Find Nearby Plumbers In Carson City, Nevada

Norris Plumbing and Heating presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. A loyal subset of customers — many long-term or repeat clients — praise Matt and the team for technical skill, fair pricing, and prompt response in emergencies. However, a significant and recurring pattern of serious complaints undermines confidence across all dimensions: multiple reviewers describe no-call no-shows, being ghosted for months after work was promised, rude dismissals of small jobs, and failure to service equipment they installed. Project completion is particularly damaged by two independent accounts of a $28,000 HVAC installation that was incorrectly wired and then abandoned for five months, as well as a renovation job that ran weeks over schedule and left contracted work incomplete. Pricing transparency is also a concern, with multiple reviewers citing no upfront estimates, no itemized invoices, and inflated labor rates discovered only after the fact. The experience dimension scores highest due to consistent praise for Matt's diagnostic and repair skills, but even this is tempered by documented installation errors.

• Two reviews dated 2016-12-18 with nearly identical content and timestamps (11:05 and 11:11) describing the same phone interaction about a small kitchen job — possible duplicate submission by the same reviewer, or coordinated posting. Treated as a single incident for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews dated 2015-12 describing the same $28,000 HVAC installation failure in near-identical detail — likely the same customer posting on two platforms or twice. Treated as one incident for scoring purposes.
• Three reviews contain only 'unknown' as text with no usable content — excluded from dimension scoring.
• Two reviews contain no text at all (blank body) — excluded from all scoring.
• A notable recency concern: the majority of positive reviews are from 2018 or earlier. The two most recent reviews from 2024–2025 are mixed (one strongly positive, one a no-call no-show complaint), and the 2023 review is a severe professionalism and project completion failure involving a family with a baby left without heat.
• The positive reviews, while spread across years, tend to use generic superlatives ('best,' 'incredible,' 'awesome') with limited operational specifics, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight relative to the detailed negative reviews.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence in its directional accuracy, but users should weight the more recent reviews (2023–2025) heavily, as they suggest a possible decline in reliability and responsiveness compared to the contractor's earlier performance.

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

Apollo Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2011–2022. While technical competence and workmanship are frequently praised (78/100), professionalism is severely compromised by repeated complaints about rude phone staff, owner Terry's confrontational communication style, and poor customer service interactions (52/100). Project completion is hampered by scheduling failures, missed appointments, and incomplete follow-through on callbacks (65/100). Pricing concerns emerge in multiple reviews citing high estimates, lack of transparency, and double-charging for service calls (58/100). The company appears to deliver quality work when engaged, but customer interactions and reliability are major pain points.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2022-12-27, 2020-07-14, 2017-03-02, 2018-01-05, 2011-12-28) document rude phone staff and owner Terry being dismissive, interrupting customers, and hanging up on callers. This is a systemic professionalism issue, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING FAILURES: Reviews from 2017 and 2016 document missed appointments, no-shows, and poor communication about appointment timing. This directly impacts project completion reliability.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviews (2017-11-09, 2011-12-28) cite high estimates without breakdown, double-charging for service calls, and lack of upfront pricing clarity.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2011–2020. However, the most recent review (2022-12-27) is highly negative and documents the same professionalism issues (owner Terry being abusive), suggesting problems persist.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK SPECIFICITY: Several 5-star reviews (2022-12-18, 2022-11-18) are very brief and generic ('wonderful,' 'really good experience') with minimal detail, though they are not identical enough to flag as fake.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR: Terry (owner) is mentioned by name in multiple negative reviews as rude, defensive, and non-responsive to complaints. This suggests leadership-level customer service issues.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the score is based on 18 reviews with adequate mention counts, the company exhibits a stark quality split: strong technical work undermined by severe and persistent professionalism and scheduling failures. The most recent negative review (Dec 2022) confirms these issues have not been resolved. Customers should expect competent work but prepare for difficult interactions and potential scheduling problems.

Lake Tahoe Plumbing & Heating exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile with significant systemic issues. While some customers report excellent emergency response and skilled technicians (Gabriel, Corey, Brian, Pete), the company is plagued by chronic professionalism failures including no-shows, poor communication, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and rude staff interactions. Pricing is consistently flagged as excessive and non-transparent, with customers reporting inflated labor charges, hidden fees, and billed hours that far exceed actual work time. Project completion suffers from incomplete repairs requiring multiple callbacks, warranty disputes, and follow-up work that should have been completed initially. The owner Steve is frequently cited as defensive, unresponsive to disputes, and unwilling to take accountability for poor workmanship.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS AND CANCELLATIONS: Multiple reviews (2023-11-14, 2021-06-04, 2020-06-24, 2019-11-07) document scheduled appointments with no call/no show, indicating systemic scheduling or dispatch failures.
• CHRONIC COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Extensive evidence of unreturned phone calls, unanswered voicemails, and lack of follow-up across multiple years (2023-07-23, 2023-03-26, 2023-03-07, 2023-03-05, 2020-12-16, 2020-06-24, 2019-09-22, 2019-06-25). This is not isolated but represents company culture.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CRISIS: Numerous complaints about inflated billing, hidden charges, charges without invoices, and refusal to provide itemized breakdowns (2023-03-26, 2023-03-05, 2022-12-30, 2020-08-20, 2016-08-30, 2010-09-05). Pattern suggests deliberate obfuscation.
• REPEATED INCOMPLETE REPAIRS: Multiple customers report same issue requiring 2-3 service calls (2021-03-31, 2020-12-16, 2014-02-26, 2012-02-18). Suggests either incompetence or deliberate strategy to generate repeat charges.
• OWNER ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: Steve (owner) repeatedly described as unresponsive, defensive, rude, unwilling to issue credits or take responsibility for errors (2023-07-23, 2020-12-16, 2021-03-31, 2014-06-24, 2014-02-26). Multiple customers report he refuses to respond to follow-up communications.
• STAFF RUDENESS AND UNPROFESSIONALISM: Multiple reports of rude phone staff (2016-01-02, 2017-05-18), technicians with poor attitudes (2019-06-25), and unprofessional behavior (2014-02-26 - swearing extensively).
• QUALITY OF WORKMANSHIP CONCERNS: Long-term failures documented including poor welds causing pipe bursts (2015-12-18), incorrect installations (2013-12-13), and work that other contractors identified as fundamentally flawed (2012-02-18, 2016-01-18).
• CREDIT CARD ABUSE PATTERN: Multiple customers report being charged without authorization or invoice, with charges appearing days/weeks after service (2022-12-30, 2023-03-05, 2020-08-20). Suggests potential payment processing violations.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While older reviews (2009-2015) show similar patterns, more recent reviews (2023-2024) indicate problems persist, suggesting no systemic improvement over 15 years.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK SPECIFICITY: Several 5-star reviews are generic (e.g., 2016-06-09: 'They always take good care of our plumbing needs!' with no detail). However, negative reviews are highly detailed and specific, reducing concern about fake positive reviews but increasing concern about genuine negative pattern.

This WW Score of 52.3 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 35+ mentions each) and reflects a company with severe, systemic, and well-documented failures in professionalism, pricing transparency, and project completion, offset only partially by occasional instances of skilled emergency response and technical competence. The consistency of complaints across 15 years of reviews, combined with specific documentation of failures, suggests this score accurately represents a business with fundamental operational and cultural problems.

All Plumbing & Heating shows a deeply split performance profile across its reviews. Professionalism and project completion scores are severely dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, unreturned calls, and abandoned jobs — with at least 7 reviews explicitly describing these failures. When technicians like Tracy and Cory do show up, the workmanship and pricing are generally praised as fair and skilled, which is reflected in the moderate-to-good experience and pricing scores. However, the failure to complete permitted work (gas line inspection failure) and collecting payment before job sign-off represent serious reliability concerns. The business appears inconsistent, with some customers receiving excellent service while others are left without resolution for weeks or months.

• Multiple reviews (at least 6) describe no-shows after confirmed appointments — this is a systemic reliability issue, not isolated incidents.
• At least 2 reviews describe Cory collecting payment and then abandoning the job or ignoring follow-up contact — a significant consumer protection concern.
• One review explicitly references other negative reviews by name (Michael Z, Jim S), suggesting a known pattern of poor service that predates the analyzed review set.
• Positive reviews are mostly from 2018 and cluster around specific technicians (Tracy, Cory on good days); negative reviews span 2018–2022, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Fantastic and reliable service'), which slightly reduces confidence in their authenticity, though most include enough specific detail to be considered credible.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2021–2022) are both negative (1-star), suggesting the business has not improved and may have worsened. Positive reviews are predominantly from 2018.

This WW Score is based on 20 reviews with strong dimension coverage and is considered moderately reliable, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the stark performance inconsistency, recency of negative reviews, and documented pattern of job abandonment and no-shows.

Clark Plumbing & Heating exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically undermined by widespread reports of rudeness, unresponsiveness, hang-ups on customers, and poor communication from both office staff and technicians. Pricing concerns are pervasive, with customers reporting excessive charges, unauthorized credit card charges, inflated estimates, and surprise fees not disclosed upfront. Project completion is compromised by incomplete work, callbacks that are not honored, jobs taking weeks longer than quoted, and follow-up issues left unresolved. While some technicians demonstrate competent workmanship, this is overshadowed by numerous reports of misdiagnosis, poor quality installations, and work that required correction by other contractors. The company's business practices—including threats of liens, refusal to discuss complaints with owners, and ignoring customer concerns—suggest systemic operational problems.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2024, 2023) explicitly state the South Lake Tahoe location is CLOSED. Current reviews may not reflect active service.
• PATTERN OF RUDENESS: At least 15 reviews explicitly mention rude, dismissive, or hostile behavior from office staff, managers, and technicians. This is a dominant complaint theme.
• UNAUTHORIZED CHARGES: At least 8 reviews report charges made without explicit authorization or disclosure, including credit card charges before work completion and undisclosed 'convenience fees.'
• CALLBACK FAILURES: At least 12 reviews report failure to return calls, no-shows, or broken promises to follow up on problems.
• INCOMPLETE/FAILED WORK: At least 14 reviews describe work that was incomplete, required correction by other contractors, or created new problems (leaks, flooding, carbon monoxide hazards).
• EXCESSIVE PRICING: At least 18 reviews cite prices significantly higher than competitors (often 2-3x higher) or describe pricing as 'scam' or 'greedy.'
• OWNER NON-RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews report owner refusing to take calls, hanging up on customers, or failing to follow up despite promises to do so.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2017-2020 period. Recent reviews (2024, 2023) indicate closure. Limited recent data on current operations.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Positive reviews (primarily 2012-2013 and scattered earlier dates) contrast sharply with negative reviews, suggesting either significant operational decline or highly variable technician performance.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable given the large sample size (77 usable reviews) and consistent patterns across all dimensions, but is significantly complicated by evidence that the South Lake Tahoe location may currently be closed as of 2024, making the score potentially reflective of a defunct operation rather than current service quality.