Find Nearby Plumbers In Carson City, Nevada

Pell Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions, with Mike Pelletier consistently praised for responsiveness, technical knowledge, and going above and beyond — including free callbacks, weekend availability, and walking customers through DIY fixes at no charge. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable, with one reviewer noting he feels Mike undercharges. However, two negative reviews meaningfully drag down the scores: one documents a failed toilet repair where the root cause was not addressed, the customer was charged twice, and Pell did not respond to follow-up contact — a direct hit to both project completion and professionalism. A second reviewer reported zero callback responsiveness over five days. These incidents prevent top-tier scores and reflect real service inconsistency that prospective customers should weigh.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews (14 of 18) are from 2015–2021. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). The most recent negative review (January 2024) is also the most recent review overall, which is a meaningful signal about current service quality.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PROJECT COMPLETION: The January 2024 review explicitly states the plumber did not clear the pipes adequately, the problem recurred within weeks, and Pell did not respond to follow-up contact. This is a documented failure of both workmanship and customer service.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — RESPONSIVENESS: A September 2020 reviewer reported no callback after five days. Combined with the 2024 non-response complaint, there is a recurring pattern of communication failures that tempers the otherwise strong professionalism scores.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW. Reviews vary in length, specificity, and tone. Several include detailed job descriptions, named individuals, and specific dollar amounts. No significant fake review pattern detected.
• OLDER REVIEW WEIGHT: High-praise reviews from 2014–2016 carry reduced weight given the 8–10 year gap. Business quality and staffing may have changed.

This WW Score is based on 18 reviews spanning 10 years with reasonable detail and specificity; the score is moderately reliable but should be interpreted cautiously given that the two most recent reviews include a documented service failure and a non-response complaint, suggesting possible decline in current service consistency.

Tilley Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and friendly demeanor across 16 reviews. Project completion is solid with reliable follow-through and timely work noted in 12 reviews. Technical expertise is evident with 10 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, pricing is a significant concern: while most reviews cite fair pricing, one detailed 2013 review documents substantial overcharging (materials marked up 70%+, double-billing for replacement work), which substantially lowers the pricing dimension despite positive mentions in other reviews. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects strong operational execution tempered by documented pricing integrity issues.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: One detailed negative review (2013-06-14, 1-star) documents systematic overcharging—materials at 2x online prices, hot water dispenser charged twice ($459.63 and again on replacement, totaling $1,800 for installation). This contradicts the 'fair price' narrative in other reviews and suggests potential pricing opacity or inconsistent billing practices.
• REVIEW AGE DISTRIBUTION: 11 of 19 reviews are older than 5 years (2013-2017). Only 3 reviews are from 2023-2024. Older reviews may not reflect current pricing or service practices.
• POTENTIAL SURVIVORSHIP BIAS: 18 of 19 reviews are 5-star with minimal critical detail. The single 1-star review is exceptionally detailed and specific, while positive reviews are often generic praise. This pattern suggests dissatisfied customers may not review, or positive reviews lack depth.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review (2024-08-17) mentions increasing wait times annually, suggesting capacity or scheduling issues not reflected in older reviews.

This score should be trusted with caution: while professionalism and completion dimensions are well-supported by 12-16 mentions with HIGH confidence, the pricing dimension is compromised by one credible detailed complaint of systematic overcharging that contradicts lighter positive mentions, and the review base is heavily weighted toward pre-2018 data, limiting current relevance.

Lucas Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and responsiveness, with consistently high marks for professionalism, friendliness, and fair pricing across most reviews. However, project completion reliability is significantly undermined by multiple documented instances of no-shows, failure to follow up, and abandoned jobs—including at least 4 reviews explicitly describing disappearances, unresponsiveness, or broken commitments. While the majority of reviews are highly positive and recent (past 3 years), the pattern of completion failures is severe enough to lower the overall WW Score despite strong performance in other dimensions. The business excels at initial contact and emergency response but struggles with accountability and follow-through on multi-visit projects.

• PATTERN DETECTED: At least 4 reviews (2023-06-14, 2022-06-10, 2021-12-01, 2021-01-29) describe no-shows, failure to return calls, or abandonment of jobs after initial contact. This is a material reliability concern.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising responsiveness and 1-star reviews citing complete unresponsiveness and ghosting. This suggests inconsistent service delivery, possibly related to workload management.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2020-2024, with only 2 reviews from 2022 or earlier showing major problems. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement or seasonal variation.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Two reviews (2022-06-10, 2021-06-10) contain no text but carry 1-star and 5-star ratings respectively, reducing data quality slightly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW: Two nearly identical reviews dated 2024-10-12 and 2024-10-01 about water heater issue with identical phrasing ('Really friendly and trustworthy'). May indicate duplicate submission rather than fake review.

This WW Score of 81.2 should be treated with CAUTION: while professionalism and experience scores are robust and well-supported, the project completion score is significantly dragged down by a documented pattern of follow-up failures and no-shows that directly contradicts the majority positive sentiment. Prospective customers should be aware that Lucas Plumbing excels at emergency response and initial diagnosis but has a documented history of accountability issues on multi-visit projects. The score reflects this mixed reality rather than the overwhelmingly positive review count alone.

All Seasons Plumbing & Heating has a strong track record across professionalism, project completion, and technical experience, with numerous reviewers explicitly praising punctuality, courteous behavior, and thorough workmanship over many years. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable, though one reviewer raised a specific concern about hourly labor charges for helpers at $110/hour and advised getting a firm bid before authorizing work. Project completion scores well overall, with one notable negative outlier — a reviewer claiming the contractor never showed up and did not call — which meaningfully tempers the otherwise strong completion record. Responsiveness and availability emerged as a recurring concern, with at least three reviewers in 2023–2024 reporting they could not book new work, receiving voicemails or messages indicating the company was not accepting new customers, which impacts the professionalism score. The bulk of the most detailed and positive reviews are from 2013–2017, with fewer substantive reviews in recent years, which slightly reduces confidence in current performance.

• AVAILABILITY CONCERN: At least 3 reviews from 2023–2024 explicitly state the company is not accepting new customers or does not answer the phone. This is a meaningful operational flag for prospective customers.
• NO-SHOW ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2019) claims the contractor never showed up and did not call, which is a serious project completion concern. The reviewer also questioned whether positive reviews were fake.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The majority of detailed, substantive positive reviews are from 2014–2017. Recent reviews (2022–2024) are fewer and less detailed, making it harder to assess current performance with full confidence.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews had no text content (one rated 1.0, one rated 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• PRICING WARNING: One reviewer (2019, rated 5 stars despite the complaint) specifically warned about billing practices and advised customers to get a solid bid before authorizing service, citing $110/hour per helper as unfair.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN — LOW CONCERN: A small cluster of reviews dated exactly 2023-06-10 with no specific details were noted. While not conclusive, the identical dates and generic praise warrant mild caution. Overall review corpus does not appear systematically fabricated.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, but reliability is modestly reduced by the recency imbalance (most detailed reviews are 5–10 years old), at least one credible no-show complaint, and multiple recent reports of the business not accepting new customers.

Summit Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most service interactions, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality. However, the company shows significant variability in project completion reliability, with numerous reports of missed appointments, poor follow-up communication, and delayed estimates that substantially impact overall trustworthiness. Pricing feedback is mixed—while many customers praise fair and competitive rates, a notable segment reports unexpectedly high charges and lack of transparency in fee structures. The company excels when actively engaged but struggles with administrative consistency and accountability.

• CRITICAL: Appointment no-show pattern detected across multiple reviews spanning 2016-2025. At least 12 distinct reviews report missed appointments, failed callbacks, or scheduling failures with no communication. This is a systemic operational issue.
• CRITICAL: Follow-up communication failures documented repeatedly. Multiple customers report being unable to obtain promised estimates, callbacks, or status updates despite multiple contact attempts over weeks.
• Pricing transparency concerns: Several reviews (2024, 2022, 2011) report unexpectedly high charges, lack of itemization, and disputes over service fees. One customer paid ~$600 for <1 hour faucet installation; another charged $100+ for 10-15 minute furnace inspection.
• Quality control inconsistency: A few reviews report incomplete work, incorrect diagnoses, reversed water lines, and contamination (oil/gas in toilet tank). These suggest occasional lapses in technical execution or quality assurance.
• Home warranty company friction: Multiple reviews indicate problems when company is assigned via home warranty—billing disputes, authorization issues, and poor coordination with warranty providers.
• Recency note: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024, 2023) show continued appointment/communication issues, indicating problems persist despite company's long history.
• Positive review clustering: Approximately 60% of reviews are 5-star with generic praise; however, these are distributed across genuine specific details (names, job types, timelines), reducing fake review suspicion. The 1-2 star reviews are highly specific and credible, suggesting real operational failures rather than review manipulation.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be interpreted with caution: while the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism when actively engaged, the high frequency of appointment failures, communication breakdowns, and follow-up issues across a 9-year review span indicates serious operational reliability problems that directly contradict the positive dimension scores. Customers should expect quality work but should prepare for scheduling frustration and verify all commitments in writing.

This contractor has a large and long-running review history spanning over two decades, with the majority of reviews being strongly positive across professionalism, technical skill, and responsiveness. Many customers praise prompt arrival, clear communication, and knowledgeable technicians by name. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years and multiple employees — raises serious concerns: repeated allegations of overcharging, incomplete or abandoned work, warranty non-fulfillment, unprofessional and even abusive employee conduct (notably 'Wes'), and failure to respond to follow-up calls or emails. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing excessive charges, hidden fees, and unfair billing practices. Project completion also carries notable risk, with several reviews describing unfinished jobs, no-shows, and work that had to be redone by other companies.

• Multiple reviews (spanning 2007–2024) describe serious misconduct by employees, particularly 'Wes/Wesley', including verbal abuse of customers, showing up unannounced, and overcharging — these are not isolated incidents.
• Several reviews describe incomplete or abandoned work, including a 2022 review alleging the CEO threatened legal action after failing to complete a contracted job, and a 2024 review describing a walk-through with no follow-up quote or response.
• Pricing complaints are recurring and specific: hidden drive-time fees, charges for unresolved issues, markups on parts exceeding 200%, and estimates described as 'outrageous' by a pipe manufacturer.
• Warranty non-fulfillment is explicitly mentioned in at least two reviews, including a 2011 review about a water heater warranty and a 2023 review about faulty new construction work.
• A significant number of reviews (33+) contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews are not usable for dimension scoring and inflate the apparent review count without providing evidence.
• The review pool spans from 1999 to 2025 and appears to aggregate reviews from multiple business entities or locations (references to Vacaville CA, Evergreen CO, New Jersey, and other regions), suggesting this may be a merged or multi-location profile. Scores from different eras and locations may not reflect a single consistent operation.
• Several reviews from 2007 reference 'US Plumbing' and 'PRV' as the company name, not Adams Plumbing, suggesting data aggregation from multiple contractors — these were included in analysis but noted as potentially misattributed.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive and specific, which is encouraging, but the negative pattern from 2014–2024 is too substantial to discount.
• No clear fake review pattern detected, but the volume of generic 5-star reviews with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Excellent work') warrants mild caution.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the contractor's track record is genuinely mixed, with a strong positive majority offset by a persistent and credible pattern of serious complaints about pricing, incomplete work, and employee conduct that prospective customers should investigate before hiring.