Find Nearby Plumbers In Morgan Hill, California

Ted's Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (85.2) and pricing (84.6). The company excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and fair pricing, with extensive evidence of same-day or next-day service and transparent quotes. Project completion scores (81.5) reflect generally reliable work, though a small number of negative reviews indicate occasional scheduling issues and follow-up problems. Experience and workmanship are consistently praised (83.8), with customers noting skilled technicians and quality installations. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects a trustworthy, competent contractor with minor reliability concerns that prevent a higher rating.

• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: 11 one-star reviews (8.5% of total) reveal recurring issues with reliability, scheduling, and customer service recovery. Specific concerns include: multiple instances of last-minute cancellations or no-shows (2017-09-11, 2020-05-02), failure to respond to callbacks (2021-04-22, 2018-10-16), and poor handling of service failures (2020-12-08 flood incident with aggressive response, 2019-04-29 water heater installation defect with dismissive warranty claim, 2019-03-27 alleged price gouging mid-job).
• CONSISTENCY ISSUE: While 119 reviews (91.5%) are 5-star with strong praise, the 11 negative reviews suggest service quality and customer service are inconsistent. Negative reviews span from 2011 to 2020, indicating this is not a recent problem but a persistent pattern.
• RECENCY CONSIDERATION: Most reviews (approximately 75%) are from 2020 onwards, with heavy concentration in 2021-2024. Older negative reviews (2015-2019) may reflect past business practices, but recent negative reviews (2020-12-08, 2020-05-02) suggest ongoing issues.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: The overwhelming majority of 5-star reviews with highly positive language and similar phrasing patterns (e.g., 'highly recommend,' 'honest,' 'fair pricing,' 'professional') could suggest some reviews are solicited or curated. However, the presence of detailed, specific negative reviews with concrete complaints (flood damage, installation defects, scheduling failures) indicates the review set is not entirely fabricated. The negative reviews appear authentic and provide counterbalance.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE RECOVERY FAILURE: Multiple reviews indicate Ted's Plumbing does not handle complaints well. When issues arise (flood damage, defective work, scheduling failures), the response has been dismissive, aggressive, or non-responsive rather than remedial. This is a significant red flag for reliability.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be trusted with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for routine plumbing work, but customers should be aware that approximately 8.5% of reviews report serious reliability and customer service issues, particularly around scheduling consistency and handling of service failures; the company excels at technical competence and pricing but shows vulnerability in accountability and follow-through on problem resolution.

Bay Area Trenchless has a strong overall track record across all four dimensions, with the majority of reviewers praising fair and competitive pricing, professional conduct, and quality workmanship on sewer line replacements. Project completion scores are high but tempered by two notable negative reviews: one describing a contractor who signed a contract and then went silent for 30 days without starting work, and another describing a no-show with no communication. A detailed positive review also noted minor completion issues including a wrong material used for a sidewalk repair and small cleanup oversights. Professionalism scores are similarly strong in the majority of reviews but are meaningfully pulled down by the two 1-star reviews citing unreliability, no-shows, and poor communication. Pricing is consistently praised as significantly below competitors, which is a clear and recurring strength.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of nearly identical reviews exist. The review beginning 'Brandon and crew did a quick, professional job replacing our ancient clay sewer line' appears twice (2022-06-10 and 2021-09-18). The review beginning 'Sean and the team replaced our sewer pipe using the trenchless technique' appears twice (2021-06-10 and 2021-04-01). The review beginning 'We had a persistent problem with roots growing into our sewer line' appears twice (2013-04-10 and 2013-04-10). The review beginning 'Recently I had a recent sewer line back up' appears twice (2012-06-06 and 2012-03-15). These duplicates were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• BLANK OR PLACEHOLDER REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only a 5-star rating with no text, or the word 'unknown' with no detail (dates: 2021-06-10 x2, 2016-08-24, 2016-02-04 x2, 2015-05-14, 2014-07-30). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with most substantive reviews dating from 2011 to 2021. Only one review is from 2022. The two most recent negative reviews are from 2016 and 2017. Current performance may differ from historical patterns.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — RELIABILITY: Two 1-star reviews (2017-09-20 and 2017-02-02) specifically describe Sean failing to show up, not communicating, and abandoning a signed contract. These are serious reliability concerns that meaningfully reduce professionalism and project completion scores.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: While most positive reviews contain specific details, the presence of multiple blank or 'unknown' 5-star reviews and duplicate submissions slightly elevates the risk of review manipulation. Confidence is maintained at HIGH due to the volume of genuinely detailed reviews, but users should be aware of this pattern.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews spanning over a decade, with enough specific detail across all four dimensions to produce HIGH confidence scores; however, the presence of duplicate reviews, blank placeholder reviews, two serious no-show complaints, and the age of most reviews means this score should be treated as a reasonable historical indicator rather than a definitive current assessment.

Happy Rooter demonstrates strong overall performance driven primarily by exceptional professionalism and project completion rates. The company excels at responsiveness, punctuality, and same-day/next-day service availability, with Victor and his team consistently praised for accessibility and communication. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished promptly and follow-through honored. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness, with multiple customers reporting significantly overpriced quotes, aggressive upselling tactics, and cash-only discounts that suggest pricing opacity. Experience and workmanship are solid but inconsistent—most jobs are completed competently, though a few instances of poor quality work and inadequate problem diagnosis lower confidence in this dimension.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (at least 6-8) explicitly cite overpricing, aggressive upselling, and pressure to purchase unnecessary services. Examples include: $8,000 quote for full line replacement when $700 competitor fixed same issue; $2,800 quote for 15-foot pipe replacement; $450 for minor faucet install and snaking; $1,900 for outdoor pipe repair later fixed by competitor for $900. Pattern suggests systematic overquoting on complex jobs.
• CASH DISCOUNT PATTERN: Several reviews mention cash-only discounts ($325 vs $400, $2,200 vs $2,800, $225 cash price), suggesting potential tax avoidance or pricing manipulation.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: At least 3 reviews report poor workmanship or incomplete fixes: (1) 2016 kitchen faucet replacement failed within 2 years due to improper installation near electrical cable; (2) 2014 sewage cap broken during service, then blamed customer for not paying $1,200 upsell; (3) 2017 outdoor pipe repair charged $1,900 but didn't actually fix the issue, then quoted additional $8,000.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENTS: At least 2 reviews document failure to show up or follow through on scheduled callbacks (2021 shower backup follow-up never occurred; 2013 no-show with no call).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE BREAKDOWN: One 2014 review documents Victor calling customer a 'LIAR' via text after customer complained about broken sewage cap, indicating potential hostile conflict resolution.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 35-40% of reviews are 5-star with minimal detail or generic praise (e.g., 'Everything went well!', 'unknown', 'same as above'). However, the presence of detailed 1-star reviews with specific dollar amounts and technical details, plus multiple independent corroborating complaints about pricing, suggests the negative reviews are authentic rather than fake. The generic 5-star reviews may inflate the rating artificially.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2013-2019 (older than 12 months). Only ~15-20 reviews are from 2020 onward. Recent reviews show mixed quality, with 2023 review citing competitor's superior service at 1/10th the price.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for professionalism and project completion, but LOW confidence for pricing assessment. The company excels at responsiveness and same-day service but systematically overprices complex jobs and employs aggressive upselling tactics. Customers seeking routine drain cleaning will likely receive fair service; customers facing major repairs should obtain multiple quotes and be prepared to negotiate aggressively or seek competitors. The score reflects strong operational execution undermined by significant pricing and occasional quality control issues.

Enriquez Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and pricing competitiveness, with most customers praising workmanship quality and fair rates. Professionalism is generally solid, with many reviews highlighting punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous service. However, project completion reliability is significantly undermined by multiple documented instances of no-shows, missed appointments, failure to follow up, and abandoned work—patterns that appear across different time periods (2012, 2016, 2019, 2020). While the majority of recent positive reviews suggest improved operations, the historical pattern of commitment failures creates material risk and prevents a higher overall score.

• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show incidents documented across different years (2012, 2016, 2019, 2020) with pattern of non-communication and broken promises. Reviews explicitly state: 'didn't show up for our job and didn't show up for the rescheduled date,' 'did not show, call or text back,' 'promised that he was coming and then not only didn't show up but didn't answer,' and 'changed the appointment 3 different times! He never showed up and lied to me on the phone.'
• CRITICAL: Incomplete work documented in 2019 review: 'incomplete job that was originally done. There was no pride in their work and had no desire to finish the job after they were paid almost the entire amount. Ended up having to pay almost twice.'
• CRITICAL: Deposit retention issue documented in 2020 review: 'It's been over a month and they still have my deposit' after multiple no-shows.
• Recency concern: Most positive reviews are from 2013-2016 (7+ years old). Recent reviews (2019-2020) are predominantly negative, suggesting possible service degradation or operational changes.
• One review (2014-08-30) documents repeated callback failures: 'after calling 4-5 times and leaving 3 messages in a week, I never received a call back.'
• Pricing review (2017-01-14) warns: 'Very good responding, but make sure you check around for pricing first. Odds are you can find better price and better service.'
• No evidence of fake reviews detected; negative reviews contain specific, detailed complaints with dates and timelines; positive reviews vary in detail and language patterns.

This score should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH confidence in data volume. While the numerical score of 78.2 reflects strong technical performance and pricing, the documented pattern of no-shows, missed appointments, incomplete work, and deposit retention across multiple years represents a material reliability risk that is not fully captured in the dimensional scoring. Customers should be aware that positive recent reviews may not reflect the historical pattern of commitment failures, and the company's ability to reliably show up and complete work as promised appears inconsistent.

RCV Plumbing has a strong and well-documented track record across all four dimensions, with the majority of reviewers praising Randy's punctuality, friendly demeanor, and Chanel's responsive office communication. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable, affordable, and competitive, with multiple reviewers noting no hidden charges and fair estimates. However, professionalism and project completion scores are meaningfully tempered by several credible negative reviews: one customer reported a $337.49 payment with no refund and no follow-through on a repair; another described being stood up twice with no callback after parts were ordered; a third complained of unprofessional phone conduct from Randy; and a sprinkler controller dispute raised concerns about diagnostic accuracy and refusal to correct a billing error. These are not isolated one-off complaints but represent a recurring pattern of follow-through failures and occasional communication breakdowns that cannot be dismissed. The experience score is strong overall, with multiple reviewers citing Randy's ability to solve problems others could not, though one negative review alleged deceptive product misrepresentation regarding a water conditioner sold as a water softener. Recency note: the most recent reviews (2021–2023) are generally positive, but the volume of reviews has slowed considerably compared to the 2012–2016 peak period.

• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: At least two credible reviews (2014, 2020) describe Randy taking payment or committing to return visits and then failing to call back or complete the job, with one customer reporting an unreturned $337.49 payment as of the review date. This is a significant project completion risk flag.
• REFUND DISPUTE: The 2020 one-star review alleges RCV accepted $337.49 for parts that were never ordered or delivered, and did not respond to calls or texts requesting a refund. This is a serious financial integrity concern.
• PROFESSIONALISM COMPLAINT: A 2017 one-star review provides a detailed and specific account of Randy being dismissive and uncommunicative on a phone call, and the office failing to relay information. The specificity of this review lends it credibility.
• PRODUCT MISREPRESENTATION ALLEGATION: A 2013 two-star review from a chemical engineer alleges Randy attempted to sell a water conditioner while representing it as a water softener, and provided technically inaccurate explanations. While this is one reviewer's interpretation, the technical detail is credible.
• BILLING DISPUTE: A 2016 two-star review alleges Randy charged 1.5 hours of labor for under 1 hour of work, including a 25-minute hardware store trip for a basic part he should have stocked, and did not stand behind original work that failed.
• SPRINKLER MISDIAGNOSIS: A 2012 one-star review alleges Randy replaced a functioning sprinkler controller unnecessarily at a cost of $210 and refused to refund when the customer identified the real issue was an incorrect setting.
• WATER HEATER DISPUTE: A 2017 one-star review references a dispute over an old water heater not under warranty, with the customer warning others not to sign blindly. Limited detail but consistent with a pattern of billing disputes.
• RECENCY NOTE: Review volume has dropped significantly after 2016. Only 7 reviews exist from 2021 onward, making it difficult to assess current operational consistency. The most recent reviews (2021-2023) are positive but too few to fully offset the historical negative pattern.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary substantially in length, detail, writing style, and sentiment. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No coordinated fake review pattern identified.
• VOICEMAIL/ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews across different years mention difficulty reaching RCV by phone, full voicemail boxes, and unreturned calls. This is a recurring operational weakness.

This WW Score is based on 65 reviews spanning 2008 to 2023 with HIGH data volume across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the presence of multiple specific, credible negative reviews involving unreturned payments, abandoned jobs, and billing disputes introduces meaningful downside risk that the score reflects, and prospective customers should weigh these complaints carefully alongside the predominantly positive majority.

Advanced Quality Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across a large review base spanning 2016–2024, with professionalism being the most frequently praised dimension — responsiveness, punctuality, courtesy, and communication appear in the vast majority of reviews. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as fully resolved, though a notable cluster of negative reviews raises concerns: a gas leak following a water heater installation, a recurring drain blockage not properly resolved, a missed appointment with no follow-up, a disputed billing miscommunication, and an updated review describing an initially incomplete job (later rectified). Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out high or inconsistent pricing — one reviewer was quoted $4,000 then immediately dropped to $2,800, another paid $750 for two small jobs, and a third flagged a $350 charge just to flush a water heater — though many other reviewers praised fair or reasonable pricing, creating a mixed but net-negative lean on this dimension. Technical experience scores well overall, with numerous reviewers praising diagnostic skill, thoroughness, and problem-solving, though the improper water heater installation resulting in a gas leak (confirmed by PG&E) is a serious workmanship flag that meaningfully suppresses this score.

• SERIOUS SAFETY FLAG: One reviewer (2021-02-08) reported that a water heater installed by this company had a gas leak confirmed by PG&E, putting tenants' lives at risk. This is a critical workmanship failure that significantly impacts the experience score.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY FLAG: Multiple reviews describe large price drops when challenged (e.g., $4,000 to $2,800 within minutes), suggesting initial quotes may be inflated. This pattern across several reviews is a meaningful concern.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FLAG: One review (2020-12-07) describes a drain that re-clogged within 3 days of service, with the owner allegedly refusing to return without an additional $500 charge and being rude on the phone.
• MISSED APPOINTMENT FLAG: One review (2016-11-15) describes a no-show with no call or explanation, which is a direct professionalism failure.
• BILLING DISPUTE FLAG: One review (2020-01-13) describes a verbal commitment of no-cost service that was later billed, with the customer alleging the owner failed to disclose labor costs upfront.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (pre-2023), with only 3 reviews from the past 12 months (2023–2024). Recent data is limited; the score is weighted toward a historical pattern.
• UPDATED REVIEW NOTE: One review (2024-04-07) was initially a 1-star complaint about incomplete work but was updated to 5 stars after the owner offered to remedy the situation at no charge. The original concern about job completion and responsiveness is noted, though the resolution is credited positively.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary substantially in length, detail, specificity, named technicians, and rating. No significant fake review patterns identified.

This WW Score is based on 57 reviews with a HIGH volume of usable data across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the presence of a confirmed gas leak safety incident, recurring pricing complaints, and a pattern of billing disputes introduce meaningful downside risk that the aggregate score alone does not fully capture — prospective customers should weigh these specific incidents carefully.