Find Nearby Plumbers In Stockton, California

Capital City Plumbing has an overwhelmingly negative review record across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension and is catastrophically poor: multiple reviewers describe repeated no-shows across consecutive scheduled appointments, belligerent and offensive responses when confronted, a contractor who smelled of alcohol at 10am, rude office staff, and one owner publicly posting what appears to be a fraudulent upselling scheme on Facebook. Project completion is nearly as damning, with multiple reviewers reporting that work was never completed, technicians collected service fees and disappeared, and at least one case where a completed job was done incorrectly and had to be redone by another plumber. Pricing drew complaints of extreme overcharging — $396 for a $20 part and a 10-minute job, and nearly $600 quoted for a running toilet and slow drain — though two positive reviews did cite fair or competitive pricing. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small number of positive reviews describe skilled, knowledgeable technicians, but these are vastly outnumbered by accounts of incompetent or fraudulent work. The overall picture is of a contractor that should be avoided.

• SUSPECTED FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: The positive reviews (5-star) are highly generic in praise, lack specific verifiable detail in some cases, and stand in extreme contrast to the volume and specificity of negative reviews. The single 5-star review from 2014 mentions a 'snislo toilet' — a non-existent product — which raises authenticity concerns.
• OWNER MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review quotes what appears to be a Facebook post by the owner, Bob Clendening, describing a deliberate fraudulent upselling scheme (planting fake evidence of damage to charge customers thousands of dollars). This is an extremely serious allegation and materially affects trustworthiness of the business.
• INSURANCE FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple reviews via home warranty companies describe a pattern where the contractor collects service fees, declares work non-covered or pre-existing without justification, and leaves without performing work. This pattern across multiple independent reviewers suggests a systemic practice.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review is from May 2024, but the majority of reviews are from 2014–2021. The 2024 review (1-star, road behavior complaint) provides no operational detail. The negative behavioral patterns appear consistent across the full date range, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.
• BELLIGERENT BEHAVIOR DOCUMENTED IN MULTIPLE REVIEWS: At least two independent reviewers describe the contractor becoming hostile, using offensive language, or hanging up when confronted about missed appointments. This is a serious and repeated pattern.

This WW Score is based on 17 reviews spanning 2014–2024 with strong mention counts across all dimensions, and the score of approximately 22 should be considered highly reliable as a warning signal — the volume, specificity, and consistency of negative experiences across multiple independent reviewers make this one of the lowest-confidence contractors in terms of trustworthiness.

Three of the four reviews are severely negative, alleging theft, unlicensed work, drug use, verbal abuse toward a child, failure to return calls, and leaving work areas in disarray. These are serious, specific accusations that heavily suppress every scored dimension. The single 5-star review praises job completion, warranty offerings, and honest communication, but it stands in stark isolation against three damning accounts. The professionalism score is near the floor given the volume and severity of misconduct allegations. Project completion and experience receive marginally higher scores only because one review explicitly describes completed work with a warranty, but this is insufficient to offset the pattern of negative evidence.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW: The sole 5-star review (2021-08-03) uses polished, marketing-style language ('explains how you can save money in the long run,' 'honest plumber,' 'warranty with all his work') that contrasts sharply in tone and specificity with the three 1-star reviews posted just days later. It reads as potentially self-submitted or solicited.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers independently allege theft from the home. This is a critical safety and legal concern that should be prominently noted.
• UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR CLAIM: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor is not licensed. If accurate, this is a significant legal and liability risk for customers.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Allegations include smelling of marijuana on the job, telling a client's child to shut up, and abandoning work mid-job.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviewers report the contractor did not return calls after issues arose.
• RECENCY NOTE: All four reviews are from 2021 — over three years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable due to insufficient data volume.

This WW Score is of very low reliability — it is based on only 4 reviews, three of which contain serious and specific misconduct allegations, and the single positive review shows markers consistent with a potentially inauthentic submission.

County Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with the vast majority of the 68 reviews awarding 1 star. Professionalism is catastrophically low: technicians are repeatedly described as rude, dismissive, and hostile, failing to call ahead, arriving late or not at all, and in several cases insulting or threatening customers. Project completion is nearly non-existent in the negative reviews — technicians routinely spent under 5 minutes on-site, left without performing any work, collected service fees without completing jobs, lied on reports to home warranty companies, and abandoned customers for weeks without follow-up. Pricing concerns are significant, with multiple reviewers alleging fraudulent upcharges, demands for large cash payments upfront, billing for work never performed, and inflated non-covered cost estimates. Technical experience scores marginally above the floor only because a small handful of positive reviews (5 out of 68) describe competent, successful repairs — but the dominant pattern is technicians arriving without proper equipment, misdiagnosing problems, performing incorrect repairs, and causing additional damage.

• OVERWHELMING NEGATIVE PATTERN: 62 of 68 reviews are 1-star. This is statistically extreme and reflects a genuine, consistent pattern of poor service rather than isolated incidents.
• FRAUD INDICATORS: Multiple reviewers allege technicians collected service fees without performing work, submitted false reports to home warranty companies denying legitimate claims, and billed for parts or upgrades never installed. One reviewer alleges a technician demanded $900 cash upfront and fled when asked to verify identity.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2014 through August 2024, indicating persistent and long-standing systemic problems. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are as negative as older ones, showing no improvement over time.
• POSITIVE REVIEW SCRUTINY: The 5 positive reviews (all 4–5 stars) are sparse relative to the volume of negatives. Two of the five positive reviews contain notably detailed, specific narratives that appear genuine. One 5-star review (2022-10-24) is a lengthy defense of the company's business model written by someone claiming to be a former home warranty employee — this review reads as potentially motivated and should be weighted with caution. The remaining positive reviews describe isolated successful experiences and do not contradict the dominant pattern.
• SYSTEMIC BUSINESS MODEL CONCERN: A recurring pattern across dozens of reviews suggests the company may be deliberately exploiting home warranty assignment systems — showing up briefly to collect trade call fees without performing work, then submitting reports denying coverage to avoid completing jobs. This is alleged by reviewers across multiple years and multiple home warranty companies (Old Republic, Fidelity, First American, ORTC).
• DRIVER/CONDUCT INCIDENT: One review (2023-05-16) describes a company van driver engaging in road rage, following a civilian, and shouting profanities — unrelated to plumbing service but indicative of broader conduct issues.

This WW Score of 18.4 is based on 68 reviews spanning a decade, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to the large volume of mentions — the score should be considered highly reliable and strongly indicative of a contractor that should be avoided.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are positive and mention professionalism (on-time, courteous) and one mentions pricing favorability (significant savings vs. competitor quote). However, with fewer than 3 reviews, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per methodology. The reviews lack specificity about project completion details and technical workmanship. Both reviews are older than 12 months (2020 and 2022), limiting recency weight.

• Insufficient review count (n=2) — WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability
• Both reviews are older than 12 months; no recent data available
• Limited specificity in reviews — no detailed descriptions of work performed or outcomes
• Project completion dimension has zero mentions — cannot assess on-time delivery or follow-through
• Pricing dimension based on single anecdotal comparison; no transparent quote or invoice details provided

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum 3 required). Any scoring would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews speak positively to Herb's professionalism and technical knowledge, with one reviewer explicitly praising his honesty in not upselling an elderly customer and offering cost-saving alternatives, and the other noting he proactively identified issues beyond the original scope of work. Pricing is touched on only in the first review, where the ethical decision to save the customer money reflects well on value and transparency. Project completion is referenced in the second review, where the work requested was fully carried out. All scores are conservative given the very small sample size of only two reviews, and no dimension reaches a confidence level above LIMITED.

• Only 2 reviews provided — this is below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• With only 2 reviews, all dimension scores carry LOW confidence and should not be used as a definitive assessment of this contractor.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — while the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly positive sentiment across a very small sample warrants caution.
• Review dates are from March and June 2023 — both are over 12 months old at time of analysis, meaning there is no recent data to confirm current performance standards.

This score is not reliable for decision-making purposes due to an insufficient number of reviews; a minimum of 3 reviews is required, and meaningful confidence would require 5 or more.

Both reviews are highly positive and mention multiple dimensions of service quality. Review 1 praises friendly service and excellent workmanship on a shade screen installation. Review 2 provides detailed feedback on professionalism (punctuality, politeness, attention to detail, cleanup), pricing (reasonable quotes), project completion (thorough follow-up, multiple jobs completed), and experience (top-notch work across diverse services including roofing, leveling, and plumbing). However, with only 2 total reviews, the sample size is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Review 1 is suspiciously generic with no specific details about the work performed, only vague praise ('awesome', 'friendly', 'excellent job'). Review 2 is exceptionally detailed and comprehensive, which is atypical. The stark contrast in detail level and the absence of any critical feedback across both reviews raises minor concerns about authenticity.
• RECENCY: Review 1 is recent (October 2024), but Review 2 is from February 2024 (9 months old). Limited recent data.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews; minimum 3 required). All dimension scores are based on LIMITED confidence due to minimal mention counts. Any score derived from this data should not be trusted for decision-making purposes.