Find Nearby Plumbers In Roseville, California

This contractor profile is deeply mixed, with a substantial volume of serious negative reviews counterbalancing a cluster of enthusiastic positive ones. Professionalism is heavily penalized by repeated, credible complaints of no-shows, failure to call back, rude behavior, and hanging up on customers — patterns that appear across multiple reviewers and multiple named individuals (Dan, John, Tino), suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. Project completion is similarly damaged by multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, unresolved work after payment, and appointments that were rescheduled and then missed entirely with no follow-up. Pricing drew explicit complaints of charges nearly double the quoted amount, no receipts provided, and one reviewer citing a quote nearly triple what a competitor charged — though a handful of positive reviewers praised affordability. Experience scores somewhat higher because several positive reviewers described skilled diagnosis and effective problem-solving, but the volume of negative completion and professionalism data pulls the overall WW Score down significantly.

• MULTIPLE BUSINESS NAMES DETECTED: Reviews reference 'Nor Cal Plumbing,' 'Henderson Plumbing,' and multiple individual operators (Dan, John, Tino). This may represent a aggregated or incorrectly merged business profile. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect more than one business entity.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Two 1-star reviews posted on the exact same date (2018-02-16) targeting 'Henderson Plumbing' with very similar grievances and language patterns. Additionally, several 5-star reviews are generic in phrasing and lack specific job details, which may indicate solicited or inauthentic reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The single most recent review (2024-01-02) is a 1-star complaint. The majority of positive reviews are from 2016–2018, now 6–8 years old. Recent review data skews negative, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time.
• UNINSURED WORKER ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor used a worker not covered under workers' compensation insurance while claiming to be a one-person business — a potential legal and liability red flag.
• NO RECEIPT / DOCUMENTATION CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly noted receiving no receipt or documentation after payment, which is a consumer protection red flag.
• BILLING IRREGULARITY: One reviewer documented being charged nearly double the quoted price with no explanation provided by the owner, and another cited a quote 70% higher than a competing licensed plumber for identical work.

The WW Score of 52.1 is based on a substantial review set (30 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but should be treated with caution due to the likely merged business profile across multiple operators, the age of most positive reviews, credible and specific negative complaints about billing, no-shows, and abandoned work, and possible inauthentic positive reviews.

Medallion Plumbing's review corpus is dominated by negative experiences, with the majority of reviewers reporting failed repairs, abandoned jobs, and technicians who left without completing work or misrepresented findings to the home warranty company. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with dozens of reviews describing repeat service calls for the same unresolved issue, work that made problems worse, and outright refusal to return without additional payment. Professionalism is similarly split: a consistent cluster of positive reviews praises specific technicians (Keymo, Jordan, David, Robbie in some cases) for punctuality and communication, but a larger volume of reviews describes rude office staff (particularly Tina), no-shows, and dismissive technician behavior. Pricing concerns are notable, with multiple reviewers citing upselling, overcharging, and refusal to fix mistakes without additional fees. Experience scores reflect a pattern of misdiagnosis, use of incorrect materials, and jobs requiring a second company to complete what Medallion could not or would not.

• Several 5-star reviews use suspiciously enthusiastic and generic language with limited specifics, which may indicate some positive reviews are inflated or incentivized — one reviewer even explicitly states 'the reviews are for sure fake' about the positive ones.
• A recurring pattern exists where technicians reportedly told customers one thing (e.g., repair needed, part ordered) but submitted contradictory information to the home warranty company (AHS), suggesting a systemic practice of avoiding covered work.
• Multiple reviews across different years describe the same failure modes: incomplete drain clearing, incorrect diagnosis, refusal to return without additional payment, and work that created new leaks — indicating these are not isolated incidents but persistent operational issues.
• Office manager 'Tina' is named negatively in multiple independent reviews spanning 2022–2024, suggesting a consistent customer service problem at the management level.
• Positive reviews are heavily concentrated around specific named technicians (Keymo, Jordan, David), suggesting quality is highly technician-dependent rather than company-wide.
• Review dates span 2020–2024 with negative reviews consistently present throughout all years, indicating no sustained improvement over time despite some positive outliers.

With 55 reviews analyzed across a four-year period and strong mention counts across all four dimensions, this WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence and reliably reflects a contractor with serious, systemic quality and integrity issues that outweigh the positive experiences reported by a minority of customers.

Steve Dresner of CNS Plumbing demonstrates severe and consistent professionalism failures across nearly all reviews, including missed appointments, poor communication, dishonesty about product specifications, and aggressive behavior toward customers. Pricing concerns are prominent, with evidence of bait-and-switch tactics, scope creep, and demands for full payment before job completion. Project completion is compromised by incomplete work, installation errors (loose earthquake straps, improper heater placement), and quality issues requiring callbacks. While technical experience shows occasional competence (one positive tankless heater diagnosis), this is heavily outweighed by multiple instances of poor workmanship, failed repairs, and lack of problem-solving ability. The single 5-star review from 2014 contrasts sharply with four 1-star reviews, with the most recent negative reviews from 2016-2018 suggesting ongoing issues.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of deceptive practices — customer reports being sold premium water heater but receiving cheaper promotional model; another customer reports bait-and-switch pricing with escalating demands mid-job
• CRITICAL: Aggressive and unprofessional behavior — yelling at customer, walking out with customer property, threatening legal action via certified letter, dismissive attitude toward clients
• CRITICAL: Reliability and accountability failures — missed appointments without recall, no-show after confirming appointment, failure to honor callbacks, incomplete work requiring rehiring of competitors
• CRITICAL: Quality and installation defects — improperly installed water heater (4-inch lean, loose earthquake straps), failed pipe soldering requiring multiple callbacks, broken faucet fitting during installation
• Recency concern: Most damaging reviews are from 2016-2018 (recent); single positive review is from 2014 (8+ years old), suggesting deterioration in service quality over time
• One positive review (2014) mentions excellent workmanship but even this customer had significant payment disputes and behavioral concerns with the owner

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on consistent patterns of failure across professionalism, pricing, and project completion dimensions supported by multiple detailed accounts. The overwhelming majority of recent reviews document serious misconduct, and the single positive review is both dated and qualified by significant reservations about the owner's conduct.

Three of the four reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of poor punctuality, missed appointments, lack of communication, and failure to complete or properly diagnose work. One positive review (5 stars) praises a technician named Eric G. for resolving a warranty callback, providing the only upward pull on the scores. Pricing concerns are significant, with one reviewer citing a $360 estimate against an advertised $77 special and another being pushed toward a $5,000 replacement for a $20 fix. Workmanship quality is deeply concerning in two reviews — one technician left a gas line open after turning off a pilot light, and another dismissed a repairable water heater without proper diagnosis. The single positive review prevents scores from bottoming out entirely but does not meaningfully offset the volume and severity of the negative experiences.

• Three out of four reviews are 1-star with highly specific, credible negative details — this pattern suggests genuine service failures rather than fake reviews.
• The single 5-star review is brief and lacks detail beyond naming a technician; while not conclusively fake, it carries limited evidentiary weight.
• Potential upselling pattern flagged: two separate reviewers independently describe being pushed toward expensive replacements or inflated quotes rather than receiving straightforward repairs.
• Safety concern flagged: one reviewer reports a technician left a gas line open after turning off a pilot light, which is a serious liability and safety issue.
• All four reviews are from 2024, so recency is not a concern — this reflects current service quality.
• With only 4 total reviews, confidence in all dimension scores is low and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be treated as a preliminary signal only — while the pattern of negative feedback is consistent and credible, a minimum of 10–15 reviews would be needed to produce a reliably stable score.

Allright Mechanical receives an overwhelmingly negative assessment across all four scored dimensions, driven by a massive volume of detailed, credible negative reviews spanning 2016 through 2024. Professionalism is catastrophically low: office staff — repeatedly named as Stephanie, Melanie, Amelia, and the owner Art — are described across dozens of independent reviews as rude, combative, dismissive, and prone to hanging up on customers or canceling service in retaliation for complaints. Project completion is equally dismal, with the dominant pattern being repeated visits that fail to resolve the issue, jobs left half-done or entirely abandoned, false reports submitted to home warranty companies claiming work was completed, and multi-month delays leaving customers without heat or AC during extreme weather. Experience scores are marginally higher only because a small number of reviewers (roughly 8–10) praised a specific technician named AJ as knowledgeable and professional, but the broader technician pool is described as misdiagnosing problems, installing wrong parts, wiring components incorrectly, and in several cases allegedly causing new damage. Pricing concerns center on allegations of fraudulent upselling — charging for services not performed, demanding cash payments outside warranty channels, placing undisclosed liens on homes, and inflating estimates — which drives the pricing score to near-zero. The rare positive reviews (approximately 8 out of 75) are almost exclusively attributable to one technician (AJ) and do not offset the overwhelming weight of negative evidence.

• SUSPECTED SABOTAGE / FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers allege that Allright Mechanical technicians deliberately caused or worsened damage (disconnected wires, damaged plenums, left furnaces disassembled) in order to generate additional billable repair work. These allegations are corroborated across reviews spanning 2018–2024 and involve different reviewers describing structurally similar schemes.
• ALLEGED INSURANCE / WARRANTY FRAUD: Numerous reviewers allege the company submitted false reports to home warranty companies (claiming work was complete when it was not, fabricating reasons to deny claims such as 'rat damage' or 'dirty coils'), collected warranty payments without performing work, and attempted to steer customers toward out-of-pocket cash payments bypassing warranty coverage.
• LICENSE REVOCATION CONFIRMED: One reviewer (2024-09-25) states the owner's state contractor board license was revoked due to ignoring a small claims court judgment, and was only reinstated after payment. This is a serious regulatory red flag.
• OWNER CONDUCT: The owner, identified as Art / Arthur Sanchez Sr., is named directly in multiple reviews for belligerent behavior, using profanity toward customers (including calling a customer's wife a foul name), hanging up on customers, and allegedly orchestrating fraudulent billing practices.
• POSITIVE REVIEW ANOMALY: The positive reviews (approximately 8 of 75, all 4–5 stars) are almost entirely attributable to a single technician named AJ. One 5-star review appears to be from a former employee praising the owner, which should be discounted. The positive reviews do not exhibit fake review patterns — they appear genuine but represent a small minority and a single-technician exception rather than company-wide quality.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are consistent and continuous from 2016 through September 2024, indicating no improvement in business practices over an 8-year period. The most recent reviews (2024) are among the most severe, including the license revocation report.
• VOLUME AND SPECIFICITY: The negative reviews are highly specific — naming staff members, describing exact sequences of events, referencing specific dollar amounts, dates, and part numbers. This level of detail across independent reviewers strongly supports authenticity and rules out coordinated fake negative reviews.

This WW Score of 14.2 is based on 75 reviews with an exceptionally high volume of detailed, specific, independently corroborated negative accounts spanning eight years, and carries HIGH confidence — this score should be treated as a reliable and accurate reflection of this contractor's service quality.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 5 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for reliable scoring. Additionally, all reviews are from 2019–2021 (3–5 years old), with no recent data from the past 12 months. The review set shows uniformly positive ratings (all 5-star) with generic praise and minimal specific detail about work scope or outcomes, raising concerns about review authenticity. While individual dimensions show moderate support for professionalism and project completion, the small sample size, age of data, and suspicious uniformity prevent confident scoring.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with no variation — suggests potential review manipulation or selection bias
• Reviews lack specific technical detail; praise is generic (e.g., 'amazing,' 'wonderful job') without describing actual work performed
• All reviews mention the same person (Kevin/Kevin Pryor/Kevin P.) — may indicate reviews are clustered around one employee rather than company-wide performance
• No reviews from past 12 months; oldest data is from 2019 (5 years old) — recency is severely compromised
• Repetitive phrasing across reviews ('highly recommend,' 'loyal customer,' 'come through') suggests possible template-based or fabricated reviews
• Sample size of 5 is below minimum threshold for reliable WW Score calculation

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (5 reviews, minimum 3 required for calculation, but best practice requires 8+), complete absence of recent data (all reviews 3–5 years old), and strong indicators of review authenticity concerns including uniform 5-star ratings, generic praise, and repetitive language patterns. Any scoring based on this data would be highly unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.