Find Nearby Plumbers In Yuba City, California

PACE Supply receives deeply polarized feedback across a large review base spanning over a decade. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by a high volume of explicit complaints about rude phone interactions, hang-ups, dismissive counter staff, and a consistent pattern of refusing or discouraging service to homeowners and non-contractors. Pricing is a notable weakness, with multiple reviewers citing prices far above online or big-box alternatives, a controversial 25% restocking fee, and at least one report of an unexplained $150 admin fee. Project completion scores moderately, with some positive experiences of next-day delivery and follow-through, but offset by credible accounts of wrong orders, machined pipe defects causing major delays, unfulfilled warranty promises, and a billing error after a cancelled order. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, as many reviews — particularly from contractors and professionals — praise staff knowledge, ability to source obscure parts, and technical guidance, though this is tempered by accounts of staff with poor product knowledge at some locations.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: Reviews dated 2023-05-09 through 2023-05-15 (approximately 7 reviews posted within 6 days) share nearly identical structure, vocabulary, and themes — including repeated references to 'well-stocked warehouse,' 'hydronic materials,' 'boilers,' 'solar thermal,' 'radiant,' 'pumps,' 'Takagi,' 'PEX,' 'fan coils,' 'reception,' and 'Carlos the manager.' These reviews read as templated marketing content rather than genuine customer experiences. Confidence in positive scores has been reduced accordingly.
• MULTI-LOCATION AMBIGUITY: This review set aggregates feedback from multiple PACE Supply branches across the Bay Area (Oakland, San Francisco, San Rafael, Santa Rosa, Santa Clara, San Jose, South Sacramento, etc.). Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not a single location. Individual branch quality varies significantly per reviewer testimony.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2024. Approximately 40% of reviews are older than 3 years. The most recent reviews (2024) continue to show mixed professionalism signals, suggesting the pattern of inconsistent service has persisted over time.
• HOMEOWNER VS. CONTRACTOR BIAS: A statistically significant number of negative reviews explicitly cite differential treatment based on customer type (homeowner vs. licensed contractor). This is a structural service policy issue, not isolated incidents, and materially impacts professionalism and pricing scores.
• REVIEW dated 2024-07-23 ('Funny without stuling your oroder, food water, bathroom always clean. Thanks again Tracy BYRD 20') appears to be a misplaced review for a food establishment, not a plumbing supply store. It was excluded from scoring.
• REVIEW dated 2024-04-26 ('great tools and nice water containers, I really enjoy the color and the rebranding on the stanley originated containers') appears to reference Stanley-brand drinkware and is likely a misplaced review. It was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review volume (105 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted cautiously due to a suspected cluster of fake positive reviews in May 2023, significant multi-location aggregation, and a well-documented structural policy of differential treatment toward homeowners versus contractors that skews negative sentiment disproportionately for non-trade customers.

The most detailed and recent usable review (2019) paints a serious picture of repeated failure to respond, return calls, or show up as promised — a significant drag on both professionalism and project completion scores. Two older positive reviews (2013) mention punctuality, professionalism, and excellent workmanship, which provide some upward pressure on experience and professionalism scores. However, the 2019 reviewer explicitly notes a pattern of no-shows across two separate incidents, suggesting this may not be an isolated event. Pricing received a modest score based on one mention of an accurate estimate, but confidence is low given only one data point. Overall, the score is pulled down substantially by the reliability failures documented in the most recent review.

• One review contained only 'unknown' as text and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• All positive reviews are from 2013 — over 10 years old. The most recent substantive review (2019) is itself over 5 years old. No reviews from the past 12 months exist in this dataset. Recency weighting strongly favors the negative 2019 review as the most current signal.
• The 2019 reviewer explicitly describes a repeated pattern of non-response and no-shows across two separate service requests, suggesting a systemic reliability issue rather than a one-off bad experience.
• Total usable review count is only 3, which is at the minimum threshold for score calculation. Results should be treated with significant caution.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to only 3 usable reviews, all dated between 2013 and 2019 with no recent data, and a meaningful conflict between older positive reviews and the most recent negative review documenting repeated no-shows.

The overwhelming majority of reviews across both Budget Rooter and Carter Plumbing (which appear to be related or the same entity operating under different names in different periods) describe catastrophic failures in professionalism, including rude office staff, no-shows, broken appointments, unanswered phones, and in at least one case a technician verbally assaulting a customer. Project completion is the lowest-performing dimension, with dozens of reviews describing abandoned work orders, jobs left unfinished for weeks or months, and outright refusal to return after initial visits. Pricing drew consistent complaints about significant overcharging, hidden fees, and billing for work never performed — including at least two allegations of insurance fraud. A small number of individual technicians (Carlos, Andy, John M., Les, Derek, Steve, Randy in isolated cases) received genuine praise for skill and courtesy, which is the only reason experience and professionalism scores are not at zero. The volume and consistency of negative reviews spanning over a decade across multiple review periods leaves no reasonable doubt about the systemic nature of these failures.

• SUSPECTED MIXED ENTITY: Reviews appear to cover two related companies — 'Budget Rooter' (more recent, 2022–2025) and 'Carter Plumbing' (older, 2008–2020) — which may be the same ownership operating under different names or a successor entity. Several reviewers and at least one review explicitly suggest Carter Plumbing operates under a different name with home warranty companies.
• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers allege the company billed home warranty companies (AHS, Fidelity, Old Republic) for work never performed. One reviewer states Budget Rooter claimed to have completed a repair they never made in order to collect insurance payment. Another reviewer states CarterPlumbing billed for a nonexistent service call.
• PATTERN OF INSURANCE GAMING: A recurring pattern across dozens of reviews suggests the company deliberately misdiagnoses problems as uncovered by warranty, abandons jobs after collecting service fees, and submits false completion reports to warranty companies.
• EXTREME VOLUME OF NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Of approximately 125 reviews analyzed, roughly 85–90 carry 1-star ratings with substantive complaints. This is not a statistical anomaly — it represents a systemic and sustained pattern of poor service.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews contain no review text (blank body, rating only). These blank 5-star reviews inflate the average rating without providing any verifiable information and are flagged as potentially inauthentic.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are present across the full date range from 2008 through June 2025, indicating no meaningful improvement over time. The most recent reviews (2025) continue to describe the same patterns of no-shows, rude staff, and incomplete work.
• BBB F-RATING: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods reference an F rating from the Better Business Bureau, corroborating the pattern seen in these reviews.
• PHYSICAL THREAT INCIDENT: One detailed 2014 review describes a technician using profane and threatening language toward a homeowner and throwing a check in her face. A police report was filed according to the reviewer. This is an extreme safety flag.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2012-11-28 appear to be exact duplicates (same text, same date, same rating) and were counted only once for scoring purposes.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on an exceptionally large volume of reviews (125 total) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered highly reliable — this contractor demonstrates a well-documented, decade-long pattern of unprofessionalism, incomplete work, deceptive billing practices, and poor workmanship that poses significant risk to any consumer.

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans a decade, making any conclusions highly unreliable. Two of the three reviews are recent (2024) and both are strongly negative — one describing a no-show and unanswered texts, and another describing a price that nearly doubled from the original quote with no transparent explanation. The sole positive review is from 2014 and carries significantly reduced weight due to its age. Professionalism and project completion scores are dragged down heavily by the two recent negative experiences, particularly the canceled and missed appointments. The pricing score reflects a clear pattern of hidden or unexpected charges in the only review that addressed cost.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable and directional only.
• The single positive review is from 2014 (over 10 years ago) and should be given minimal weight under recency rules.
• Both 2024 reviews are negative and describe serious issues: a no-show/communication failure and a price that nearly doubled from the original estimate.
• No reviews from 2015–2023 — a 9-year gap in review history is unusual and may indicate the contractor was inactive, changed platforms, or had reviews removed.
• The positive review uses specific details (written quote, bonded/insured, callback) which reduces fake review suspicion for that entry, but the overall pattern cannot be assessed with only 3 data points.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 10 years, with the two most recent reviews being strongly negative — this score should be considered directionally concerning but statistically unreliable, and no hiring decision should be made based on this data alone.

Both reviews speak positively about punctuality, professionalism, and timely completion of work, supporting moderate scores in professionalism and project completion. The second review provides the most substantive detail, describing a contractor who solved a problem a larger company could not, suggesting solid technical experience. Pricing is mentioned only in the second review, where the cost is described as 'reasonable' compared to a more expensive competitor quote, warranting a conservative but positive score. All dimensions are scored conservatively due to the very small sample size, and no dimension should be treated as reliably established with only 1–2 mentions each.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated 2016–2018, making them over 6 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability as these do not reflect current performance.
• Review 1 is somewhat generic in praise ('Best service ever', 'fast thorough work') with limited specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in that review's signal quality.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns definitively, but the lack of detail in Review 1 is noted.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both more than 6 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of current contractor performance.

Both reviews were assigned through a home warranty company, and both paint a deeply concerning picture of communication and responsiveness. The first reviewer praised the actual toilet installation as excellent but gave a 1-star rating due to over a week of unanswered calls and an unfulfilled promise to send an invoice. The second reviewer experienced a complete communication breakdown during an emergency leak, ultimately requiring the warranty company to assign a different contractor. Professionalism scores very low due to consistent failure to answer phones, return calls, or follow through on commitments. Project completion receives a partial score because one job was physically completed (toilet installation), while the second reviewer's emergency was never addressed at all by this contractor.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules (fewer than 3 reviews).
• Both reviews are from 2022, meaning all data is over 2 years old. Current performance may differ significantly.
• A pattern of phone unresponsiveness appears in both reviews independently, suggesting a systemic operational issue rather than an isolated incident.
• No pricing information was mentioned in either review — Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• Experience score is based on a single positive comment about toilet installation quality and should be treated with very low confidence.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 2 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of current contractor performance — seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.