Find Nearby Plumbers In Reno, Nevada

NDI Plumbing & Mechanical has a large volume of positive reviews praising professionalism, promptness, and technical competence, with many named technicians (Austin, Clint, Tony, Quinn, Scott, Damien, Butch, Niko) receiving specific commendations. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns: allegations of dishonest quoting and price inflation, a technician knowingly installing wrong parts and refusing to fix the resulting leak without additional billing, unfinished AC work charged at above-agreed prices, and poor communication including a no-show. Pricing confidence is dragged down by multiple credible complaints about false quotes and overcharging, preventing a higher score despite some positive pricing mentions. Project completion is similarly penalized by documented cases of incomplete or defective work and failure to honor implied warranties. The overall picture is a contractor with capable technicians but inconsistent quality control and some troubling integrity concerns at the management level.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'We had an issue arise in which we were unexpectedly getting hot water...' appears twice with nearly identical text, dated 2024-09-12 and 2024-08-28. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about workers refusing to wear masks appears twice with identical text, dated 2021-06-10 and 2020-11-22. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of 8 reviews all dated exactly 2019-06-11 with generic, brief praise and no specific details (e.g., 'Great work. Love doing business with neil', 'Awesome service super reliable. Trust this plumber'). These may be solicited or inauthentic reviews. Confidence in the positive signal from this cluster is reduced.
• INTEGRITY CONCERN: One detailed 2013 review describes a technician knowingly installing a wrong part, hoping to 'get lucky,' then refusing to fix the resulting leak without additional billing. This is a substantive workmanship and ethics complaint.
• INTEGRITY CONCERN: A 2024 review alleges the owner (Neil Demente) and manager (Richard Dial) provided false quotes and denied agreed-upon pricing. A separate 2023 review alleges being charged 30% over the agreed bid with unfinished AC work. These are serious pricing and honesty red flags.
• RECENCY NOTE: Several negative reviews are from 2013–2021 and may not reflect current operations. However, negative pricing and professionalism complaints persist into 2024–2025, suggesting these issues have not been fully resolved.
• 3 reviews had no text content (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a substantial review volume (52 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable, but the presence of credible integrity complaints, suspected solicited reviews from 2019, and duplicate reviews means consumers should treat the score as a moderate-confidence signal and read the negative reviews carefully before hiring.

Best Plumbing and Heating has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise responsiveness, punctuality, and willingness to go above and beyond — including same-day service, no-charge visits for minor fixes, and even pro bono work for veterans. However, the review set contains meaningful negative signals that cannot be ignored: multiple complaints about billing transparency and unauthorized charges, at least one instance of a no-show with no follow-up, a serious complaint about an installed heating system that failed and was deemed dangerous by National Grid, and a complaint about technicians being clueless about a heating issue and making it worse over six visits. Professionalism is dinged by the cigarette smoke complaint and the driving incident, though the majority of professionalism mentions are positive. Pricing scores are pulled down significantly by multiple credible complaints about undisclosed charges, invoices arriving days late, and final bills far exceeding quoted amounts. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are described as completed well and quickly, but there are notable failures including abandoned remodel commitments, unresolved callbacks, and a dangerous heating installation that was never remediated. Experience scores are moderate-positive overall, offset by the heating system failure and the multi-visit heater debacle where the customer ultimately fixed the toilet themselves with a $20 Amazon part.

• One review (Puleo Plumbing of Marblehead, MA) appears to reference a completely different company and geographic location — this review is likely misattributed or posted to the wrong business profile and should be treated as unusable data.
• The 1-star review from 2012 alleges a dangerous heating system installation that National Grid had to shut down due to explosion risk and that the company never responded to letters or calls — this is a serious safety and liability flag.
• Multiple credible billing complaints across different years (2015, 2017, 2022) describe final invoices significantly exceeding quoted prices, unauthorized parts being installed, and charges for time not actually worked — this is a recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• The 1-star review from January 2024 describes six service visits that made a heating problem worse, and technicians claiming a toilet was irreparable when a customer fixed it with a $20 Amazon part — suggests possible skill gaps in HVAC/heating work specifically.
• A no-show complaint (2017) describes Joe failing to return calls or show up as promised — responsiveness issues appear in more than one review across different years.
• Most positive reviews are from 2019 or earlier; only two positive reviews are from the past 24 months (2022), while three of the four most recent reviews (2022–2024) are 1-star. This recency trend is a meaningful warning sign of possible declining service quality.
• The July 2024 review ('I take back all the nice things I said') implies a previously positive reviewer reversed their opinion, suggesting a negative experience after prior satisfaction — though no specifics are given, the reversal itself is notable.
• No reviews appear to be fake; language is varied, specific, and includes named individuals and detailed scenarios. Review authenticity appears genuine across the set.

This WW Score is based on 38 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in terms of mention volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a clear negative recency trend, recurring billing transparency complaints, at least one serious safety allegation, and evidence of inconsistent workmanship — particularly in heating-related work.

Paschall Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, punctuality, and technician demeanor across a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade, with many customers praising specific technicians by name and noting prompt communication and courteous service. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern: multiple independent reviewers across different years describe flat-rate charges they found excessive, opaque billing with no itemized breakdowns, and instances where quoted prices were dramatically higher than market rates for parts and labor — this is the single largest drag on the WW Score. Project completion is generally positive, with most jobs described as finished correctly, though there are notable exceptions including a failed underground plumbing installation that came apart twice, a toilet leak that required four visits without resolution, and a furnace repair where the wrong part was installed. Experience scores are mixed: the majority of reviews praise technician skill and problem-solving, but a meaningful minority describe misdiagnoses, incorrect parts, and work that had to be redone by competitors. The combination of strong service delivery and deeply problematic pricing transparency produces a moderate overall score.

• 15 reviews contain no text whatsoever (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring — these blank reviews inflate the visible review count without providing usable data.
• Pricing complaints are numerous, consistent, and span from 2009 to 2021, suggesting a systemic flat-rate pricing model that customers repeatedly describe as non-transparent, excessive, and in some cases potentially deceptive. This is not an isolated complaint.
• Several reviews describe being charged $129 diagnostic fees with no work performed, and at least two reviews describe being quoted prices 3–10x the market cost of parts.
• One review (2021) describes being charged four separate service call fees ($525 total) for a water heater pilot light issue that was never fully resolved until a warranty part was ordered — raising questions about diagnostic competence and billing ethics.
• One review (2013) describes a furnace repair where the wrong part (designed for a mobile home) was installed, requiring a third-party technician to correct the issue at additional cost to the customer.
• One review (2012) describes a technician setting a wall on fire while welding and leaving without disclosing it — a serious safety concern.
• One review (2010) describes technicians draining sewage onto a customer's floor and the office responding dismissively when the customer complained.
• One review (2015) describes a technician arriving smelling of alcohol and marijuana on two separate occasions — a serious conduct concern.
• One review (2022) describes a deeply unprofessional interaction with office staff (Angie) when a customer called to discuss a deceased parent's outstanding bill, including threats of court action and hanging up on the customer.
• One review (2015) describes the owner/dispatcher becoming defensive and peeling out of a customer's driveway after the customer declined service — a professionalism concern at the ownership level.
• One review (2019) describes a billing dispute where the final invoice was significantly higher than the quoted estimate, and the technician allegedly took a piece of building material without permission.
• One review (2012) describes a court dispute where Paschall attempted to charge the customer for costs resulting from their own error (missing the sewer line and hitting a water main).
• Recency note: The majority of negative reviews regarding pricing, billing ethics, and workmanship quality are from 2009–2022. Reviews from 2023–2025 are predominantly positive and shorter in detail, which may reflect genuine improvement, a change in customer base, or review platform dynamics. Scores were weighted toward recent reviews but the volume of older negative reviews is too significant to discount entirely.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary substantially in length, detail, writing style, and sentiment, including named technicians and specific job descriptions. The review corpus appears authentic.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review corpus spanning over a decade and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, though prospective customers should weigh the persistent and well-documented pricing transparency concerns heavily, as they represent a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.

NHC Plumbing scores strongly across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — punctuality, friendliness, communication, and cleanup are mentioned across nearly every review. Project completion is also well-supported, with multiple reviewers confirming jobs were finished on time, correctly, and with follow-through. Experience is evidenced by reviewers noting accurate diagnosis, technical explanations, and successful resolution of problems that others had failed to fix. Pricing is mentioned positively in several reviews with references to fair bids, transparent options, and upfront cost communication, though it is the least frequently discussed dimension. The overall picture is of a reliable, skilled, and customer-focused plumbing operation.

• All 8 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind — this warrants mild caution, though most reviews contain specific details and named technicians (Tracy, Nick) which reduces fake review suspicion.
• 5 of 8 reviews are dated 2020, which means the majority of the review base is over 4 years old. Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (August 2024). Recency of data is limited and the score may not fully reflect current service quality.
• The single most recent review (2024) is notably brief and generic compared to older reviews, offering limited specific detail. It has been scored conservatively in context.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for the dimensions scored, but should be interpreted cautiously given that most reviews are 4+ years old and the small total review count of 8 limits statistical confidence.

John Greenside demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised communication, responsiveness, and availability—even on weekends and with short notice. His technical expertise and problem-solving ability are well-documented across multiple complex jobs (tankless water heaters, gas lines, emergency repairs). Pricing is reported as fair and competitive, though one reviewer noted frustration with cleanup costs. Project completion is generally solid, though one 2024 review flagged poor organization and site cleanup after gas line work, suggesting inconsistency in follow-through. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects strong fundamentals tempered by recency concerns and limited pricing data.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2013–2017). Only 2 recent reviews from 2024 and 2020. The 2024 review (2.0 stars) contradicts the overwhelmingly positive older pattern, suggesting possible service quality decline or inconsistency.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2015–2017 use suspiciously similar phrasing ('John is the BEST', 'I can count on him', 'honesty and integrity unsurpassed', 'will always be at top of my list'). Generic praise without specific technical details. All 5-star ratings in this cluster warrant caution.
• INCONSISTENCY FLAG: The 2024 review (2.0 stars) directly contradicts the narrative of the older reviews. Reviewer complained about poor organization, lack of cleanup, and leaving debris at the job site—a professionalism failure not mentioned in any other review. This suggests either service degradation or that earlier reviews may not reflect current performance.
• INCOMPLETE DATA: No reviews mention warranty, guarantees, or long-term follow-up quality. Limited detail on pricing transparency or quote accuracy.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by multiple mentions, the heavy weighting of reviews older than 5 years, combined with a recent negative review contradicting the pattern and suspected fake review clustering, significantly undermines confidence in the overall reliability of this assessment. Current performance may differ materially from the historical average.

Gates Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous demeanor across multiple reviews. Pricing is noted as fair and transparent, with customers appreciating the advance quote process. Project completion shows solid execution with installations completed as promised, though one negative review from 2015 suggests potential service follow-up issues. Technical skill and workmanship quality are evident in completed installations, though the evidence base is moderate. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects reliable, professional service with some concerns about post-installation support.

• Three reviews contain minimal or no substantive content (ratings of 5.0 with only '.' or 'ourt' as text), reducing data quality and raising minor concerns about review authenticity
• One negative review (2015) explicitly criticizes lack of service follow-up after installation, which contradicts the otherwise positive pattern
• Most reviews are older than 5 years (2009-2014), with only one review from 2016; recency of data is limited
• Small sample size of usable reviews (5 out of 8) limits confidence in overall assessment

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to the small number of substantive reviews, significant age of most data, and one explicit negative experience regarding post-installation service that was not addressed in subsequent reviews.