Find Nearby Plumbers In West Sacramento, California

This review set is deeply bifurcated between two distinct entities: 'Mike's Plumbing and Rooter' (reviews from approximately 2024–2025) and 'MSE Plumbing' (reviews from approximately 2012–2021), both appearing to be captured under the same listing. The Mike's Plumbing reviews are overwhelmingly positive, praising punctuality, fair pricing, strong communication, and complete job resolution. In stark contrast, the MSE Plumbing reviews are overwhelmingly negative, documenting repeated failures in professionalism (rude staff, no-shows, hung-up calls), project completion (abandoned jobs, unresolved issues over weeks or months), pricing transparency (hidden charges, alleged fraud against home warranty companies), and technical competence (misdiagnoses, gas leaks caused by improper installation, worsened problems). The blended score of approximately 52 reflects this severe split and should not be interpreted as representative of either business individually. The MSE reviews, which constitute the majority of the dataset by volume, drag all dimensions significantly downward.

• CRITICAL DATA INTEGRITY ISSUE: This review set appears to contain reviews for at least two entirely different businesses — 'Mike's Plumbing and Rooter' (2024–2025 reviews) and 'MSE Plumbing' (2012–2021 reviews). These are almost certainly not the same company. Scores are severely distorted by this mixing.
• The 2024–2025 'Mike' reviews (approximately 32 reviews) are uniformly 5-star with no negative feedback whatsoever. While many contain specific details, the complete absence of any criticism across 32 consecutive reviews raises a mild fake review flag for that subset.
• Two reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates: the 1-star MSE warning review dated 2021-07-01 and 2021-06-29 share virtually identical text, suggesting a duplicate submission or coordinated posting.
• Two additional near-duplicate reviews appear: the 1-star review dated 2019-04-09 appears twice with identical text and timestamps seconds apart.
• Two more near-duplicate reviews appear: the 1-star review dated 2018-07-10 appears twice with identical text.
• Two more near-duplicate reviews appear: the 1-star review dated 2019-06-28 and 2019-12-13 share nearly identical text about 'Mason' and Roman tub repairs.
• Two more near-duplicate reviews appear: the 2014-04-26 and 2013-09-10 1-star reviews share nearly identical text about a no-show appointment.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are exclusively positive and relate to 'Mike's Plumbing.' The bulk of negative reviews are from 2012–2021 and relate to 'MSE Plumbing.' If this listing is now solely 'Mike's Plumbing,' the historical MSE reviews are not relevant to current service quality.
• MSE Plumbing reviews document multiple serious safety incidents including gas leaks caused by improper installation, alleged billing fraud against home warranty companies, and a technician reportedly telling a cancer patient she 'deserved to get cancer.' These are severe red flags for that entity.
• RECOMMENDATION: This WW Score should not be used for decision-making without first confirming whether the business being evaluated is 'Mike's Plumbing and Rooter' or 'MSE Plumbing.' If evaluating Mike's Plumbing only (2024–2025 reviews), the score would be substantially higher (estimated 88–92). If evaluating MSE Plumbing only, the score would be substantially lower (estimated 18–25).

This WW Score has LOW practical reliability as a single number because it aggregates reviews from what appear to be two entirely different businesses operating under the same listing; consumers should treat the 2024–2025 'Mike's Plumbing' reviews and the 2012–2021 'MSE Plumbing' reviews as completely separate datasets before drawing any conclusions.

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by multiple explicit accounts of rude, dismissive, and hostile behavior from the owner — including hanging up on customers, berating a caller, and ignoring callbacks. Positive professionalism mentions exist but are outnumbered and largely come from very old reviews. Pricing drew mixed signals: one reviewer found pricing reasonable while another objected strongly to the non-refundable diagnostic fee structure and inability to supply their own parts. Project completion and experience scores are modestly positive, with a few reviewers noting successful repairs and technical competence with older plumbing systems, but the sample is small and skewed old.

• Two reviews dated 2006-04-27 and 2006-05-03 are written entirely in ALL CAPS with generic, non-specific praise and no job details — these show possible fake review patterns and have been weighted with caution.
• Six of eight reviews are more than 10 years old (pre-2014), and the most recent review is from 2019. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current business practices.
• The owner is personally named in multiple negative reviews for direct rudeness and hostility, which is a strong and specific negative signal for professionalism.
• Review volume is very low (8 total), which limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust due to a very small review pool, heavily outdated data (most reviews are 5–17 years old), and two potentially fake generic positive reviews that inflate the positive signal.

Totally Tankless demonstrates significant and consistent problems across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by unresponsiveness, lack of follow-through on callbacks, threatening behavior toward customers, and failure to adhere to stated safety protocols. Pricing is a major complaint, with customers reporting excessive charges, hidden fees, and quotes that appear inflated relative to actual work performed. Project completion suffers from incomplete work, failure to honor warranties, and instances of deceptive practices (installing used equipment as new, forgetting to restart units). While some reviews praise technical knowledge and quality workmanship from individual technicians (Vadim, Val, Dave Eader, Josh), these positive experiences are outweighed by systemic failures in business operations, management, and customer accountability. The company's closure (mentioned in one review) aligns with the pattern of poor business practices evident throughout the review set.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2023, 2024) describe threatening behavior, non-responsiveness, and warranty violations suggesting systemic management failures
• PRICING FRAUD INDICATORS: Customer reports being charged $420 for 1-hour repair after declining $6,100 bid; another charged $168 diagnostic fee with questionable diagnosis (code 12 that didn't exist); neutralizer replacement quoted at $548 for a $74 part
• DECEPTIVE PRACTICES: One review explicitly states a 'new' water heater was actually 10 years old; another reports technician forgot to restart unit after service
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between individual technician performance (highly praised: Vadim, Val, Richard, Dave Eader, Josh) and company-level management (Robert Hashagan, James, Bob as manager all criticized for overcharging and poor oversight)
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are recent (2024, 2023, 2022); company appears to have closed; older positive reviews (2018-2019) may not reflect current/final operations
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: The 2019 review praising 'Bob' for 11 years of great work and referring 6 people lacks specifics and contrasts sharply with detailed complaints about Bob's management in other reviews; however, insufficient evidence to definitively flag as fake

This WW Score should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. The score is based on 10 substantive reviews with explicit, detailed complaints across all dimensions. However, the company's apparent closure and the stark quality gap between individual technician performance and management practices suggest the score reflects a business in decline with serious operational and ethical problems rather than a stable contractor. Recent reviews (2023-2024) are particularly damning and should be weighted heavily.

The review set is small (4 reviews) and spans 2019–2024, with only one review from the past 12 months. Professionalism receives mixed signals: punctuality and politeness are noted positively in some reviews, but a 2-hour late arrival and failure to protect the work area drag the score down significantly. Pricing is a notable concern, with one reviewer experiencing a quote that more than doubled on arrival and another paying more than expected, though one reviewer noted a competitive price. Project completion is a serious weakness — two reviews explicitly describe unfinished or defective work, ongoing leaks, and mold that was not removed, with only one or two reviews describing a fully satisfactory outcome. Workmanship quality is the most consistently negative theme, with multiple reviewers describing sloppy, low-quality results, which heavily suppresses the experience score.

• Very small sample size of only 4 reviews — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• Reviews span 5 years (2019–2024); only 1 review is within the past 12 months. Older reviews may not reflect current quality.
• Two reviews (2020 and 2022) describe significantly different contractors by name (Naibin vs. Edward/Edman), raising the possibility that multiple individuals operate under this listing, which could distort scoring.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied ratings, and distinct writing styles, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to the very small review sample (4 reviews), wide date range, and possible multi-operator ambiguity; it should not be used as a definitive assessment of this contractor's current quality.

This contractor's review record is deeply mixed and skewed negative. Two of four reviews describe serious failures: one details a water heater installation that was not up to code, missing required components, and was followed by complete abandonment of the customer with no returned calls; another describes chronic non-responsiveness and failure to confirm or honor a scheduled appointment. Against this, one review praises efficient and professional service, and one highlights reasonable pricing, clear communication, and good technical explanation. The positives are outweighed by the severity and specificity of the negative accounts, particularly the code violation and ghosting behavior documented in the 2020 review.

• Very small sample size of only 4 reviews — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not representative of consistent performance.
• The two positive reviews (2016 and 2018) are significantly older than the two negative reviews (2016 and 2020). The most recent review (August 2020) is the most damaging and may reflect a decline in service quality over time.
• The 2020 review documents a potentially serious safety and legal issue: a water heater installation that was not inspected, not signed off by a county official, missing an expansion tank, and using outdated components. This is a workmanship red flag beyond a simple complaint.
• The contractor was reportedly removed from American Home Shield's approved contractor list due to workers compensation issues, as noted in the 2016 review — this is an independent third-party flag worth noting.
• No reviews are from the past 12 months relative to the most recent review date provided (August 2020), meaning all data may be outdated.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 2016–2020 and should be considered LOW reliability — the small sample, wide date range, and serious documented issues make it insufficient to draw confident conclusions about current contractor quality.

J & J Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 28.4, driven by severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is particularly weak (18.0), with six reviews documenting rudeness, unresponsiveness, hanging up on customers, and failure to follow through on promised callbacks. Project completion is equally problematic (25.0), with seven reviews citing incomplete work, poor cleanup, defective installations requiring customer fixes, and work that failed within days or weeks. While two reviews mention competitive pricing, this cannot offset the overwhelming pattern of poor workmanship and customer service failures. The few positive reviews (2 of 7) appear isolated and do not reflect the dominant pattern of dissatisfaction.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF COMPLAINTS: 5 of 7 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed complaints about the same contractor (Ed). This is not random dissatisfaction but a consistent pattern of poor service.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: Multiple independent reviews describe Ed as 'rude,' 'rudest person I've ever done business with,' and document him hanging up on a customer and failing to return calls. This is a critical character issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: Multiple reviews document defective installations (leaking pipes, improper slope, non-code connectors, incomplete gluing, misaligned fixtures) that required customers to hire other plumbers or fix the work themselves. One customer paid $600 to correct J&J's work.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Two separate reviews document promised callbacks that never materialized (one customer waited 2 months with no contact; another waited days for an unannounced visit).
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most reviews are 6-12 years old (2011-2017), with only one recent review from 2019. However, the pattern is consistent across the entire time period, suggesting systemic issues rather than temporary problems.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS APPEAR GENERIC: The two 5-star reviews (2017, 2016) contain some specific details but are notably brief compared to the detailed complaints in negative reviews. One positive reviewer explicitly states 'I don't understand the poor reviews,' suggesting awareness of the negative pattern.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on seven reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific complaints across all dimensions, particularly professionalism and project completion. The pattern of failure is documented across multiple independent customers over a 6-year period, indicating systemic problems rather than isolated incidents.