Find Nearby Plumbers In Rancho Cordova, California

JR Putman exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile with significant systemic issues offsetting pockets of excellent individual technician work. While some technicians (Robert, Joey, Anthony, Chris, Derrick) receive consistent praise for professionalism and technical competence, the company suffers from severe organizational failures: chronic scheduling problems, missed appointments, poor internal communication, and a documented pattern of aggressive upselling with misdiagnosis. Pricing complaints are pervasive, with customers reporting inflated quotes, hidden charges, and unauthorized billing. Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete work, extended timelines, and failure to honor warranties or service agreements. The company's management appears unresponsive to complaints, and multiple reviews document threats, refusal to take responsibility, and attempts to suppress negative reviews.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of fraudulent sales practices documented across multiple reviews—customers report being quoted $12,000-$27,000 for repairs that cost $110-$300 when diagnosed by competitors. This suggests systematic misdiagnosis as a sales tactic.
• CRITICAL: Multiple documented instances of unauthorized billing, double-charging, and credit card fraud. Customers report charges applied without permission and difficulty obtaining refunds.
• CRITICAL: Severe project completion failures—numerous reviews document incomplete work, holes in walls left unrepaired for 60+ days, water damage from poor installation left unaddressed for months, and systems installed incorrectly requiring multiple callbacks.
• CRITICAL: Management unresponsiveness and intimidation—reviews document owner/manager Jeff W. threatening customers, refusing to meet with dissatisfied clients, and attempting to suppress negative reviews with threats of legal action and financial incentives.
• HIGH CONCERN: Scheduling and communication collapse—consistent complaints about missed appointments, no-shows without notification, inability to reach dispatch, and cancellations without proper notice.
• HIGH CONCERN: Warranty and service agreement violations—multiple customers report being denied coverage or charged out-of-pocket for work that should be covered under purchased plans.
• MODERATE CONCERN: Individual technician quality is inconsistent—while some technicians are excellent, others provide poor diagnostics, leave work incomplete, or display unprofessional behavior.
• MODERATE CONCERN: Possible fake review pattern—approximately 15 reviews from 2024 contain suspiciously similar language ('amazing,' 'awesome,' 'highly recommend,' specific technician name-dropping) with minimal detail, though these are balanced by numerous detailed negative reviews with specific evidence.
• NOTE: Review recency shows deterioration—most recent reviews (2024) are predominantly 5-star, but this contrasts sharply with 2017-2023 reviews which document systemic failures. This may indicate either recent management changes or selective review filtering.

This WW Score of 52.3 should be treated as a reliable warning indicator. The score is based on 80 reviews with high confidence across all dimensions. The company demonstrates a clear two-tier performance: exceptional individual technician service undermined by organizational dysfunction, aggressive sales practices, poor project management, and management that appears hostile to accountability. The volume and specificity of negative reviews documenting fraud, billing abuse, and incomplete work, combined with documented management intimidation tactics, suggest systemic problems that transcend isolated customer dissatisfaction. Prospective customers should exercise extreme caution and obtain independent second opinions on any diagnosis or quote.

Advanced Plumbing & Rooter Service presents a deeply polarized review profile. Positive reviews — concentrated among direct-hire and some home warranty customers — consistently praise named technicians (George, Spencer, Mike, David, Chris, Julian, Lenny, Rafael) for professionalism, punctuality, knowledge, and thorough workmanship. However, a large volume of negative reviews — many also substantive and detailed — describe repeated appointment cancellations and no-shows, rude and combative office staff who hung up on customers, shoddy or incomplete work requiring multiple return visits, inflated pricing and alleged upselling of unnecessary services, and failure to follow through on commitments. A clear pattern emerges in the negative reviews: customers assigned via home warranty companies report dramatically worse experiences than direct-hire customers, suggesting a two-tier service model. Pricing complaints are numerous and specific, with multiple reviewers citing quotes 3–5x higher than competitors or charges for work not performed. Project completion is significantly dragged down by documented cases of unresolved issues after 3–5 visits, abandoned jobs, and work that failed inspection or caused new damage.

• FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER DETECTED: Approximately 20–25 reviews dated 2023-06-10 through 2024-06-09 reference a 'Cart Narcs' viral video incident involving a gun being pulled in a parking lot. These reviews contain no plumbing service content and are clearly coordinated off-platform harassment targeting the business owner personally. These reviews were excluded from dimension scoring but are counted in total reviews analyzed.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 25 reviews contain no text — only a star rating (mostly 1-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The lengthy negative review about water pressure repair and being hung up on repeatedly appears verbatim twice (dated 2024-06-09 and 2023-09-08). Only one instance was counted per dimension.
• HOME WARRANTY PATTERN: A statistically significant pattern exists where home warranty-referred customers report far worse outcomes (cancellations, no-shows, rude staff, incomplete work) compared to direct-hire customers who frequently report excellent service. This bifurcation is explicitly noted by multiple reviewers and materially affects reliability of any aggregate score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) include both strong positives and strong negatives, indicating the pattern of inconsistency has not resolved over time. Reviews span 2016–2025 with no clear improvement trend.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers cite specific instances of price gouging — quotes of $1,450 for a job completed for $300, $469 for one hour of toilet repair, $940 in parts markups on a warranty job, and a $120 assessment fee just to receive a quote. These are not vague complaints but detailed, specific allegations across different reviewers and time periods.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe work that failed, caused new damage, or required correction by a subsequent plumber — including a water heater install with missing parts left dangling, pipes that failed within two weeks, a toilet left unrepaired after 3 visits, and alleged deliberate water damage during an inspection visit.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of substantive reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the extreme bimodal distribution — the company appears to deliver genuinely excellent service in some cases and genuinely poor service in others, making the aggregate score a poor predictor of any individual customer's experience.

This contractor's review pool is deeply polarized: a cluster of recent (2024) positive reviews praises responsiveness, professionalism, and quality workmanship, while a substantial body of older reviews (2012–2018) documents serious concerns including alleged scam pricing, bait-and-switch tactics, no-shows, incomplete work, and rude owner behavior. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out inflated quotes ($265 to clear a sink, $400 for a disposal install, $500 for a ball valve), hidden fees, and a $45 show-up charge that drew strong negative reactions. Project completion is mixed: several reviewers praised same-day or next-day resolution, but others reported abandoned jobs, return visits needed to fix errors, and technicians arriving without tools. Professionalism scores reflect a split between courteous, timely technicians praised by name in recent reviews and documented incidents of attitude problems, no-call no-shows, and an owner who reportedly hung up on a customer. The score is dragged down significantly by the volume and severity of negative reviews, many of which contain specific, credible detail.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The same 1-star review (dated 2014-03-27) appears three times with nearly identical timestamps (15:54, 15:55, 15:56). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation — either the reviewer submitted multiple times or the data source contains duplicates. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• RECENCY BIAS CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are concentrated in 2024, while the majority of negative reviews are from 2012–2018. This may reflect genuine improvement over time, but it could also reflect selective review solicitation. The 2024 reviews are given more weight per scoring rules, but the historical negatives are numerous and specific enough to materially affect all dimensions.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION (MILD): Several older 5-star reviews (2013) contain very similar phrasing patterns — 'within an hour,' 'friendly and knowledgeable,' 'will not need a plumber soon but will call again' — and were posted within days of each other with no reviewer names or specific job details. These may be seeded reviews and were treated with reduced confidence.
• SCAM ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2014, 2015, 2016, 2018) explicitly used the word 'scam' and described consistent patterns: refusal to quote over phone, $45 show-up fee, then dramatically inflated on-site quotes. This pattern is too consistent across unrelated reviewers to dismiss.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: At least two reviews describe jobs left unfinished — one where the technician had to return to fix electrical after a water heater install, and one where a hose bib was left unreplaced after a $500 job. One review also describes damage caused by a technician (boiler rod cap not replaced, causing months of water leakage and mold).
• OWNER CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One detailed review describes the owner (Todd) interrupting a customer, making dismissive statements ('I'm the owner, I can do whatever I want'), and hanging up mid-conversation. This is a significant professionalism flag at the leadership level.
• SERVICE AREA MISREPRESENTATION: Two reviews note that the company's listed location did not match its actual service area, suggesting misleading geographic listings.

This WW Score is based on 49 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the strong temporal split between recent positive reviews and a well-documented history of serious complaints, duplicate review submissions, and credible scam allegations from multiple independent sources.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent professionalism issues across multiple dimensions. Thirteen reviews explicitly document unprofessional behavior including verbal abuse, rudeness, hanging up on customers, abandoning jobs without notice, and deceptive pricing practices. While some positive reviews (5 total) praise quick response times and technical competence, they are substantially outweighed by documented instances of poor communication, customer disrespect, and incomplete follow-through. Project completion shows mixed results with some jobs finished promptly but others abandoned mid-service. Pricing practices are repeatedly criticized as misleading, with the '$55' name functioning as bait-and-switch marketing. The contractor demonstrates technical skill when engaged, but interpersonal conduct and business ethics are major liabilities.

• SEVERE PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document verbal abuse (profanities, ethnic slurs), hanging up on customers, and abandonment of service calls without explanation or payment collection.
• DECEPTIVE PRICING PRACTICES: Eight reviews explicitly mention misleading '$55' pricing model that actually charges $55 per 30 minutes with one-hour minimum. Customers report being told 'it's bait and switch' by the plumber himself.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE SERVICE: At least 4 reviews document jobs abandoned mid-service, failed callbacks, or incomplete inspections (e.g., checking only one bathroom when system was connected).
• CUSTOMER SAFETY CONCERNS: One review documents the owner's involvement in a violent public confrontation with ethnic slurs; another documents a hit-and-run parking lot incident with witness accounts contradicted by the contractor.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising Glen's work and 1-star reviews documenting the same person's unprofessional conduct, suggesting behavioral inconsistency or possible fake positive reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are from 2013-2019 (older), but recent reviews (2015-2016) still document serious professionalism failures. Positive reviews cluster in 2011-2015 period.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The 5-star reviews use similar phrasing ('Glen is great,' 'highly recommend,' 'quick service') with minimal specific detail, while 1-star reviews provide extensive documentation of specific incidents. This asymmetry suggests possible review manipulation.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted as a strong warning signal. The score of 42.3 reflects genuine, documented problems across professionalism and pricing, supported by high-mention counts and specific incident details. However, the stark polarity between 5-star and 1-star reviews, combined with documented deceptive business practices and behavioral red flags, suggests this contractor poses significant risk to customers regardless of technical capability. The positive reviews may not reflect typical customer experience.

The overwhelming majority of reviews are negative, with only one positive review describing a satisfactory restoration job. Professionalism scores are severely dragged down by repeated no-shows, broken promises, rude technician behavior, and an owner who hung up on a dissatisfied customer. Pricing is a major pain point, with multiple reviewers citing quotes far above competitors and one reviewer alleging a warranty refund was promised twice but never delivered. Project completion is critically weak, with multiple reviews describing abandoned service calls, technicians who never arrived, and unresolved issues that other companies fixed cheaply and quickly. Experience scores are marginally better but still poor, as several technicians were accused of misdiagnosis and upselling unnecessary services.

• Only 1 out of 8 reviews is positive (5-star); the remaining 7 are all 1-star. This extreme polarization is noted but does not appear to be fake — the negative reviews contain specific names, dates, dollar amounts, and detailed narratives consistent with genuine experiences.
• The sole positive review (Kelly Vanderpool, 2023) names specific technicians and describes a complex restoration job, which adds credibility, but it stands alone against 7 negative reviews.
• 6 out of 8 reviews are from 2017–2019, making them 5–7 years old. Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2023). Recency weighting is limited; the score may not reflect current performance accurately.
• One review raises a potential gender bias concern — the reviewer explicitly states she believes the technician's behavior may have differed had a male been present. This is a serious conduct flag.
• A warranty fraud concern is raised in one review: refunds were promised twice and never delivered, suggesting possible deceptive business practices.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the negative reviews are detailed and credible, but the dataset is small (8 reviews), heavily skewed toward older dates (2016–2019), and contains only one recent data point, making it difficult to assess whether current service quality has improved.

Only one review is available, which limits the reliability of all dimension scores significantly. The reviewer explicitly praised the company for offering a cheaper quote than competitors and completing the trenchless sewer repair in a single day, suggesting solid project completion and fair pricing. The technicians demonstrated transparency by showing the customer the camera footage of the damage, indicating reasonable professionalism and technical competence. However, with a single review from 2014, all scores are conservative estimates and should not be treated as representative of current or consistent performance.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated October 2014 — over 10 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and are therefore LOW CONFIDENCE estimates only.
• No negative feedback present, but this is likely due to the extremely small sample size rather than an indicator of flawless service.

This score report is based on a single review from 2014 and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality, consistency, or overall performance.