Find Nearby Plumbers In Vallejo, California

A+ Waterworks presents a deeply polarized review profile spanning over 15 years. A substantial portion of positive reviews praise quick response times, courteous technicians, and fair pricing — with multiple long-term customers expressing strong loyalty. However, a significant and recurring pattern of serious negative reviews undermines confidence across all dimensions: the owner Nasser is repeatedly cited by name for rude, condescending, and hostile behavior toward both customers and staff, directly damaging the professionalism score. Project completion is the weakest area, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, no-shows after appointments were set, unresolved callbacks, work that failed inspection, and at least one job left incomplete for months. Pricing complaints include overbilling, lack of written estimates, and charges for incorrect or incomplete work. Experience scores are mixed — skilled technicians are praised in many reviews, but several reviews describe poor workmanship, misdiagnosis, and sloppy results discovered only after the fact.

• 14 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• A cluster of reviews dated exactly '2020-06-10', '2019-06-11', '2021-06-10', and '2023-06-10' with no review text and only 4- or 5-star ratings is suspicious. This pattern may indicate platform-imported or artificially padded ratings and should be treated with caution.
• One review (dated 2021-12-20) appears to be a duplicate update of an earlier review (dated 2022-06-10) from the same customer. It was counted once to avoid double-weighting.
• The owner 'Nasser' is named negatively by multiple independent reviewers across different years (2011, 2016, 2019, 2023, 2024) for rude behavior, hostile communication, and condescending attitude — this is a consistent and credible pattern, not an isolated incident.
• Recency note: The most recent substantive negative reviews (2023–2024) continue to cite the same behavioral issues as reviews from 2009–2016, suggesting no meaningful improvement in customer service over time. Positive reviews with detail are more concentrated in the 2015–2020 range.
• Several 5-star reviews use generic, non-specific praise ('great company', 'highly recommend', 'amazing service') with no job details, which reduces their evidentiary weight under scoring rules.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically meaningful — however, the persistent and named pattern of owner misconduct, abandoned jobs, and inspection failures across multiple independent reviews over many years represents a material risk that the aggregate score alone does not fully capture.

ABC Sewer and Drain presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with numerous reviewers explicitly praising affordable rates — often a fraction of competitor quotes — and transparent, as-advertised charges. However, professionalism is severely dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern: multiple independent reviewers describe staff and owners swearing at customers, hanging up on callers, and responding with hostility when complaints were raised — this is not isolated to one era or one employee. Project completion is similarly mixed: many simple drain-clearing jobs are completed quickly and effectively, but a significant number of reviews describe abandoned work, no-shows after repeated promises, unresolved callbacks, and jobs left in worse condition than found. Experience scores moderately, with skilled technicians like Tyler and Jose receiving genuine praise, but offset by documented cases of misdiagnosis, code-violating work, and botched installations. The overall WW Score of 62.1 reflects a contractor capable of good routine work but with serious, well-documented reliability and conduct failures.

• CONDUCT WARNING: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe the owner or staff using profanity directly at customers (F-word, 'a--hole', telling customers to 'go f*** yourself'). This is a serious and recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 8 reviews describe being given a time window, receiving no service, and being unable to reach the company afterward. This is a systemic reliability issue, not random.
• WARRANTY/CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor implied or stated warranties, charging again for repeat visits within days, or abandoning jobs mid-repair.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: Several reviews document jobs left in worse condition than found — leaking faucets with no hot water, wobbling toilets, code-violating pipe installations, and a sink falling off the wall after installation.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE NOTE: Several reviews from 2016 explicitly note a change in ownership and attribute a decline in quality and professionalism to the new owners. Scores from pre-2016 reviews skew more positive. This temporal split is meaningful.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) include both strong positives and a serious 1-star incident involving rude behavior and a wobbling toilet. The pattern of mixed quality appears to persist through the most recent review period.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: A subset of 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Fast, friendly, honest, reliable' with no specifics; 'These guys are GREAT!'). While not conclusive, these reviews add limited evidentiary weight and were scored conservatively.
• SCORE SPAN WARNING: This contractor has a bimodal distribution — a large cluster of 5-star reviews and a large cluster of 1-star reviews with very few in between. This pattern suggests inconsistent service quality depending on job type, technician assigned, or whether a complaint arises.

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but consumers should weight the serious and repeated conduct complaints heavily — the gap between best-case and worst-case outcomes with this contractor is unusually wide.

Rite Rooter Plumbing presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily evidenced dimension, with a significant number of reviews praising on-time arrivals, polite technicians, and responsive scheduling staff — but counterbalanced by serious complaints about rude customer service representatives, no-shows across multiple appointments, unanswered calls, and in one case an alleged physical altercation. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: multiple reviewers describe abandoned jobs, missed appointments (some three or more times), failure to follow through on repairs, and in one alarming case a technician submitting an invoice claiming a job was complete when it had not been started. Pricing feedback is mixed but leans slightly positive, with several reviewers noting competitive or honored quotes, though one reviewer documented an attempted bait-and-switch price increase and another was never reimbursed a promised $963 check. Experience scores moderately, with skilled technicians praised in positive reviews but offset by two reviews explicitly describing inexperienced technicians who admitted they did not know what they were doing. The score reflects a contractor with capable staff on good days but serious systemic reliability and accountability failures.

• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2005 to 2024. The four reviews dated 2005 and one from 2006 are nearly 20 years old and reflect a potentially very different business operation. These were included but carry minimal weight given the recency rule.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 4 independent reviews (2022-02-15, 2022-09-22, 2024-03-04, 2021-12-03) describe missed appointments with no call or explanation, suggesting a systemic scheduling and accountability problem rather than isolated incidents.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review (2021-11-01) alleges Rite Rooter submitted an invoice to a home warranty company claiming a repair was complete when it had not been performed. This is a serious allegation of potential fraud and significantly impacts trustworthiness.
• REIMBURSEMENT FAILURE: One review (2021-12-10) describes a promised $963.29 reimbursement check that was never delivered after 6 months and 20+ calls, suggesting possible financial unreliability.
• ATTEMPTED PRICE MANIPULATION: One review (2022-09-22) describes a pattern consistent with bait-and-switch pricing — quoting a price, then inflating it before no-showing multiple times.
• TECHNICIAN CONDUCT: One review (2019-10-22) describes a technician and helper becoming verbally aggressive and allegedly physically threatening toward a customer. This is a serious professionalism and safety concern.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW: The review dated 2017-11-15 ('We will see in the future') is a 5-star review with no usable content. It was excluded from scoring as it provides no evidence of any dimension.
• LOWE'S CONTRACTOR CONTEXT: A large proportion of reviews involve Rite Rooter as a Lowe's-contracted installer. Several negative reviews suggest the company may selectively perform or deprioritize Lowe's-referred jobs, which could skew the overall picture for direct-hire customers.

This WW Score is based on 40 reviews spanning nearly two decades, with the most recent 12 months (2024) containing 4 reviews that are broadly consistent with the longer-term pattern of mixed performance; the score carries HIGH data confidence due to mention volume, but the presence of serious misconduct allegations, a no-show pattern, and a potential fraudulent billing claim mean the score should be treated as a warning signal — this contractor carries meaningful risk of non-completion and poor accountability.

Charles/SOS demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with most recent positive reviews praising responsiveness and quality workmanship. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by serious issues including poor communication (delayed callbacks, no estimates provided), warranty/follow-up failures, and a suspended contractor license. Pricing is a major concern, with multiple complaints about overcharging, lack of transparency, and refusal to honor warranty obligations. The business shows a stark quality divide: older reviews (2009-2015) are predominantly positive, while more recent negative reviews (2014-2017) reveal systemic problems with accountability and customer service that appear unresolved.

• CRITICAL: Contractor license suspension documented in 2014 review for 'failure to comply with outstanding liability' — license #959418 flagged at California State Licensing Board
• SERIOUS: Multiple warranty/follow-up failures — customer charged again for faulty electrical outlet installed by Charles; another customer had to pay $300 for third party to fix faulty AC wiring Charles performed
• SERIOUS: Pricing transparency issues — customer charged $550 for 2 hours of handyman work without estimate; another customer overcharged at $150/hour for simple tasks
• SERIOUS: Communication breakdown — customer waited 2+ weeks for estimate after initial visit; another waited days for callback, then week for technician, then 2 weeks for estimate
• PATTERN: Negative reviews cluster in 2014-2017 period; positive reviews predominantly from 2009-2015, suggesting deterioration in service quality over time
• CONCERN: One customer reported Charles argued with them in parking lot after dispute; another described interaction as dealing with 'a damn tweaker'
• NOTE: One 2017 review explicitly recommends competitor 'Andy-the-Handyman' as superior alternative

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While technical skill appears genuine (HIGH confidence on experience), the business has documented legal/licensing issues, unresolved warranty failures, and systematic pricing/communication problems that create substantial risk. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects a contractor with real expertise but serious professional and ethical deficiencies that make reliability questionable despite positive older reviews.

Javier demonstrates strong technical skill and reasonable pricing, but is severely hampered by critical reliability and professionalism failures. Multiple reviews explicitly document no-shows, failure to communicate, and broken promises regarding scheduling and follow-through. While positive reviews praise his friendliness, knowledge, and fair rates, the negative reviews reveal a pattern of unreliability that directly contradicts claims of dependability. One review documents a catastrophic project failure ($5,000+ in damages) with complete refusal to respond or honor guarantees. The inconsistency between his friendly demeanor and his actual follow-through is a major concern.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (3 separate instances) document no-shows, failure to respond, and broken promises regarding scheduling. This is a pattern, not isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: One review documents a major project failure (roof leak repair) resulting in $5,000+ in damages with contractor refusing to respond to 10+ callback attempts. This suggests either severe incompetence or deliberate avoidance of responsibility.
• PATTERN ALERT: Positive reviews cluster heavily in July-August 2022 with similar enthusiastic language ('highly recommended', 'definitely call him', 'you'll thank me'). While not definitively fake, the concentration and tone warrant caution.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2020-2022. Only 1 review from 2022 is recent; majority are 2+ years old. Current reliability status is unclear.
• CONTRADICTION: Contractor is simultaneously described as 'reliable' and 'professional' in positive reviews, yet multiple negative reviews document the opposite. This suggests either highly variable service quality or selective customer experience.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization in reviews and documented pattern of no-shows and project failures; the WW Score reflects the data but masks significant reliability red flags that should weigh heavily in hiring decisions.

My Legacy Plumbing presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Positive reviews — many of which are older (2015–2017) — describe responsive, friendly, fairly priced service with competent workmanship, while a significant cluster of negative reviews (2016–2023) document serious failures including a near-fatal gas leak caused by incorrect installation, pipes soldered backwards on a water heater, abandoned jobs, no-shows, unreturned calls, failed city inspections, and wildly inflated pricing. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple documented instances of no-shows, late arrivals, broken promises, and condescending phone interactions. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviews describing incomplete work, unresolved callbacks, and jobs left in worse condition than found. Pricing is inconsistent — some customers praised fair or even discounted billing, while others reported charges two to three times competitor quotes for substandard or harmful work. Experience scores reflect genuine skill demonstrated in some jobs but are severely undermined by the gas connection error, the reversed hot/cold pipe installation, and a second plumber's assessment that the technicians appeared unqualified.

• SERIOUS SAFETY INCIDENT: One reviewer (Jan 2022) documented a gas leak caused by incorrect installation of a water heater connection — PG&E confirmed the error on video. The reviewer noted the house nearly exploded. This is a critical safety red flag.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: One reviewer (Feb 2022) documented that hot and cold water pipes were soldered together incorrectly after a water heater installation, rendering the unit non-functional and requiring a second plumber to repair.
• LICENSE/IDENTITY FRAUD CONCERN: One reviewer (Sep 2023) states that the person operating under the My Legacy name ('Brandon') had stolen or misrepresented the contractor's license. The true owner reportedly came to the customer's home to explain and assist with city remediation. This raises serious concerns about who is actually performing work under this business name.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONED WORK AND UNRESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews (2015, 2016, 2019, 2020) describe jobs left incomplete, parts ordered but never delivered, calls and texts ignored, and customers left without functioning plumbing for weeks.
• FAILED CITY INSPECTION: One reviewer (Nov 2021) explicitly states the company failed a city inspection and never resolved the issue.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2020–2023) skew heavily negative. The majority of positive reviews are from 2015–2017, suggesting a significant decline in service quality over time. Recent-period reviews should be weighted more heavily, which further depresses the score.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR GENERIC REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews from 2015–2017 are very brief, lack specific detail, and use generic praise language ('awesome,' 'great guys,' 'highly recommend'). While not conclusively fake, they lack the specificity of credible reviews and should be treated with reduced confidence.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Quotes ranged from reasonable and even discounted to grossly inflated (e.g., $1,500 for a job competitors quoted at $300–$500; $4,200 for a water heater installation a competitor would have done for half the price). This suggests inconsistent or opportunistic pricing practices.

This WW Score is based on 43 reviews spanning 2015–2023 and carries HIGH data confidence by volume, but the score should be interpreted with serious caution given documented safety incidents, identity/license fraud concerns, a clear negative trend in recent reviews, and multiple credible accounts of abandoned work and harmful workmanship — this contractor presents meaningful risk to prospective customers.