external contractors
• CRITICAL: Severe communication failures—multiple reports of unreturned calls, missed appointment windows, and lack of follow-through on callbacks
• RED FLAG: Possible discrimination noted in at least 2 reviews (gender-based dismissal, language barriers used as excuse for poor service)
• RED FLAG: Inconsistent service quality—same company name but dramatically different outcomes suggest either inconsistent training or selective service based on warranty vs. private pay
• RED FLAG: Multiple reviews allege technicians broke items during service (water heater valve, pipes) and left without fixing
• RECENCY: 38 of 50 reviews are from 2024 or late 2023, indicating ongoing systemic issues, not historical problems
• PATTERN: Positive reviews (12 five-star ratings) cluster around specific technicians (Isaac, Alfredo, Vincent) and mention rapid response; negative reviews cite different technicians (Lorenzo, unnamed staff) and document systematic failures—suggests quality depends entirely on which technician is dispatched

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 50 detailed reviews with consistent, corroborated patterns of failure across professionalism, completion, and experience dimensions. The company exhibits systemic issues including documented dishonesty to warranty companies, incomplete work requiring external contractors, and severe communication failures. While a small minority of customers report positive experiences with specific technicians, the preponderance of evidence—particularly the 38 recent reviews documenting identical failure patterns—indicates these are exceptions rather than the norm. This company presents significant risk to customers.

Triple A Plumbing shows severe and consistent problems across all dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by chronic lateness, missed appointments, poor communication, and lack of contracts. Pricing is a major complaint with significant cost overruns, upselling, overbilling for hours worked, and estimates that balloon dramatically (e.g., $250 to $2,500; $2,000 to much higher). Project completion is compromised by incomplete work, work that requires callbacks and rework, abandoned jobs, and failure to honor commitments. While some reviews praise technical knowledge and workmanship quality, these are heavily outweighed by evidence of poor execution, shoddy work requiring customer rework, and unfinished projects. The company exhibits a pattern of taking on work beyond scope and failing to deliver.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2012, 2010) allege criminal conduct and fraud. One review explicitly states the owner is a registered sex offender and describes the business as a 'con artist' operation. Another review mentions the owner being in court proceedings. These are serious allegations that significantly impact trustworthiness.
• PATTERN OF UPSELLING: Multiple reviews (2009, 2008) describe high-pressure sales tactics, scope creep, and recommendations for work customers did not request or need. One customer was quoted $2,000 for a countertop but ended up paying far more for unnecessary work.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Several reviews describe work that had to be redone by customers themselves (2013 kitchen review where husband redid plumbing and walls; 2020 review where work required multiple callbacks for flooding).
• COST OVERRUNS: Consistent pattern of initial quotes being dramatically exceeded. Examples: $250→$2,500 (2020); $2,000→much higher (2013); customers charged for work not performed or hours not worked.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2008-2013 (older than 10 years). However, the most recent review (2020) is also highly negative with similar complaints (delays, cost overruns, incomplete work). This suggests ongoing problems despite age of some data.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (mostly 2017-2019, focused on 'Herman') and severe 1-star reviews. The positive reviews lack specificity about scope or complexity, while negative reviews provide extensive detail. This asymmetry is notable.

This score should be treated with caution due to serious allegations of fraud and criminal conduct in older reviews, combined with a recent 2020 review describing identical problems (delays, cost overruns, incomplete work). While some customers report positive experiences with the owner Herman, the preponderance of evidence—particularly detailed accounts of scope creep, overbilling, incomplete work, and legal issues—suggests significant and persistent operational problems. The WW Score of 42.8 reflects genuine and documented concerns, but potential customers should independently verify current business status and licensing given the severity of allegations.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent failures in professionalism and project completion. Two recent reviews (2023) document no-shows, no-call situations, and failure to honor appointments despite explicit reliability messaging on their website. A single positive review from 2014 praises fair pricing and technical knowledge, but this is heavily outweighed by documented patterns of unreliability. The contractor appears to cherry-pick jobs and abandon commitments, which directly contradicts their stated brand promise.

• CRITICAL: Two recent reviews (2023) document identical failure patterns—no-show, no-call, unresponsive to callbacks. This is a systemic professionalism issue, not an isolated incident.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The single positive review is from 2014 (10 years old). Recent reviews are uniformly negative and describe current behavior.
• CONTRADICTION: Contractor's website emphasizes reliability, but reviews explicitly state the opposite. This gap is a major red flag.
• CHERRY-PICKING ALLEGATION: Review explicitly states contractor selectively accepts jobs, suggesting availability/commitment issues.

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence for identifying serious professionalism and completion issues, but the small sample size (3 reviews) and significant age gap between positive and negative reviews warrant caution. The recent pattern of no-shows is the most reliable signal in this dataset.

Pinnacle Plumbing's review record is dominated by severe, detailed complaints spanning over a decade, with professionalism being the most heavily criticized dimension. The plumber (Cleve) and office staff (Rose) are repeatedly described as rude, dismissive, dishonest, and unprofessional across dozens of independent reviews, with specific incidents including screaming at customers, using foul language around children, hanging up on callers, and showing up hours late or not at all. Pricing and billing practices drew serious red flags, including unauthorized credit card surcharges, inflated invoices with fabricated fees, misquoting jobs, and accepting cash without providing receipts. Project completion was deeply problematic, with multiple accounts of abandoned work, wrong parts ordered, jobs marked complete when they were not, and follow-through failures that left customers without hot water or functional plumbing for weeks. The minority of positive reviews — mostly from 2011 to 2018 — describe a competent and friendly technician, suggesting inconsistent performance rather than a uniformly poor operation, but the volume and specificity of negative reviews far outweigh the positives.

• PATTERN OF DISHONESTY: Multiple independent reviews allege that Cleve misrepresented findings to home warranty companies, marked jobs as complete when they were not, and denied verbal agreements made with customers.
• UNAUTHORIZED CHARGES: At least two reviews describe being charged amounts not agreed upon, including an undisclosed credit card surcharge and an inflated post-dispute invoice with fabricated line items.
• REPEATED NO-SHOW / LATE ARRIVAL: At least 6 reviews explicitly describe the plumber failing to show up within the appointment window or not showing up at all, with no adequate communication.
• HOSTILE BEHAVIOR: Multiple reviews describe the plumber screaming at customers, using profanity around children, making threatening statements about property liens, and being physically intimidating.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: The positive reviews are generally more specific and varied in language, reducing suspicion of fabrication. However, Cleve himself is quoted in one review as accusing a competitor of soliciting fake reviews, which warrants noting. A small number of positive reviews contain no detail ('unknown', 'Everything was good') and cannot be verified.
• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent reviews (2018–2023) are predominantly negative. The positive reviews are concentrated in the 2010–2017 period. The trend is clearly worsening over time.
• MULTIPLE REVIEWS MENTION BBB COMPLAINTS AND STATE LICENSING BOARD FILINGS, suggesting a pattern of conduct serious enough to prompt formal regulatory action.
• 3 reviews contain no usable text ('unknown' or blank) and were excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score is based on 49 reviews with usable content spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence — the overwhelming volume and specificity of negative reviews across all four dimensions paint a consistent and credible picture of a contractor with serious, recurring issues in professionalism, honesty, pricing transparency, and job completion.