Find Nearby Plumbers In Stockton, California

Lovotti Inc. presents a highly polarized profile with significant strengths in technical expertise and workmanship, but serious and recurring deficiencies in professionalism and project completion. While many reviews praise technicians like Jose, Tony, and Dustin for skill and honesty, the company is plagued by persistent communication failures, unresponsive management, no-shows, and follow-through issues. Multiple customers report being ignored after service, rude receptionists, and broken promises regarding callbacks and repairs. Pricing is generally fair when work is completed, but several customers report overcharging and pressure to buy unnecessary parts. The company's reliability has deteriorated over time, with older reviews more positive than recent ones.

• CRITICAL: Severe and recurring communication/responsiveness failures documented across 15+ reviews spanning 2012-2024. Multiple customers report unanswered calls, no callbacks, no-shows, and management refusing to engage with customers.
• CRITICAL: Multiple allegations of damage caused during service with company refusing responsibility or follow-up (AC coil damage, capacitor fire, AC unit broken after tune-up, fan left unplugged).
• CRITICAL: Serious customer service complaints about receptionists (Jennifer, Sylvia, Jessica, Lisa) being rude, unhelpful, or unprofessional. This appears systemic, not isolated.
• CRITICAL: Pattern of incomplete work and abandoned projects. One customer waited over 1 year for a simple plate installation with multiple failed visits and city permit complications.
• MODERATE: Pricing concerns in 4+ reviews alleging overcharging, inflated quotes for parts, or pressure to buy unnecessary replacements. One customer charged $253 for 40-minute service with only $9 in materials.
• MODERATE: Allegations of theft by workers (jewelry missing after service visit) and unprofessional appearance/conduct (worker in torn shirt and unlaced shoes).
• MODERATE: Multiple reviews from 2014-2018 suggest company quality has declined significantly. Recent reviews (2024) show same problems persisting.
• MODERATE: Inconsistent quality across technicians. Named technicians (Jose, Tony, Dustin, Reece, Sergio) receive consistent 5-star praise, but unnamed/generic technicians frequently receive 1-star complaints.
• LIMITED: Two reviews allege unauthorized work performed and sent to collections, suggesting potential billing/authorization issues.
• LIMITED: PG&E Energy Savers Program reviews show multiple failures (no-shows, incomplete work, damage), suggesting company struggles with contract work accountability.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be trusted as a realistic assessment of a company with genuine technical competence undermined by severe operational and customer service failures. The HIGH confidence is justified by 80+ reviews with consistent patterns, but the score reflects a company in crisis regarding professionalism and follow-through. Customers should expect quality work from named senior technicians but should be prepared for communication failures, potential no-shows, and difficulty obtaining accountability if problems arise.

T&C Plumbing shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While many customers praise responsiveness, punctuality, and technical skill (particularly technicians like Josue, Pablo, Edwin, and David), a substantial portion of reviews document serious failures in project completion, follow-through on warranty obligations, and communication. The company frequently fails to return calls, abandons jobs mid-completion, charges excessive fees for code improvements that customers dispute, and installs defective equipment without proper accountability. Pricing concerns are widespread, with customers reporting inflated quotes and unexpected charges. The company's performance appears heavily dependent on which technician is assigned and whether the customer is using home warranty coverage (AHS customers report disproportionately negative experiences).

• PATTERN DETECTED: Home Warranty (AHS) customers report significantly worse experiences than direct-pay customers. Multiple reviews indicate the company may provide minimal service to warranty claims.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Recurring pattern across 15+ reviews of customers unable to reach the company by phone, unreturned calls, and broken follow-up promises.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple customers report the company failed to honor warranty agreements, particularly for water heater replacements that failed within weeks of installation.
• QUESTIONABLE BILLING PRACTICES: At least 8 reviews document charges for 'code improvements' that customers dispute as unnecessary or already completed. Amounts range $120-$565 for items customers claim cost $30-$70.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Several reviews report defective equipment installed (water heaters failing within days/weeks), incomplete repairs requiring multiple callbacks, and technicians lacking proper credentials or English proficiency.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 6 reviews document scheduled appointments with no technician arrival and no notification.
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly-rated technicians (Josue, Pablo, Edwin, David, Ygnacio, Francisco) and poorly-reviewed ones. Suggests inconsistent hiring/training standards.
• POTENTIAL FRAUD INDICATORS: One detailed 2023 review documents alleged bait-and-switch with faucet packaging (Moen box containing cheap plastic faucet), customer reported to BBB and Consumer Affairs.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While recent reviews (2024) show both 5-star and 1-star ratings, the 1-star reviews from 2024 document serious failures (non-responsive, incomplete work, warranty violations), suggesting ongoing systemic issues.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: No evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews are detailed, specific, and include varied complaint patterns that appear genuine.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence. The score reflects a deeply polarized company: excellent service from select technicians on direct-pay jobs, but systematic failures in communication, warranty compliance, and follow-through—particularly for home warranty customers. The company's inconsistency makes it unreliable for critical repairs or warranty-dependent work. Customers should verify technician assignment and avoid relying on warranty coverage through this vendor.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses and individual operators all operating under or associated with the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different regions and time periods, making direct comparison difficult but revealing a deeply polarized reputation. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of explicit complaints about rudeness, no-shows, broken appointments, and dismissive customer service — including multiple accounts of technicians yelling at customers, slamming doors, and hanging up on home warranty representatives. Pricing is the single most-criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing charges 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, non-itemized invoices, and aggressive upselling tactics; a minority of reviewers — particularly those dealing with individual operators like Oscar, Jeff, and Rick — praised fair and transparent pricing. Project completion suffers from a notable pattern of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, work left incomplete for weeks or months, and instances where problems were made worse rather than fixed. Experience scores are moderate-positive, as many positive reviews do cite skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship from specific named technicians, but are offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect parts installation, and damage caused during service.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: These reviews appear to aggregate multiple distinct businesses and sole operators all using the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different U.S. regions (Georgia, New Jersey, Oklahoma, California, New York, Indiana, Tennessee, etc.). Scores reflect a blended profile and should not be applied to any single operator without filtering by location.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews — particularly those dated 2025-05-07, 2025-05-10, and 2025-05-19 with no review text — are blank ratings only and provide zero usable data. Several other 5-star reviews are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., two reviews from 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10 are word-for-word duplicates for 'Michael'). These have been excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star average.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews are near-verbatim duplicates submitted on consecutive or same dates (the 'Michael' gas line reviews dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10; the rude technician reviews dated 2023-08-09 and 2023-08-10). These were counted as single mentions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal text, while the most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2018–2024. The oldest reviews (2005–2013) skew positive but reflect a different era of the business. Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no evidence per Rule 1.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One review (dated 2021-06-07, 5 stars) references a healthcare provider ('very helpful with my daughter and son... ADHD and learning disabilities') and is clearly posted to the wrong business. It was excluded entirely.
• PRICING PATTERN: A recurring pattern of non-itemized invoices, refusal to provide cost breakdowns, and prices dropping significantly when customers push back strongly suggests systematic price gouging practices at certain franchise or affiliate locations, particularly those associated with Coolray/Mr. Plumber in the Atlanta, GA market.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe technicians starting jobs, leaving for parts, and never returning — sometimes for months. This pattern appears across different named technicians and locations, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the dataset aggregates multiple distinct businesses operating under the same trade name across different regions and time periods — consumers should filter reviews by their specific geographic location and verify the operator before relying on this blended score.

Stagecoach Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and generally professional staff (particularly Will and Greg), with multiple reviews praising their knowledge, responsiveness, and workmanship quality. However, the company is significantly undermined by persistent pricing concerns—multiple customers report unexpected charges, travel fees not disclosed upfront, and labor rates perceived as excessive. Project completion is mixed, with some jobs done well but at least one instance of sloppy work (stripped screws) and poor follow-up on damage caused. Older reviews (2014–2017) are notably more positive; recent reviews (2022–2024) reveal escalating customer dissatisfaction with costs and service recovery.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: At least 5 reviews explicitly mention surprise charges, undisclosed travel fees, or labor rates not explained upfront. This is a critical pattern suggesting systemic pricing communication failure.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2014–2021 (older than 3 years). Recent reviews (2022–2024) are predominantly negative (ratings 1–2), suggesting service quality or pricing practices have deteriorated.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: One detailed 2022 review documents multiple technical installation errors (T&P valve backgrade, improper flex line routing, missing insulation, misspelled company name on equipment). This contradicts claims of expert workmanship.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: Review from 2022 reports customer was told to wait days for callback to fix damage caused by Stagecoach's own mistake, indicating poor accountability.
• STAFF CONDUCT VARIANCE: While Will and Greg are praised in older reviews, recent reviews cite owner rudeness and dismissive customer service (2023 no-show incident, 2018 emergency call rudeness).
• UNVERIFIABLE ALLEGATION: One 2021 review alleges employee theft ('sticky fingers') with no detail—flagged but not weighted heavily due to lack of specificity.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While technical expertise is well-documented (HIGH confidence), the company's pricing practices are a major liability with consistent negative evidence across multiple years. The sharp decline in review sentiment from 2014–2021 to 2022–2024 suggests current performance may be worse than the overall score indicates. Customers should explicitly request itemized quotes including travel and labor rates before engaging this company.

Francisco's business shows a stark bifurcation in customer experience. Positive reviews (primarily 2017–2020) consistently praise his technical skill, fair pricing, and friendly demeanor. However, negative reviews (2020–2024) reveal severe reliability issues: multiple no-shows, failure to honor commitments, and unprofessional communication. Project completion is the weakest dimension due to documented instances of abandoning jobs and leaving customers waiting. Professionalism is compromised by tardiness, rudeness, and poor follow-through. The recency of negative reviews (2020–2024) versus older positive reviews (2017–2020) suggests a significant decline in service quality over time.

• TEMPORAL PATTERN ALERT: Positive reviews cluster in 2017–2020; negative reviews cluster in 2020–2024. This suggests deterioration in service quality or business operations over time.
• CRITICAL RELIABILITY ISSUE: Multiple reviews (2020–2024) document repeated no-shows and failure to honor scheduled appointments. Review from 2020-12-13 explicitly states customer waited two days with no communication while a leak worsened.
• LICENSING CONCERN: Review from 2022-01-21 alleges lack of business license and contractor license. This is a serious legal/compliance red flag that cannot be ignored.
• INCONSISTENT PROFESSIONALISM: One 2024 review describes Francisco as 'very rude,' leaving trash at the job site and dismissing customer concerns. This contradicts the friendly persona described in older reviews.
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS TRANSITION: Some reviews reference 'FGS Plumbing' and mention 'Fernando' as a respondent, while others reference 'Francisco' directly. Unclear if this is the same business or if ownership/staffing changed.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY CONCERN: Several 5-star reviews from 2019–2020 contain similar phrasing ('honest,' 'friendly,' 'reliable,' 'trustworthy') and lack specific technical details. However, they are not identical enough to definitively flag as fake. Treat with mild caution.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 15 reviews, the stark temporal divide between older positive and recent negative reviews, combined with documented no-show patterns and licensing allegations, suggests the business may have experienced significant operational decline. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects this volatility; customers considering this contractor should heavily weight the recent negative reviews (2020–2024) and verify licensing status independently before engaging.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record. Older reviews from 2011–2015 paint a picture of a skilled, courteous, and cost-effective plumber who communicated well and completed jobs thoroughly. However, two significant negative reviews — one from 2017 describing a complete no-show with no communication, and a serious 2023 review alleging a 4-day delay, unprofessional behavior, and highly offensive language from the owner — substantially drag down the professionalism and project completion scores. The 2023 negative review is the most recent and most heavily weighted, and it raises serious concerns about the current state of the business. The gap between the glowing older reviews and the recent negative experiences suggests a meaningful decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2015, making them 8–13 years old. Only one positive review exists from the past 12 months (September 2023), and it is extremely brief and generic with no specific details.
• POTENTIAL FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEW: The September 2023 5-star review ('Very hard worker, nice to see honest and genuine people. Definitely would recommend to anyone!') contains no specifics about the job, the plumber, or the work performed. It reads as generic filler and its credibility is low.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: The December 2023 1-star review alleges the owner arrived smelling of alcohol, used a racial slur on a phone call, and took 4 days to respond to a service call. If accurate, this represents a significant professionalism and conduct failure.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: The 2017 1-star review documents a complete appointment no-show with no call, no confirmation, and no reschedule — causing the customer financial loss. This is a direct project completion failure.
• BUSINESS TRAJECTORY CONCERN: The pattern of reviews suggests a business that may have been reliable years ago but has experienced serious decline. Prospective customers should treat recent reviews as the most relevant signal.

This WW Score has LIMITED overall reliability due to the heavy age skew of positive reviews, a credible recent misconduct allegation, and only 8 total reviews spanning 12 years — prospective customers should weight the 2023 negative review heavily when making a hiring decision.