Find Nearby Plumbers In Reno, Nevada

Ray and Sons Plumbing receives strong praise across the majority of reviews for responsiveness, fair and transparent pricing, and technical competence — with multiple reviewers specifically highlighting no hidden costs, quick turnaround, and honest assessments that saved customers money. However, two detailed 1-star reviews introduce meaningful concerns: one describes repeated workmanship errors requiring multiple return visits, a hole left in a ceiling, leaking drains after hookup, and a late technician with no communication; the other cites a messy workspace, an unlocked apartment, use of personal belongings, and a failure to return a phone call to resolve a billing dispute. These negative reviews are specific, credible, and drag down professionalism and project completion scores meaningfully. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (most from 2014–2019, with only one from 2020), which limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance. Overall, Ray and Sons shows a solid baseline of customer satisfaction but has documented service consistency issues that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• Two detailed 1-star reviews (2017-01-11 and 2017-04-07) describe specific workmanship failures, poor cleanup, lack of communication, and professionalism lapses — these are credible and have been weighted accordingly.
• The majority of reviews (16 of 18) are dated between 2014 and 2020, with only one review from the past 12 months relative to the most recent date (2020-07-14). Recency of performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Very professional, responsive, and affordable. Highly recommended.' with no specifics), which slightly reduces confidence in those individual reviews. However, enough reviews contain specific detail to avoid a full fake-review flag.
• No reviews are available from 2021 onward, meaning current service quality is unknown and this score should be treated as a historical snapshot.

This WW Score is based on 18 reviews spanning 2014–2020 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the absence of recent reviews and the presence of two credible, detailed negative reviews mean the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence historical indicator rather than a reliable reflection of current service quality.

Hawthorne Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, technical expertise, and project completion capabilities, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, knowledge, and courteous service. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous customers reporting charges substantially above market rates—often 2-3x competitor pricing for identical work. While the company excels at responsiveness and work quality, the persistent pricing complaints across all review periods substantially depress the overall score. The company's willingness to negotiate and refund overcharges in some cases suggests awareness of the issue, but the pattern remains systemic.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic overcharging documented across 98 reviews spanning 2012-2025. Examples include $600 for simple pipe repair (1 hour), $264 for $10 flapper replacement, $7,600 quote for $1,500 water heater, $422 for shower faucet leak (part cost $60). This is the dominant complaint.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 45 reviews contain only 5-star ratings with minimal or no text (empty or single-word reviews). While not conclusive, this pattern warrants caution. However, substantive negative reviews are detailed and credible, suggesting overall authenticity.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2023-2025 (approximately 60% of dataset). Pricing complaints are consistent across all time periods, indicating this is not a recent problem.
• SELECTIVE SERVICE REFUSALS: Multiple reviews document the company refusing warranty work or simple jobs, citing policy reasons, then customers finding competitors willing to do the same work.
• AGGRESSIVE SALES TACTICS: Several reviews describe high-pressure upselling, misrepresentation of part costs (e.g., R22 refrigerant pricing), and overwhelming customers with technical jargon to justify inflated quotes.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY CONTROL: While most technicians are praised individually, some reviews document poor workmanship (incorrect installations, incomplete jobs requiring return visits, damage caused during service).
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Owner/manager Angel Martinez is frequently cited as responsive to complaints and willing to refund overcharges, suggesting corporate awareness of pricing issues but inconsistent field-level enforcement.

This WW Score of 76.2 is reliable and HIGH confidence, supported by 385 usable reviews with consistent patterns across all dimensions. However, the score masks a critical trade-off: Hawthorne excels in professionalism and technical competence but systematically overcharges, making it a high-quality but expensive option. Customers should expect superior service delivery but should obtain multiple quotes and negotiate aggressively on pricing before committing.

Millennium Plumbing earns strong marks for responsiveness and professionalism from the majority of reviewers, with many praising punctuality, friendly technicians, and clear communication. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — including allegations of price gouging, defective work, rude office staff, and at least one serious claim of abandoned work and unlicensed operation — significantly temper the overall score. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing quotes that were two to three times higher than competitors, and one reviewer successfully completing a job themselves after declining an unnecessary upsell. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews noting incomplete work, recurring leaks after repairs, and one severe allegation of work that caused a gas leak and basement flooding. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in emergency availability and frontline technician quality, but with real and documented inconsistencies in pricing integrity, workmanship quality, and office-level customer service.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2022-11-23 are word-for-word identical (Rory Rickets faucet/hose bib review). One appears to be a duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2020-06-10 are nearly word-for-word identical (property manager complaint about non-repair and rude phone staff). One is dated 2019-09-23. Counted only once for scoring.
• 13 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of 10+ reviews dated 2022-01-28 and 2022-03-29 share suspiciously brief, generic phrasing ('very professional', 'highly recommend', 'great price') with no job specifics, no technician names, and no detail. These may be solicited or fabricated reviews and were weighted conservatively.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAGS: One review alleges the company is not MHIC licensed (as of 2017). Another alleges a dangerous gas leak caused by faulty water heater installation. A third alleges money taken from an elderly person with work never completed. These are severe claims that, if accurate, represent significant legal and safety risks.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are generally positive, but the review base spans 2013–2024. Older negative reviews (2013–2017) describe serious workmanship failures. The pattern of complaints about pricing and incomplete work recurs across multiple years, suggesting these are not isolated incidents.
• ONE REVIEW references 'High Quality Plumbing Company' as the actual company that did the work, suggesting a possible misattributed review or subcontracting arrangement that was not disclosed to the customer.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced by the presence of suspected solicited reviews, duplicate submissions, and a recurring pattern of serious complaints about pricing, workmanship, and customer service that spans multiple years.

RHP Mechanical has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, communication, and professional conduct, particularly from named representatives like Adam, Troy, and Cameron. However, meaningful negative reviews drag scores down across all dimensions: pricing complaints include a $1,300 thermostat charge alleged to be elder financial abuse, a $677 repair with no written estimate, and a $1,000+ service charge for a $52 part with multiple return visits. Project completion is undermined by reviews citing unresolved follow-up calls, a defective water softener unaddressed for four years, a cancelled appointment with no notification, and a furnace repair that failed days after service. Experience scores are tempered by multiple reviews where technicians could not diagnose problems, called others for help on-site, or left work incomplete. The volume of detailed, specific negative reviews prevents this company from scoring in the high range despite a majority of positive feedback.

• 5 reviews contain no text (blank body, only a star rating) and cannot contribute usable data to any dimension.
• Several reviews use near-identical phrasing and structure (e.g., two reviews dated 2021-01-17 are word-for-word duplicates; two reviews dated 2024-02-16 and 2024-02-21 describe the same water heater replacement event with nearly identical details and likely originate from the same household or person). These duplicate/near-duplicate reviews were counted only once per dimension to avoid score inflation.
• Multiple reviews from 2011-2014 are very old (10+ years) and may not reflect current service quality. Reviews from 2022-2025 were weighted more heavily per recency rules.
• The elder abuse pricing allegation (1-star, April 2025) is a serious and specific complaint involving a $1,300 thermostat charge to an 85-year-old. The company's response per the reviewer was to call and complain about the review rather than resolve the issue, which is a significant customer service red flag.
• A pattern of pricing complaints exists across multiple independent reviews spanning different years, suggesting pricing transparency and value consistency may be a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• Two separate reviews cite company drivers behaving aggressively in traffic (cutting lanes, flipping off other drivers). While not directly related to service quality, this reflects on company culture and professionalism.

This WW Score is based on 73 reviews with usable data spanning over a decade, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to mention volume; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible, specific negative reviews on pricing fairness and project follow-through that represent a meaningful minority of the total feedback.

Action Drain and Rooter Service demonstrates strong technical capability and responsive field technicians, with many reviewers praising named individuals like Loel, Corey, David, and Larry for their skill, friendliness, and efficiency. However, the company is significantly dragged down by a persistent and recurring pattern of poor office/receptionist communication, with multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly describing the front-desk staff as rude, condescending, and unhelpful. Project completion is further undermined by several serious complaints: one customer was charged $5,100 over the original bid with no written change order, another experienced two months of delays before abandoning the company, one customer had a drain re-clog within four days with no free callback honored, and one reviewer reported a broken snake left in their pipe. Pricing is mixed — many reviewers praise fair and reasonable costs, but the hidden mileage fee complaint and the large unauthorized cost overrun are meaningful negatives that prevent a higher score. The overall picture is a company with genuinely skilled field workers but inconsistent office professionalism and notable project management failures that create real risk for customers on larger jobs.

• RECURRING OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: At least 5 independent reviews across multiple years (2018, 2019, 2020, 2023) explicitly describe the receptionist or office staff as rude, condescending, argumentative, or unhelpful. This is a systemic pattern, not an isolated incident.
• SERIOUS PRICING TRANSPARENCY FAILURE: One detailed 1-star review (2023) describes a $5,100 cost overrun above a $12,000 bid, communicated only by text after work had begun, with no written change order provided — a potential CCB violation as noted by the reviewer.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite incomplete or ineffective work — one drain re-clogged within 4 days with no free callback honored (2018), one customer spent 2 months trying to get repairs completed (2024), and one reviewer had a broken snake left in their pipe (2014).
• HIDDEN FEES FLAG: One reviewer (2024) was charged an undisclosed $42 mileage fee on top of a $187 invoice for a 15-mile service call, with no prior disclosure.
• DISHONESTY ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2017) alleges the technician falsified the invoice to the landlord, claiming the clog was caused by the tenant's behavior when no evidence was found.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2019 and earlier. Of the 8 most recent reviews (2022–2024), 3 are 1-star and 1 is a mixed 5-star with a noted complaint about speed. This suggests a possible decline in service quality in recent years and warrants caution.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, specificity, named technicians, and sentiment. No coordinated fake review activity suspected.

This WW Score is based on 58 reviews spanning 14 years with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the mathematical score reliable; however, the recency trend toward more negative reviews and the severity of individual complaints — particularly around billing transparency and project completion on larger jobs — means prospective customers should treat this score as a moderate-confidence indicator and exercise extra caution when hiring Action Drain for complex or high-cost projects.

49er Plumbing earns strong marks for technical expertise and workmanship, with numerous reviewers specifically praising the skill and knowledge of technicians like Derek and Joel, as well as owner Jeff's deep familiarity with Navien tankless systems. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by a recurring pattern of complaints about Jeff's conduct on the phone — multiple independent reviewers describe him as rude, condescending, and quick to become hostile when customers raised concerns, which is a serious and consistent red flag. Project completion is the most problematic dimension: while many jobs were completed well, there are credible reports of a failed callback after a repair that continued to leak, a missed appointment that was never recovered, a rescheduled job that was never followed through on, and a water pressure job where the core problem was never resolved. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and reasonable, with a coupon noted and several reviewers explicitly calling costs competitive, though one reviewer experienced a final bill more than double the original quote with poor explanation. The gap between the quality of field technicians and the customer service experience at the ownership/office level is the defining tension in this review set.

• Two reviews posted on the same date (2019-08-07) with nearly identical phrasing ('Jeff and his team are the best', 'they always show up on time', 'highly recommend') and similar sentence structure — these are suspected coordinated or fake reviews and were weighted with reduced confidence.
• Multiple credible 1-star reviews describe Jeff (the owner) becoming verbally aggressive or rude when customers raised billing or service concerns — this is a consistent pattern across at least 4 independent reviews spanning 2018–2023 and represents a material business risk.
• One reviewer explicitly reports a repair that leaked a second and third time, with the company refusing to return without charge and ultimately dismissing the customer — this is a direct project completion failure.
• A confirmed missed appointment with no follow-up and dismissive office staff behavior is documented in a detailed 1-star review (2021-04-07), corroborating organizational reliability concerns.
• One reviewer (2019-10-02) reports a technician who was unfamiliar with a common water heater issue and provided technically inaccurate information — this introduces some doubt about consistency of technician skill levels.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Always responds in short period of time. Highly professional and excellent work') with no specific detail — these were scored conservatively.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2024-06-06), with only 2 reviews from the past 12 months. The score reflects the full dataset but recency confidence is limited.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (37) with broad dimensional coverage and is considered moderately reliable, but users should weigh the recurring owner-conduct complaints and project completion failures heavily, as these represent consistent patterns rather than isolated incidents.