Find Nearby Plumbers In Redding, California

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with a stark divide between recent positive reviews (2025-2017) and older negative experiences (2019-2006). Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented communication failures, rudeness, and unprofessional behavior in multiple reviews. Pricing is a major concern, with numerous complaints about overcharging, price gouging, and inflated estimates, though some reviews praise affordability. Project completion suffers from incomplete work, callbacks not honored, and jobs requiring rework. Experience ratings are mixed—some reviews praise skilled technicians while others document poor diagnostics and sloppy workmanship. The company appears to have improved significantly in recent years, but historical patterns of poor service and billing practices remain concerning.

• CRITICAL: Two distinct company identities detected—reviews reference both 'Wallner Plumbing' (recent 2025-2017 reviews, consistently positive) and 'Half Price Plumbing' (older 2019-2006 reviews, predominantly negative). These appear to be different companies or a major rebranding. Analysis treats all reviews as single entity per instructions, but this conflation significantly distorts scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Recent reviews (June 2025) show suspicious clustering with generic praise, minimal specifics, and identical 5-star ratings within days. Phrases like 'prompt, professional, and reasonable' and 'fast professional service' appear repetitively. Multiple reviews with only 1-3 words ('Quick and efficient repairs', 'Thank you!', blank review with 5 stars) suggest potential review manipulation.
• RECENCY BIAS: 40+ reviews from past 12 months (2025-2024) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail. Pre-2020 reviews (2019-2006) show much higher variance and detail, with 15+ one-star reviews documenting serious issues. Recent positive reviews may not reflect historical service quality.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews document price gouging ($700 for simple faucet repair, $1,006 for water heater install customer completed in 60 min, $451 overcharge attempt), incomplete work (one bolt not replaced, air gap vent flooded after install), and regulatory violations (4 CSLB citations mentioned). One review references company operating from UPS Store address.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Documented pattern of unanswered calls, no-shows, missed callbacks, and rude office staff (specifically named 'Shannon') across multiple independent reviews from 2019-2018.
• WORK QUALITY ISSUES: Reviews document flooded water heaters, gas leaks left unfixed (PG&E had to repair), improper installations requiring multiple callbacks, sloppy work (tar substance left on fixtures, cigarette butts in street), and incomplete diagnostics.
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Named technicians (Tony, Brian, Jeremy, Keith, Andy, Shawn, Caleb) receive individual praise in recent reviews, but same company receives scathing criticism for other technicians in older reviews, suggesting highly variable service delivery.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. The apparent merger or rebranding of two distinct companies (Wallner vs. Half Price Plumbing) conflates incompatible datasets. Recent reviews (2025-2017) show suspicious clustering and low specificity suggesting potential manipulation, while pre-2020 reviews document serious, detailed complaints about pricing, work quality, and communication. The 68.2 score reflects a company in transition, but the historical record of price gouging, incomplete work, and regulatory violations cannot be ignored. Recommend verifying current licensing status and requesting references from recent clients before engaging.

Schuler Plumbing shows a deeply polarized customer base with stark performance inconsistencies. Positive reviews (primarily from 2016-2022 and recent 2025) consistently praise specific technicians like Ray, Justin, and Tom for friendliness, skill, and emergency responsiveness. However, negative reviews (concentrated in 2021-2024) reveal systemic failures: poor communication, missed appointments, unresponsiveness to callbacks, incomplete diagnostics, and aggressive upselling of unnecessary work. Pricing complaints are frequent and severe, with customers reporting charges 2-3x market rates and diagnostic fees that don't apply to work. Project completion suffers from abandoned jobs, refusals to complete work, and follow-up failures. The company appears to deliver excellent service sporadically but fails consistently on accountability and communication.

• SEVERE POLARIZATION: 18 one-star reviews vs. 20 five-star reviews suggests two entirely different companies or extreme inconsistency in service delivery by technician.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2024, 2022, 2021) document identical failures: promised callbacks never received, messages not relayed between staff, customers left waiting days without contact.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS CLUSTER: At least 6 reviews explicitly cite overcharging, with independent verification showing charges 2-3x market rate. Diagnostic fees charged but not credited to work is a recurring complaint.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Several reviews document refusals to complete jobs (crawl space drain, flex pipe replacement, root removal) with excuses that customers later proved false or unnecessary.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Two identical reviews for Justin Neff septic emergency (2021-06-10 and 2020-09-21) with nearly identical wording suggest possible duplication or manipulation.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster 2021-2024; most positive reviews are older (2016-2022) or very recent (2025). Recent 2025 reviews show improvement but sample size is small (2 reviews).
• MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY: Owner Marty Schuler explicitly mentioned in multiple negative reviews for poor follow-up, refusal to address complaints, and lack of system controls. One customer reported 4 unanswered callback requests.
• HOME WARRANTY PATTERN: Disproportionate number of complaints involve home warranty assignments, suggesting possible lower priority or different service standards for warranty vs. direct-pay customers.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 45 reviews with adequate mention counts, the extreme polarization (40% one-star, 44% five-star) and documented systemic failures in communication and follow-up indicate the company's actual performance is highly dependent on which technician is assigned and whether the customer is a direct-pay or warranty customer. The score of 68.2 reflects this volatility—it is neither a reliable indicator of consistent quality nor a safe recommendation. Customers should independently verify current performance and explicitly confirm all terms in writing before engaging this company.

This contractor shows a stark polarization in customer experience. Positive reviews (5 older reviews from 2018–2019) praise professionalism, skill, and integrity. However, negative reviews (6 reviews from 2020–2023) consistently cite severe communication failures, missed appointments, no-shows, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and incomplete or defective work requiring customer remediation. The most recent and detailed review (Dec 2023) documents critical technical failures in septic system installation with dangerous consequences. Project completion is particularly weak, with multiple instances of abandoned work, failure to correct code violations, and attempts to charge customers for fixing their own mistakes. Professionalism is undermined by poor responsiveness and lack of follow-through despite some positive individual technician interactions.

• CRITICAL: Temporal pattern suggests significant service degradation over time. Positive reviews cluster in 2018–2019; negative reviews dominate 2020–2023, indicating systemic deterioration.
• SEVERE: Multiple reviews document dangerous technical failures (septic system not operational, water heater code violations, pipe leaks) suggesting competency concerns beyond communication.
• PATTERN: Communication failures appear in 6 of 12 reviews (50%), with consistent complaints of unreturned calls, no-shows, and missed appointments—indicating systemic operational breakdown.
• CONCERN: Dec 2023 review describes negligent septic work with potential health/safety hazards; contractor dismissed concerns as 'no big deal' and was unavailable for 2+ weeks.
• RED FLAG: One review documents contractor charging $400 to fix their own mistakes and allegedly lying to warranty company about scope of work.
• NOTE: Most negative reviews involve home warranty claims; possible pattern of deprioritizing warranty work vs. direct-pay customers.

This score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence due to substantial review volume (12 reviews) and consistent corroboration of specific failure patterns across multiple independent reviewers; however, the dramatic temporal decline and severity of documented technical failures suggest this contractor's current reliability is significantly lower than historical performance, and recent reviews (2020–2023) should be weighted more heavily than older positive reviews.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across all dimensions. While two positive reviews from 2022 and one from 2024 praise responsiveness, punctuality, and technical skill, two negative reviews from 2023 raise serious concerns about dishonesty (billing for time not worked), poor communication, missed appointments, and failure to clean up after work. The fraud allegation in the 1-star review — where cameras reportedly clocked only 16 minutes of work billed as significantly more — is a major red flag that heavily penalizes the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing received a low score because one reviewer explicitly called labor charges 'out of this world expensive' for the work performed, partially offsetting the one positive mention of fair and transparent pricing. The overall picture is of an inconsistent operation with some capable technicians but documented reliability and integrity problems.

• SERIOUS INTEGRITY FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor billed for time not worked, with camera footage reportedly showing only 16 minutes on-site for a job billed as 1–1.5 hours. This is a significant fraud allegation and heavily weighs against trustworthiness.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: The same reviewer reports the contractor went MIA after offering to redo the job at no cost, indicating a pattern of not honoring commitments.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One reviewer experienced a cancelled appointment with no notification until after the two-hour window had passed, and described the overall scheduling process as difficult.
• CLEANLINESS CONCERN: One reviewer noted the technician left a mess in the basement without any cleanup, suggesting inconsistent professionalism standards.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most negative reviews are from 2023, which are more recent than the two positive reviews from 2022. The single 2024 positive review is the most recent data point but comes from only one source.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews total. This is a very small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution. Scores can shift dramatically with even one or two additional reviews.
• POSSIBLE REVIEWER BIAS NOTE: The 2024 5-star review is highly detailed and effusive, but no fake review pattern is confirmed across multiple reviews. No identical phrasing detected across positive reviews.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust due to the very small review sample (5 reviews), a serious unresolved fraud allegation, and a clear split between older positive reviews and more recent negative experiences.

Dave Hill Plumbing demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across professionalism and project completion. Seven reviews explicitly cite unprofessional behavior including no-shows, late arrivals, poor communication, unresponsiveness, and dismissive attitudes. Six reviews document incomplete or problematic project execution, including abandoned callbacks, poor workmanship (scratches, messes), and lack of follow-through on warranty issues. While two positive reviews praise the owner's professionalism and fairness, they are heavily outweighed by six 1-star reviews spanning 2017–2019. The company shows inconsistent performance with occasional competent work but systemic failures in reliability and accountability. Pricing concerns are limited to two mentions but include billing disputes and lack of transparency.

• CRITICAL: Six of eight reviews are 1-star ratings with severe complaints. Pattern suggests systemic operational failures rather than isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews cite no-shows, late arrivals (4+ hours), and failure to return voicemails—indicating chronic scheduling/communication breakdown.
• Two reviews explicitly mention dishonesty: billing for parts not provided and refusing warranty support after 4 months of delays.
• Positive reviews (2 five-star ratings) are from 2017–2018; negative reviews span 2017–2019, suggesting problems persisted or recurred over time.
• One review (driver behavior) is tangential to core service quality but reflects brand reputation damage.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected; complaints are specific, detailed, and consistent in theme (unprofessionalism, poor follow-through).

This WW Score of 38.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted. It is based on eight reviews with consistent, detailed complaints across multiple dimensions, supported by HIGH confidence in professionalism and project completion. The company exhibits serious operational and ethical deficiencies that warrant strong caution.

Sentry Plumbing demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by pervasive no-shows, failure to return calls (documented 24+ times in one case), poor communication, and unprepared crews. Project completion is undermined by incomplete work, installation errors requiring rework, warranty disputes, and unresponsiveness to callbacks. Experience shows mixed signals: while 2 recent positive reviews (2013, 2016) praise professional service and problem-solving, 8 negative reviews spanning 2012–2022 document poor workmanship, incorrect installations, and lack of technical knowledge. Pricing concerns emerge in 2 reviews citing warranty disputes and excessive labor charges. The overwhelming majority of evidence (8 of 10 reviews) is negative, with patterns of systemic operational failure.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 5–12 years old (2012–2022), but the two most recent positive reviews (2013, 2016) are also over a decade old. No reviews from past 12 months. Current company status and management changes are unknown.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: Two 5-star reviews (2013) praise Dave and crew as professional and reliable over 16+ years, explicitly distinguishing this Redding location from a different Sentry Plumbing in Chico. However, 8 one-star reviews document serious failures. This suggests either significant quality degradation over time, or possible confusion between different entities with similar names.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW RISK (LIMITED): The two positive reviews use similar phrasing ('professional,' 'highly recommend,' 'never had an issue') and lack specific detail about actual work performed, which is atypical. However, they are not identical and do contain some specificity, so risk is moderate rather than high.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: One review (2019-02-21) alleges child abuse by an employee. While not directly related to plumbing service quality, it raises concerns about company culture and employee vetting.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS AND NON-RESPONSIVENESS: 5 reviews explicitly document failure to show up for appointments, failure to return calls/messages, or both. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable based on 10 reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution: the score reflects historical performance (mostly 2012–2022), current company status is unknown, and the presence of two contradictory 5-star reviews suggests possible changes in management or service quality over time. The score accurately represents the documented pattern of failures but may not reflect present-day operations.