Find Nearby Plumbers In Reno, Nevada

All Hours Air presents a deeply split profile: a large volume of positive reviews praising individual technicians as professional, friendly, knowledgeable, and timely is substantially offset by a significant and recurring pattern of serious complaints. Pricing is the most damaged dimension, with numerous detailed, credible reviews describing charges that were 3–10x market rate, refusal to provide itemized invoices, hidden fees, and aggressive upselling tactics — including allegations of recommending unnecessary replacements. Project completion is also significantly impacted by multiple accounts of abandoned work, no-call no-shows, unresolved follow-up visits spanning weeks or months, and installations that failed to work correctly from day one. Professionalism scores moderately due to the high volume of positive technician-level interactions, but is dragged down by documented incidents of rude office staff, unprofessional installer behavior, and owner responses that personally attacked reviewers. Experience scores similarly mixed — many technicians are praised for skill and thoroughness, but multiple reviews describe misdiagnoses, incorrect installations, and work that had to be redone by competitors for a fraction of the cost.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2025-06-08 and two dated 2025-06-06 are word-for-word identical pairs ('Duane came out to service our AC unit...' and 'Very professional and courteous technician...'). These appear to be artificially duplicated entries and have been counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A high concentration of blank-text reviews with 5-star ratings (approximately 15+ reviews with no text) inflates the star average without providing usable data. These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• PRICING CONCERNS — SYSTEMIC: At least 15 independent, detailed reviews across multiple years describe pricing that was 3–10x competitor quotes for identical work. Multiple reviewers confirmed overcharging only after obtaining second opinions. This is a persistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• UPSELLING AND MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending full system replacements for units that were subsequently repaired cheaply by other companies. This pattern appears across HVAC, plumbing, and water heater services and spans 2019–2025.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe installations that did not work post-completion, no-call no-shows on scheduled follow-up appointments, and cases where the company failed to honor warranty or callback obligations for weeks or months.
• REVIEW MANIPULATION ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly states the company contacted them and offered a full refund in exchange for removing their negative review. This is a serious integrity flag.
• INSTALLER CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One detailed review (2023-11-01) describes highly inappropriate installer behavior including leaving trash, using customer tools without permission, and making sexually explicit comments. While a single review, the specificity and severity warrants flagging.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2017–2025. The most recent reviews (2025) continue to show both positive technician interactions and pricing complaints, suggesting the pricing and upselling issues are ongoing rather than historical.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (175 total, 148 with usable data) spanning multiple years, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the overall picture; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously because the dataset contains confirmed duplicate reviews, a significant volume of blank 5-star reviews that inflate raw ratings without providing evidence, and a credible allegation of pay-for-removal review manipulation — all of which suggest the true performance, particularly on pricing and project completion, may be worse than even this score reflects.

This aggregated review set covers multiple distinct businesses operating under similar or shared names (Norfolk Plumbing, Rod-O-Matic, Patriot Plumbing across multiple geographic locations including Virginia, California, Florida, Missouri, and others), which severely limits the reliability of a single composite score. The positive reviews — concentrated heavily in 2024–2025 — describe prompt, professional, knowledgeable technicians and fair pricing, with many customers expressing strong loyalty and repeat use. However, a very large volume of deeply negative reviews, particularly associated with the Patriot Plumbing brand operating through home warranty companies (American Home Shield, AHS, HMS, 2-10), describe a consistent and serious pattern of alleged fraud: misdiagnosis to avoid warranty coverage, unnecessary upsell charges, cash-only payment demands, abandoned jobs, failure to return calls, rude or threatening behavior by owners and staff, and work left incomplete or made worse. The pricing dimension is particularly polarized — praised as fair and competitive by direct customers, but condemned as exploitative and deceptive by home warranty customers. Project completion scores are dragged down significantly by numerous accounts of jobs not finished, technicians leaving without completing work, and repeat visits failing to resolve issues.

• CRITICAL: These reviews appear to represent multiple distinct businesses operating under the same or similar names across different U.S. states (Virginia, California, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, and others). A single WW Score is not reliable for this dataset and should not be used to evaluate any single contractor.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews with no text (rating only) are present throughout the dataset. Additionally, several reviews from the same date batches (e.g., 2025-06-07, 2025-05-26, 2025-04-10, 2023-06-10) appear to be bulk-submitted with generic praise and no specifics, suggesting possible solicited or incentivized review campaigns.
• FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: A large and consistent pattern across dozens of negative reviews describes Patriot Plumbing (particularly the home warranty-contracted version) deliberately misdiagnosing issues, adding non-covered charges, demanding cash-only payment, and failing to complete work — consistent with a systematic scheme to extract out-of-pocket payments from home warranty customers.
• OWNER CONDUCT WARNINGS: Multiple independent reviewers describe the owner (referred to as Kirk, Steve, or Jimmy depending on location) as verbally abusive, threatening, showing up at customers' homes to demand payment, sending threatening texts, and in one case allegedly cutting a customer's water pressure line in retaliation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) skew heavily positive and appear to represent different branch locations or operators than the older negative reviews. Older reviews (2018–2023) contain the highest concentration of serious complaints. Recency weighting partially improves the score but does not eliminate the serious concerns.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review describing Mike and Steven fixing a leak behind a shower appears verbatim twice (2024-06-09 and 2023-07-25), suggesting a copy-paste or system duplication.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about being without a water heater for over a month appears verbatim twice (2022-11-12), suggesting a system duplication.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about avoiding the company and paying $750 for modifications appears verbatim twice (2020-07-22), suggesting a system duplication.
• NON-PLUMBING REVIEWS PRESENT: Several reviews reference HVAC, electrical, and AC work (Nick's reviews from 2024-06-09), which are outside the scope of plumbing contractor evaluation and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• UNPERMITTED WORK ALLEGATION: At least one reviewer explicitly states Patriot Plumbing performed a full repipe without pulling a permit and that the matter was under investigation by the California State Contractors Board.

This WW Score of 62.1 should be treated with very low confidence as a guide to any single contractor, as the dataset aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses across different states and ownership structures; the score reflects a deeply divided customer base where direct-hire customers report largely positive experiences while home warranty-referred customers report a consistent and serious pattern of alleged fraud, incomplete work, and unprofessional conduct.

Alpine Plumbing presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, a substantial number of reviewers praised individual technicians — particularly Rafal, Jerry, Brad, Emmanuel, and Bob — for being professional, timely, knowledgeable, and friendly, with many repeat customers expressing strong loyalty. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns: multiple customers reported work that failed shortly after completion with no warranty follow-through, technicians arriving unprepared or abandoning jobs mid-project, and owners responding to complaints with hostility or refusal to return. Pricing complaints are notable, including hidden trip charges, after-hours rate disputes, charges exceeding quotes by 50%, and billing for work that was not completed satisfactorily. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with documented cases of dishwashers still flooding after a 'fix,' pipes re-leaking within weeks, incomplete drain cleaning, and no-shows on multiple scheduled appointments. The overall picture is of a company with capable individual technicians but inconsistent quality control, poor complaint resolution, and recurring communication failures.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of near-identical reviews appear in the dataset — the Alpine dryer vent complaint (2024-06-09 with timestamp vs. 2024-06-09 without) and the copper-to-galvanized pipe complaint (2019-08-05 and 2020-06-10) and the dishwasher flooding complaint (2020-06-10 and 2020-04-27). These appear to be the same reviewer posting twice, possibly on different platforms. Duplicate entries were counted once for scoring purposes.
• SUSPECTED COORDINATED NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Three reviews posted on 2020-03-29 within minutes of each other (13:13, 13:23, 13:29) all describe the same leaking pipe incident involving owner 'Bob' and use escalating hostile language. These appear to be from the same household or coordinated group and were treated as a single incident for scoring weight.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 12 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One 1-star review (2025-05-10) describes a road rage incident involving a company vehicle driver on the interstate. This is not a service review and was excluded from all dimension scoring, though it is noted as a professionalism flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews date from 2021 and earlier, including many from 2018–2019. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are fewer in number and show a continued mixed pattern. Scores were weighted toward more recent reviews where dates were available.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct named individuals (Bob/Bob Nolan, Rafal/Rafa, Jerry, Brad, Emmanuel, Pat, Mike, Adam, Vince, Artavian) and appear to span at least two or three distinct business entities or locations (Alpine Plumbing in Lake Arrowhead/CA, Alpine Plumbing in Milwaukee/WI area, and Lakeview Plumbing in Truckee/Tahoe area). Scores reflect the aggregate record but consumers should be aware this may not represent a single unified business.
• WARRANTY AND CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple independent reviewers explicitly describe work failing within days to months and the company refusing to return or remedy the situation — a serious pattern affecting project completion and experience scores.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews contain only 1–2 generic sentences with no specifics (e.g., 'Great Plumbers, I recommend them,' 'Excellent and timely service,' 'Very Reliable and experienced!'). These were scored conservatively and given low individual weight.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 total, 107 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by the presence of duplicate reviews, suspected multi-entity conflation across different business locations, coordinated negative reviews, and a wide variance in technician quality — consumers should treat this score as a general indicator of inconsistency rather than a reliable predictor of any single service experience.

Mr. Rooter presents a deeply mixed performance profile across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is dragged down significantly by repeated no-show incidents, missed appointments, poor dispatcher communication, and at least one report of a technician behaving in a threatening manner — despite many positive reviews praising individual techs as courteous and friendly. Pricing is a notable concern, with multiple credible accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, price inflation on arrival, and one allegation of elder financial exploitation, offsetting the positive reviews that cite fair and transparent pricing. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: there are serious, detailed complaints about incomplete work, abandoned jobs, work not matching the contracted scope, property damage caused during service, and regulatory violations including an OSHA fine and State Contractors Board action — these are not minor grievances. Experience scores moderately, with many positive reviews praising skilled individual technicians, but offset by credible accounts of botched septic work, improper plumbing installations, and a multi-year saga of construction damage requiring third-party remediation.

• 18 reviews contain no text — only a star rating (all 5-star). These blank reviews cannot be scored and inflate the perceived positive sentiment without providing any verifiable information.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service and friendly staff', 'Great customer service', 'Bad.') with no specifics. These may be low-effort or inauthentic reviews.
• Two reviews dated 2022-05-04 and 2022-05-05 are nearly identical in content, describing the same sewer line fraud allegation. These appear to be duplicate submissions by the same reviewer and were counted as one incident for scoring purposes.
• A significant cluster of reviews is dated exactly 2023-06-10 with no specific times, many of which are blank or very generic — this pattern is consistent with bulk review submission and warrants skepticism.
• Several serious negative reviews describe regulatory violations: an OSHA investigation and fine, a State Contractors Board remediation order with 15 items, and unauthorized property entry. These are high-severity flags beyond typical service complaints.
• Review recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive detail span 2008–2025. Negative reviews are distributed across the full timeline, suggesting persistent systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. The most recent reviews (2025) include both strong positives and a serious no-show complaint and a threatening-behavior allegation, indicating ongoing inconsistency.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the presence of 18 blank 5-star reviews, suspected bulk review submissions, and several unverified but highly detailed negative accounts involving legal and regulatory action introduce meaningful uncertainty — the score should be treated as a reasonable estimate of a contractor with highly inconsistent service quality rather than a definitive performance rating.

Service Now Plumbing exhibits significant inconsistency in service quality. While many reviews praise technician expertise, responsiveness, and successful job completion (particularly from 2015-2017), a substantial cluster of negative reviews document serious professionalism failures including no-shows, rude phone staff, missed appointments without notification, and unprofessional technician behavior. Pricing complaints are frequent and specific, with customers citing inflated labor rates ($166/hour), overcharges for simple work, and aggressive upselling. Project completion issues include incomplete work requiring callbacks, warranty disputes, and damage caused during repairs. The company's performance appears to have deteriorated over time, with most recent negative reviews (2023) indicating ongoing problems.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2015-2017; most recent reviews (2023, 2020, 2019) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality decline
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: Multiple reviews document missed appointments without phone notification (2023, 2020, 2019, 2017), indicating systemic scheduling/communication failure
• PHONE STAFF ISSUES: Multiple complaints about rude, unprofessional phone reception (2019, 2018, 2014), suggesting persistent customer service problem at intake level
• PRICING DISPUTES: Consistent pattern of customer complaints about high hourly rates ($166+/hour), overcharges for simple work, and aggressive upselling across multiple years
• WARRANTY/GUARANTEE CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document refusal to stand behind work or honor warranties (2015, 2018), indicating potential liability avoidance pattern
• DAMAGE LIABILITY: Several reviews document technician-caused damage (broken pipes, damaged fixtures) with company refusing responsibility or charging customer for repairs (2015, 2015, 2015)
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEWS: Cluster of 5-star reviews from 2016-2017 with similar generic praise and specific technician name-drops may warrant scrutiny; one reviewer explicitly noted suspicious timing of 5-star reviews appearing after critical reviews
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Wide variance in individual technician professionalism and competence; some highly praised (Bryan, Kevin, James, Isaac), others documented as rude, incompetent, or unprofessional (Greg, Chris Lucas, unnamed technician in 2015 incident)

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 75 reviews with adequate mention counts, the data exhibits a clear temporal decline in service quality and a stark bifurcation between older positive reviews (2015-2017) and recent negative reviews (2019-2023). The score of 68.2 reflects this mixed history, but customers considering this company should heavily weight the recent negative pattern, particularly the recurring no-show and communication failures documented in 2023, 2020, and 2019. The company's current reliability is questionable despite historical positive performance.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2016–2024. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple communication failures (unanswered calls, no-shows, delayed responses), though recent reviews (2020–2024) praise responsiveness and courtesy. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with recurring complaints about incomplete work, poor cleanup, and failure to honor callbacks. Pricing feedback is mixed—some customers report fair rates, others describe work as overpriced with poor value. Experience and technical skill are generally praised when work is completed, but execution quality is undermined by incomplete jobs and rework required by other contractors.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2016–2019) report severe communication failures including unanswered calls, no-shows, and failure to return messages. This pattern suggests systemic operational issues during that period.
• CRITICAL: At least 5 reviews explicitly mention incomplete work, abandoned jobs, or failure to finish repairs (2016, 2016, 2016, 2019, 2021). One customer reported paying $800+ for work that required complete rework by another contractor.
• PATTERN: Negative reviews cluster heavily in 2016–2019 period. Recent reviews (2020–2024) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible management/operational changes or staff turnover.
• CONCERN: One review (2017-06-02) appears to be a response from the owner (Benjamin Bishop) rather than a customer review. This is included in analysis but noted as non-standard.
• CONCERN: Pricing transparency issues noted in multiple reviews—invoices lacking itemization, no upfront estimates, and surprise costs. One customer reported $800 in charges without clear breakdown.
• RECENCY BIAS: 9 of 20 reviews are from 2016–2019 (older than 5 years). Only 6 reviews from 2020 onward. Recent positive trend may not reflect historical pattern.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While recent reviews (2020–2024) are consistently positive and suggest operational improvement, the historical pattern of communication failures, incomplete work, and pricing issues (2016–2019) is severe and well-documented. The WW Score reflects a weighted average across all periods; customers should be aware that past performance was significantly worse. Recommend requesting references from work completed in the past 12 months and obtaining detailed written estimates before engaging.