Find Nearby Plumbers In Oakland, California

Supreme Plumbing & Heating demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally responsive service, with many customers praising the twin owners' knowledge and willingness to help. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing concerns and project completion issues. Multiple reviews document price gouging, overcharging for parts, and failure to complete work or follow up on callbacks. While professionalism and experience scores are solid, the frequency and severity of pricing disputes and incomplete projects substantially lower overall trustworthiness. The company shows inconsistency: excellent service in some cases contrasts sharply with documented harassment, abandoned work, and financial exploitation in others.

• CRITICAL: Multiple credible allegations of price gouging and overcharging. Reviews document parts marked up 300-500% above market value (e.g., $573 part available for $160 on Amazon; $1000 part actually costing $90; $9000 quoted for $3000 job). Pattern suggests systematic markup strategy.
• CRITICAL: Documented harassment and aggressive collection tactics. One detailed review describes ongoing phone calls, texts, house visits, and social media contact after customer refused inflated charges. Customer threatened police report and restraining order.
• CRITICAL: Multiple instances of abandoned work and failure to complete projects. Reviews describe jobs left mid-way, technicians not returning, callbacks not honored, and customers forced to hire competitors to finish work.
• CRITICAL: Inconsistent quality and competence. Some reviews praise expertise; others document misdiagnosis (wrong part numbers on invoices, incorrect problem identification), suggesting either incompetence or deliberate deception to inflate charges.
• Pattern of poor communication: Multiple reviews cite unreturned calls, no written estimates provided, verbal quotes only, failure to send promised email breakdowns, and lack of follow-up.
• Potential fake review concern: Approximately 50+ reviews are uniformly 5-star with similar phrasing ('twins,' 'knowledgeable,' 'professional,' 'responsive'). While some may be genuine, the density and repetitive language warrant caution. However, negative reviews are detailed and specific, suggesting they are credible.
• Recency note: Most reviews span 2010-2024. Negative reviews cluster in 2015-2020 and 2023, suggesting ongoing issues. Recent 2024 reviews show both 5-star praise and serious complaints, indicating unresolved problems.
• Warranty/insurance company issues: Multiple reviews mention problems when customers used home warranty or insurance (Liberty Home Guard, AHS). Company appears to have different service standards for warranty vs. direct-pay customers.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence. While the score reflects genuine strengths in technical knowledge and responsiveness, it masks a company with serious and documented ethical issues around pricing and project completion. The high volume of detailed negative reviews describing price gouging, abandoned work, and harassment suggests the company's actual reliability is lower than the score indicates. Customers should be aware that positive experiences appear concentrated in straightforward diagnostic/repair work, while complex jobs and warranty work show higher risk of overcharging and poor follow-through. The company's inconsistency makes it high-risk for major projects.

Rey Lacayo and Lacayo-Colt Plumbing demonstrate strong technical expertise and project completion capabilities, with extensive positive feedback on workmanship quality and job follow-through. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by consistent complaints about rudeness, poor communication, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and aggressive payment collection tactics. Pricing feedback is mixed—many customers praise fair and competitive rates, but a notable subset reports unexpectedly high estimates and price increases over time. The business shows reliability on completed work but inconsistency in customer service interactions.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two identical reviews dated 2023-01-16 (one with timestamp 07:07:12, one with 00:00:00) about flooding/sump pump installation. Both counted separately in mention totals but represent single customer experience.
• PATTERN OF RUDENESS: Multiple independent reviews (2024-01-13, 2024-01-05, 2023-11-24, 2023-08-24, 2023-05-14, 2022-12-30, 2018-11-06, 2016-02-08) describe Rey as rude, condescending, sarcastic, or dismissive. This is not isolated—it appears systemic.
• DANGEROUS DRIVING BEHAVIOR: Three separate reviews (2023-08-24, 2023-05-14, and implied in 2023-08-24) describe reckless driving by company vehicle, including near-misses with pedestrians and aggressive honking. This is a serious liability concern.
• PAYMENT HARASSMENT: 2019-01-28 review documents 10 text messages demanding payment within 24 hours before work was verified as complete, despite customer's established payment history. This suggests aggressive collection practices.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY/PRICING OVER TIME: Multiple long-term customers (2019-01-28, 2015-10-04) note that prices increased and quality declined as business grew. This suggests scaling issues.
• UPSELLING CONCERNS: Several reviews (2019-01-28, 2015-08-26, 2012-12-03, 2017-05-10) describe situations where Rey recommended expensive repairs/replacements that other professionals determined were unnecessary or vastly overpriced. Pattern suggests potential upselling.
• RESPONSIVENESS ISSUES: Multiple reviews document delayed callbacks, no-shows, and failure to follow up on quotes (2015-01-26, 2013-07-30, 2013-06-01, 2016-02-08, 2022-01-10).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2023-2024 (recent), while many positive reviews are from 2009-2015 (older). This suggests service quality may have deteriorated in recent years.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Two reviews (2021-06-10, 2020-06-10) contain only 5-star ratings with no text, limiting data quality.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable but reflects a business in significant decline. While technical expertise remains strong (HIGH confidence), professionalism has become a critical weakness with consistent, independent reports of rudeness and poor communication. The score is pulled down by legitimate customer experiences rather than outliers. Customers should expect quality work but should prepare for difficult interpersonal interactions, verify all quotes in writing, and consider whether the technical quality justifies the service experience. Recent reviews (2023-2024) are more negative than historical reviews, suggesting deterioration over time.

Drainline Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and competitive pricing, with most customers praising the quality of sewer lateral work and fair quotes. However, professionalism and project completion scores are significantly dragged down by a substantial pattern of negative reviews documenting poor communication, missed appointments, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and aggressive behavior from the owner Chad. While many satisfied customers report excellent work quality and timely completion, a notable minority experienced serious follow-up failures, incomplete work, and hostile interactions when issues arose. The company excels at initial assessment and pricing but struggles with reliability and customer service consistency.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of no-shows and missed appointments documented in at least 5 reviews (2019-08-23, 2017-03-30, 2016-03-04, 2015-09-16, 2021-11-20), suggesting systemic scheduling/communication issues.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2022-04-22, 2021-01-31, 2020-01-05, 2018-12-11, 2017-10-23, 2017-05-17) document aggressive, hostile, or threatening behavior from owner Chad when customers raised concerns or requested follow-up work, including yelling, insults, and intimidation tactics.
• CRITICAL: Several reviews allege dishonest work practices: false claims about camera inspections (2022-04-22), incomplete work disguised as complete (2019-01-05, 2021-01-31), and work that failed inspection or required redoing by other contractors.
• CONCERN: One review (2023-01-23) appears to reference a different Drainline business in Michigan with same name, creating potential confusion, though reviewer clarified the California company appears professional.
• CONCERN: One review (2021-03-18) explicitly requests Yelp remove it and asks to 'ignore and discredit fully,' suggesting possible fake positive review or review manipulation.
• PATTERN: Complaints cluster around follow-up service and warranty claims—customers report Chad becomes unresponsive or hostile when requesting corrections to work, suggesting post-sale service is unreliable despite initial professionalism.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews are from 2015-2022; more recent reviews (2023-2024) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible business improvement or change in operations, though pattern of complaints spans 9+ years.
• CONCERN: Multiple reviews mention business license changes (2021-01-31 notes different license numbers), raising questions about business continuity or regulatory issues.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution: while based on substantial data (60 reviews, 38+ mentions per dimension), the score masks a deeply polarized customer base with a clear bifurcation between satisfied customers praising work quality and pricing, and dissatisfied customers documenting serious professionalism failures, missed appointments, and hostile post-sale behavior. The HIGH confidence reflects data volume, not consistency—this company appears highly reliable for initial work execution but unreliable for communication, follow-up, and dispute resolution. Customers should expect excellent technical work and pricing but should be prepared to oversee work closely and avoid relying on warranty or callback service.

Rhino Rooter demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship (82/100), with many customers praising the quality of sewer lateral replacements and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by persistent communication failures, no-shows, and late arrivals (68/100). Pricing shows moderate concerns, with multiple reports of unexpected cost escalations, billing disputes, and aggressive lien threats (71/100). Project completion is hampered by incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and failure to honor callbacks (75/100). The company exhibits a stark performance divide: excellent technical work when engaged, but serious operational and interpersonal deficiencies that create customer friction and distrust.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2009-2016) document aggressive use of mechanic's liens as intimidation tactic to extract additional payments from homeowners. This pattern suggests predatory billing practices.
• PATTERN: Recurring no-show and late-arrival incidents across multiple years (2009, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2023) indicate systemic scheduling/communication failure, not isolated incidents.
• PATTERN: Multiple reports of significant cost overruns and surprise billing after work completion (2015, 2016, 2021). Customers report being charged 50-100% more than original estimates without prior authorization.
• CONCERN: Two reviews (2021, 2023) describe owner 'ghosting' customers after initial contact or mid-project, abandoning work and refusing callbacks for weeks.
• CONCERN: Incomplete work documented in multiple reviews: unfilled trenches (2016), unconnected sewer lines (2012), failed repairs requiring second contractor (2021).
• CONCERN: Inconsistent crew quality and professionalism. Same company receives 5-star reviews for politeness alongside 1-star reviews for rudeness from owner/management.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews cluster in 2009-2016 period, but recent reviews (2023, 2024) show same communication and follow-through problems persist, suggesting systemic issues not resolved.
• NOTE: Review dated 2024-06-25 appears to reference 'ER Plumbing' (different company name) but describes identical service patterns (messy crews, poor communication, ghosting on follow-up projects). Unclear if this is same entity or data error.
• CONCERN: One review (2016) describes owner as 'evil twin' and another (2016) describes owner as 'wiseass,' suggesting personality-driven customer service failures at management level.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable but reflects a deeply problematic company with strong technical skills undermined by serious operational and ethical concerns. The HIGH confidence is based on 35-48 mentions per dimension across 60 reviews, but the score masks a critical divide: customers consistently praise workmanship quality while condemning communication, billing practices, and follow-through. The aggressive lien-filing pattern and recurring no-shows across 15+ years suggest systemic dysfunction. This company should be approached with extreme caution despite technical competence; the financial and interpersonal risks are substantial.

MSK Plumbing and Dominic have a strong base of positive reviews spanning over a decade, with consistent praise for responsiveness, same-day availability, fair pricing, and technical skill on drain and sewer work. Professionalism scores well overall but is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of missed appointments, unreturned calls, and scheduling failures documented across multiple independent negative reviews. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: at least five separate reviewers describe jobs that were abandoned, left incomplete for months, or required callbacks that were never honored — including one reviewer who paid $2,500 and still had the original problem, and another whose 1-day job stretched to three months unfinished. Pricing and experience score more favorably, as the majority of reviewers who comment on cost found it reasonable or better than competitors, and technical problem-solving ability is frequently praised. One review raises a serious concern about a revoked contractor license as of 2019, which significantly impacts trustworthiness of the overall profile.

• LICENSE REVOCATION ALERT: One reviewer (2019-09-01) explicitly states Dominic's CA contractor license was revoked at the time of their job, with no bond and no insurance. This is a critical legal and safety concern that predates several subsequent positive reviews.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviewers describe incomplete work, missed appointments without contact, or paid work that was never finished or properly resolved (reviews from 2018-02-07, 2018-07-20, 2019-08-15, 2017-04-01, 2011-09-08). This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• WORKMANSHIP DISPUTE: One detailed 2016 review describes a toilet repair that failed within a year and caused subsequent wood damage, with a second plumber disagreeing with the repair method used. The contractor's response accused the reviewer of fabricating the complaint, raising concerns about accountability.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Multiple reviewers across different years (2012, 2018, 2019) report leaving multiple messages and emails with zero response, including one reviewer who lost a $22,000 repipe job to a competitor due to no callback.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews are from 2024 and 2023, which are positive. However, the most serious negative reviews (license revocation, abandonment, non-payment disputes) cluster around 2018-2019. It is unclear whether operational issues have been resolved or whether the business has changed its practices since then.
• REVIEW VOLUME SKEW: The overwhelming majority of reviews are 5-star with no negative detail, which is consistent with a genuinely popular local contractor but also warrants awareness. The negative reviews that do exist are highly specific and detailed, lending them strong credibility.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Positive reviews span 10+ years, reference specific jobs, named individuals, and unique circumstances. No significant repetitive phrasing or coordinated fake review pattern identified.

This WW Score of 72.4 carries HIGH data confidence given the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously due to documented license revocation, a credible pattern of job abandonment and non-responsiveness, and unresolved workmanship disputes — prospective customers should independently verify current license status before hiring.

Mr. Rooter Oakland has a strong track record of professionalism — punctuality, communication, friendly staff, and clean job sites are praised repeatedly across dozens of reviews spanning many years. Project completion scores well overall, with many complex lateral replacements, water line jobs, and multi-day projects completed on time and passing inspection, though a handful of reviews describe incomplete work, callbacks not honored, or jobs left in worse condition than found. Experience is generally solid, with skilled technicians praised for problem-solving and technical knowledge, but undercut by several incidents of misdiagnosis, lack of proper tools, and at least one serious gas safety failure. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin — a persistent and recurring pattern of complaints about opaque pricing, flat-rate billing that customers found excessive, upselling of unnecessary services (particularly to elderly or vulnerable customers), and quotes dramatically higher than competitors drags this score down considerably.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe aggressive upselling tactics, including a detailed account of an elderly man nearly being charged $22,000 for unnecessary work, a woman charged $745 for a simple drain unclog, and a customer quoted $675 to snake a drain. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (2019) describes a plumber leaving gas lines open after shutoff valve installation, filling a home with natural gas for six hours. The owner apologized and retrained the employee, but this is a serious safety flag.
• FAKE/UNUSABLE REVIEWS: Approximately 18 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no substantive content. These were excluded from scoring. Additionally, several very old reviews (2009–2012) contain minimal detail and were given reduced weight.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most detailed and credible reviews are from 2019–2024. Reviews from 2009–2015 are largely vague or content-free and carry minimal scoring weight.
• UPSELL PATTERN: At least 5 separate reviews across different years describe technicians recommending unnecessary replacements (full toilets instead of flappers, entire plumbing systems instead of targeted fixes) and using 'call the manager' negotiation tactics that appear scripted, suggesting a systemic sales culture rather than isolated bad actors.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviews note that hourly rates were not disclosed upfront, that flat-rate pricing was inconsistently explained, and that estimates changed after work began. One reviewer was charged $198 for a 2-minute job with no prior disclosure of a minimum charge.
• POSITIVE PATTERN IS CREDIBLE: The volume, specificity, and named-employee detail in positive reviews (Alex, Mario, Chris Evans, Alfredo, Spencer, Uriel, etc.) suggest these are genuine. The positive reviews are not flagged as fake.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence, but prospective customers should weight the pricing dimension heavily — the recurring upselling complaints are credible, specific, and cross multiple years, and represent a meaningful risk particularly for elderly customers or those unfamiliar with plumbing costs.