Find Nearby Plumbers In Modesto, California

Action Plumbing's review record is dominated by serious, recurring complaints across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged area, with numerous reviews citing rude office staff, dismissive receptionists, and unprofessional technician behavior — including one review alleging the owner personally told a customer to 'f*** off.' Project completion is deeply problematic, with multiple reviewers reporting that work was not completed correctly on the first visit, that the company refused to honor callbacks or warranty their work, and that customers were charged again to fix problems the company originally caused. Pricing drew consistent criticism for price-gouging, inconsistent quotes, charging for time not worked, and billing for service calls where no actual work was performed. Experience scores slightly higher due to a handful of positive reviews praising specific technicians by name, but these are outweighed by accounts of incomplete repairs, incorrect diagnoses, and damage caused during service visits. The small number of positive reviews are insufficient to offset the volume and specificity of negative feedback.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years (most from 2014–2021), with no reviews from the past 12 months. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• PATTERN FLAG: Several positive reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'These guys are the best. Honest, timely, courteous, priced fair and high quality work.'). These may warrant scrutiny for authenticity, though they are not conclusively fake.
• REPEATED COMPLAINT PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviews describe the same failure mode — work not completed correctly, company refusing to return without additional charge. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• STAFF CONDUCT FLAG: Multiple unrelated reviewers across different years independently describe office/reception staff as rude, dismissive, or hostile. This is a consistent and credible pattern.
• PRICING INTEGRITY FLAG: One reviewer alleges a technician accepted $120 cash and may not have declared it. Another describes a price changing from $200/hr to $300/hr within 10 minutes on the same call. These suggest potential pricing irregularities.
• CONDUCT FLAG: One review alleges a company driver threw a lit cigarette from a vehicle in a dry fire-risk area. While unverifiable, the company's response (calling the reviewer a liar) was noted negatively by the reviewer.

This WW Score is based on 28 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence in the score's direction — however, the recency of the data (most reviews are 3–9 years old) means current performance may differ, and the score should be treated as a historical indicator rather than a definitive assessment of present-day service quality.

This contractor shows severe and consistent deficiencies across professionalism and project completion. Two reviews (2020, 2022) describe abandonment of work, deposit theft, and unresponsiveness—critical failures. A third review (2019) documents billing integrity issues and overcharging. Two older positive reviews (2015, 2019) praise workmanship and fair pricing, but they are substantially outweighed by recent evidence of fraud and non-completion. The contractor appears to operate under multiple names (Nhan Le, Les) and demonstrates a pattern of taking deposits and failing to deliver.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2020, 2022) allege deposit theft and job abandonment—potential fraud pattern
• CRITICAL: Contractor appears to operate under multiple names (Nhan Le vs. Les), raising identity/legitimacy concerns
• Recency issue: Two positive reviews are from 2015 and 2019; most recent reviews (2020, 2022) are highly negative
• Billing integrity complaint (2019) suggests pattern of overcharging and questionable practices
• One review mentions permits pulled under contractor's name with alleged false statements to township—legal/regulatory red flag

This score should be treated with HIGH caution and skepticism toward the contractor. While sample size is small (5 reviews), the pattern of recent abandonment, deposit theft, and unresponsiveness allegations is severe and consistent enough to warrant strong avoidance. The two positive reviews are significantly older and may not reflect current business practices.

Ability Access Plumbing and Rooter (also operating as Highway Plumbing and Rooter) receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with only a small handful of positive experiences recorded across 50 reviews. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of technicians abandoning jobs mid-work, lying to customers and warranty companies, being rude or unresponsive, and failing to show up for scheduled appointments. Pricing is a major red flag, with dozens of reviewers explicitly describing inflated modification charges, bait-and-switch quotes, and billing for unnecessary work — often in coordination with home warranty companies. Project completion is perhaps the most critically scored dimension, as a large number of reviews describe jobs left unfinished, callbacks never honored, and problems left unresolved for weeks. Experience scores marginally higher than the other dimensions only because a small number of positive reviews describe competent technicians, but these are vastly outweighed by accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and work that failed immediately after completion.

• The 8 five-star reviews are notably brief and generic compared to the highly detailed negative reviews, with several lacking specific job details — this pattern warrants mild fake review suspicion for the positive reviews.
• The company appears to operate under at least two names (Ability Access Plumbing and Rooter, and Highway Plumbing and Rooter), which is itself flagged by multiple reviewers as suspicious and potentially deceptive.
• A systemic pattern of inflated 'modification' charges specifically designed to extract out-of-pocket money from home warranty customers is described independently by more than 15 reviewers — this is a strong signal of deliberate fraudulent billing practice, not isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviewers report the company providing false information to home warranty companies (American Home Shield, First American, Old Republic, Fidelity National) to avoid completing work or to justify additional charges.
• Reviews span from 2017 to 2023. The most recent reviews (2022–2023) continue to reflect the same negative patterns, indicating no meaningful improvement in business practices over time.
• Several reviewers report technicians watching YouTube videos on-site, leaving raw sewage uncleaned, dumping debris on customer property, and bringing unqualified individuals (e.g., a teenage son) to jobs — indicating serious operational and quality control failures.

This WW Score is based on 50 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a highly reliable and confident assessment — the score of 28.4 accurately reflects a contractor with deeply systemic issues in professionalism, pricing integrity, job completion, and workmanship quality.

The Drain Dude Inc. receives an extremely low WW Score of 18.5, driven by catastrophic failures across all dimensions. Project completion is the most critical failure point (15/100), with 95 reviews documenting missed appointments, no-shows, incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and refusal to honor callbacks or refunds. Professionalism scores only 22/100 across 89 mentions, with pervasive complaints about rude staff (particularly the owner's wife Amber), lack of communication, unprofessional behavior, and aggressive customer interactions. Pricing concerns (28/100) appear in 31 reviews documenting overcharges, hidden fees, false diagnoses to justify unnecessary work, and non-refunded deposits illegally exceeding state limits. Experience scores 35/100 based on 28 mentions, with multiple reports of incorrect installations, misdiagnosis, substandard workmanship, and work that required complete redoing by other contractors. The company operates with a suspended contractor's license and has been sued repeatedly.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document the owner (Randon Castro) and his wife (Amber) operating with a suspended/invalid contractor's license, violating California State Licensing Board regulations.
• CRITICAL: Pattern of systematic fraud documented across 40+ reviews: taking deposits, not performing work, refusing refunds, and submitting false completion reports to warranty companies.
• CRITICAL: Illegal deposit practices—multiple reviews document deposits exceeding California State Licensing Board limits (10% or $1,000 maximum). Deposits of $4,500, $3,000+, and $1,100+ documented.
• CRITICAL: Small claims court losses documented in at least 5 reviews; customers won judgments but have not been paid restitution.
• CRITICAL: Threatening behavior toward customers who leave negative reviews (documented in multiple 2021 reviews).
• CRITICAL: Systematic no-shows and missed appointments with no communication—documented in 50+ reviews spanning 2020-2024.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document workers drinking on the job and unprofessional behavior in the office.
• CRITICAL: Fake review detection: 15-20 reviews (primarily 5-star, dated 2020-2023) contain generic praise with no specifics ('professional,' 'friendly,' 'great service') and lack detail. These appear clustered and inconsistent with the overwhelming pattern of documented fraud and abuse. However, even accounting for fake reviews, the legitimate negative reviews are so numerous and detailed that they establish a clear pattern of systematic misconduct.
• RECENCY: Most damaging reviews are from 2021-2024 (past 3 years), indicating ongoing problems. The company continues to operate despite documented legal action and licensing violations.
• PATTERN: Consistent targeting of elderly customers and those using home warranty companies (who may be less likely to verify contractor credentials).
• PATTERN: Owner and wife use intimidation, yelling, and aggression to silence complaints and avoid refunds.

This WW Score of 18.5 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 127 reviews with exceptionally high mention counts across all dimensions (28-95 mentions per dimension), providing robust statistical confidence. The overwhelming majority of reviews (100+) document identical patterns of fraud, non-completion, missed appointments, and refusal to refund payments. These accounts are detailed, specific, include dates/amounts/names, and are corroborated by small claims court records, licensing board complaints, and BBB filings mentioned in reviews. The few positive reviews appear inconsistent with documented legal action and licensing violations and lack the specificity of negative reviews. This company represents a severe risk to consumers and should be avoided entirely.

The reviews for Reliance Building and Maintenance paint an overwhelmingly negative picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple accounts of blocked phone numbers, threats, bounced employee paychecks, refusal to accept legal service of process, and a pattern of broken commitments to both clients and workers. Project completion is critically low, with at least two customer reviews explicitly describing unfinished work, abandoned job sites, and no follow-through. Experience scores marginally higher only because one 5-star review from a former employee praises the owners' knowledge, but this is heavily outweighed by customer accounts of poor workmanship and substandard subcontractors. The single positive review originates from a former employee rather than a paying customer, which significantly limits its reliability as a measure of service quality.

• SUSPECTED INSIDER REVIEW: The sole 5-star review is explicitly from a former employee of 4.5 years, not a paying customer. This review should be weighted minimally when assessing customer experience.
• LEGAL AND ETHICAL RED FLAGS: One review documents a lawsuit and the company's registered agent actively refusing service of process, with a complaint filed to the California Attorney General's Office. This is a serious legal and operational red flag.
• EMPLOYEE PAYMENT FRAUD ALLEGED: A former employee alleges repeated bounced checks, forced personal expense coverage, threats, and wrongful termination after requesting owed wages exceeding $3,000. This reflects severe internal business integrity issues.
• PATTERN OF BLOCKING CLIENTS: At least one customer review explicitly states the contractor blocked their phone number after completing substandard work, indicating a deliberate avoidance of accountability.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews fall between April 2022 and October 2023. The most recent negative reviews are from mid-to-late 2023, suggesting the problematic behavior is recent and not historical only.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 total reviews exist, limiting statistical confidence. The WW Score should be treated as directional rather than definitive, though the directional signal is strongly negative.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small review sample of only 5 reviews, but the consistency and severity of negative experiences across multiple independent reviewers — including customers, a former employee, and a legal representative — strongly corroborates the low score and warrants serious caution before hiring this contractor.

Unable to calculate WW Score. All six reviews are dated between October 2020 and March 2021 — more than 3 years old and outside the recommended 12-month recency window. Additionally, the review set exhibits strong patterns consistent with fake or artificially generated reviews: all are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, use repetitive generic praise ('amazing,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend'), lack specific technical details about workmanship, and contain suspiciously similar structural phrasing across multiple reviews. These factors prevent reliable scoring.

• CRITICAL: All reviews are dated 2020–2021 (3+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 100% 5-star ratings with zero critical feedback or complaints is statistically improbable for a service business.
• Repetitive language across reviews: 'amazing,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend,' 'on time' appear in nearly identical contexts.
• Lack of specificity: Reviews praise general outcomes but provide minimal detail about actual workmanship quality, problem-solving, or technical skill.
• Generic structure: Multiple reviews follow similar praise-only format with no balanced perspective or constructive feedback.
• No mention of any dimension-specific evidence: Professionalism, pricing, completion, and experience are mentioned only in vague, non-substantive terms.

This score cannot be trusted. The review set is too old, exhibits strong indicators of artificial generation, and lacks the specific evidence required for valid dimension scoring under WW Score methodology.