Find Nearby Plumbers In Reno, Nevada

Remedy Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. The two most recent reviews (2019 and 2021) are both 1-star and describe serious professionalism failures: no-shows to coordinate access, dismissive and threatening communication with a customer, entering a home without shoe coverings, using a client's personal towels, and staining carpet. These negative experiences significantly drag down scores across professionalism and project completion. The three positive reviews (2015–2019) describe responsive, fairly priced, and competent work, with one reviewer noting the final bill came in under the quoted price. However, the trajectory of reviews over time is concerning — the most recent experiences are the worst, suggesting a possible decline in service quality. Pricing scores are buoyed by explicit mentions of competitive and transparent pricing in multiple reviews, but the 2021 invoice dispute and collections threat introduce a serious caveat.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (2019, 2021) are both 1-star with detailed, credible complaints. The three positive reviews are from 2015–2019, meaning all favorable data is at least 5 years old. The WW Score should be interpreted with caution given this negative trend.
• COLLECTIONS THREAT: One reviewer explicitly states they were threatened with collections when disputing a charge for work that was not verified or completed. This is a significant red flag for business conduct.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: The 2021 review describes a situation where the plumber claimed to have fixed the system without actually testing it, and the system remained broken. This is a direct project completion failure.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ON-SITE: The 2019 review describes entering the home without protective booties, using the homeowner's personal towels to clean up, and leaving grease on the front doorstep — all concrete, specific complaints that are credible.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: The positive reviews contain specific names, job details, and varied language. They do not appear to be fabricated, though their age limits their current relevance.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review set of only 5 reviews, a clear negative trend in the most recent reviews, and the fact that all positive data is more than 5 years old — prospective customers should weight the 2019 and 2021 negative reviews heavily when making a hiring decision.

Paul's Heating, Plumbing & Air has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions, with a substantial volume of reviews pulling scores downward in nearly every category. Pricing is the most damaged dimension, with a large number of reviewers explicitly calling out hidden fees, inflated quotes, charges far exceeding competitors, and in several cases outright misrepresentation of costs — including a $2,395 water heater quote, a $20,000 furnace push before diagnosis, and a $273 capacitor replacement for a 10-minute job. Project completion is similarly troubled, with multiple reviews describing no-shows, abandoned jobs, technicians leaving without notice, failed callbacks, and work that had to be redone by other companies. Professionalism scores slightly higher due to a meaningful number of positive reviews praising specific technicians by name as courteous, prompt, and efficient — but these are offset by serious complaints about unprofessional conduct including setting off fire alarms, breaking property, leaving sites unsecured, and ignoring customer calls. Experience is split: several reviewers praised knowledgeable diagnostics and quality workmanship, while a comparable number described incorrect diagnoses, defective installations, and technicians recommending unnecessary full replacements for simple repairs.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe being quoted prices 3–10x higher than what competitors charged for identical repairs. This is a recurring and specific pattern, not isolated incidents.
• MISREPRESENTATION OF WARRANTY STATUS: One 2024 review explicitly states a technician incorrectly told the customer a compressor was out of warranty when it was not — this could indicate either incompetence or intentional upselling.
• PREMATURE REPLACEMENT UPSELLING: At least 4 reviews describe technicians recommending full system replacements (costing thousands) before completing any meaningful diagnosis, with subsequent companies resolving the issue for a fraction of the cost.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 5 reviews describe technicians or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, or technicians leaving a job site without explanation or follow-up.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / FAILED REPAIRS: Multiple reviews describe work that was not completed, not tested after completion, or that failed shortly after the technician left — requiring a second company to fix the issue.
• HIDDEN FEES: At least 3 reviews describe being quoted a base price (e.g. $59 service call) and then billed significantly more due to undisclosed truck surcharges, minimum labor fees, or scope changes not communicated upfront.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2024. Negative reviews are distributed across the entire timeline, including recent 2024 reviews, suggesting these are not historical issues that have been resolved. The most recent two reviews (October 2024 and July 2024) are both 1-star.
• POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: Many positive reviews are specific, name individual technicians, and describe concrete scenarios — these appear genuine. However, the volume and severity of negative reviews across 13+ years significantly outweighs the positives in key dimensions.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews detected. Both positive and negative reviews contain sufficient specificity and variation to appear authentic.

With 57 reviews spanning 13 years and strong mention counts across all four dimensions, this WW Score of 52.1 carries HIGH reliability — the data volume is sufficient to draw meaningful conclusions, and the recurring negative patterns across pricing, project completion, and experience are too consistent and specific to dismiss.

North Lake Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across 31 reviews spanning 2011–2023. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: a large number of reviewers explicitly describe being charged $300–$935 for under an hour of work, with no upfront quotes, no itemized invoices, and no opportunity to approve costs before work was performed — this drove the pricing score to a very low 28. Professionalism is similarly polarized: multiple reviewers describe Ken becoming irate, rude, and verbally aggressive when challenged, including storming out of jobs, berating customers on the phone, and refusing to return to fix incomplete work — however, a meaningful number of positive reviewers describe him as courteous, responsive, and friendly, preventing the score from bottoming out entirely. Project completion scores moderately at 62 because many positive reviewers confirm jobs were finished and problems resolved, but several negative reviews document unresolved leaks, abandoned jobs, and failure to return calls when work was disputed. Experience scores the highest at 68, as multiple reviewers across both positive and negative camps acknowledge Ken's technical competence, though the negative reviews raise concerns about unnecessary upselling and misdiagnosis. The most recent reviews (2023) are among the most damaging, suggesting the pattern of overcharging and poor conduct has not improved over time.

• PRICING CONCERN — SEVERE: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2015, 2017, 2020, 2023) explicitly describe charges of $300–$935 for jobs lasting under one hour with a single inexpensive part. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not an isolated complaint.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN — SEVERE: At least 5 reviewers independently describe Ken becoming verbally aggressive, irate, or rude when customers declined upsells, questioned charges, or reported incomplete work. This pattern is consistent across reviews from 2019 through 2023.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: At least 2 reviewers document paying for work that was not completed (active leak remained after multiple visits), with Ken refusing to return or blaming the customer for not diagnosing the issue themselves.
• NO UPFRONT QUOTES: Multiple reviewers explicitly state they were not given quotes before work began and were surprised by the final bill. One reviewer was charged without prior approval being sought as promised.
• RECENCY FLAG: The two most recent reviews (September 2023) are both 1-star and describe the most egregious pricing complaint in the dataset ($935 for 40 minutes of work and a $15 part on an elderly customer). The problematic patterns appear to be ongoing and possibly worsening.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews from 2013–2015 are notably brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Ken and his crew are the best'). One reviewer explicitly noted suspicion about the volume of positive reviews. However, enough 5-star reviews contain specific job details and locations to suggest at least partial authenticity. Confidence in positive reviews is reduced accordingly.
• TEMPORAL NOTE: Reviews span 2011–2023. Older positive reviews (2011–2016) may reflect a different period of service quality or pricing. More recent reviews (2019–2023) skew heavily negative, suggesting possible deterioration in conduct and pricing practices over time.

This WW Score of 52.1 is based on 31 reviews with HIGH data coverage across all four dimensions and should be treated as a reliable signal of significant risk, particularly around pricing transparency and professional conduct — prospective customers are strongly advised to obtain written quotes before authorizing any work.

Lamb's Heating shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with a sharp decline in service quality over time. While older reviews (2011–2013) and a few recent positive reviews praise punctuality, competence, and responsiveness, multiple detailed negative reviews from 2019–2022 document serious failures: misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary replacements, unresponsive communication leaving customers without heat for over a month, installation of defective used parts, and no-shows on scheduled appointments. Pricing concerns emerge in three reviews citing overcharges, unnecessary upsells, and inflated labor rates. The company appears to have deteriorated significantly from its earlier reputation.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 11 reviews marked 'unknown' with 5-star ratings all clustered between 2016-05-04 and 2016-05-11. These lack any substantive detail and appear artificially inflated to boost overall rating.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2019–2022, indicating ongoing problems. The 'unknown' 5-star reviews are from 2016 and earlier, suggesting artificial historical padding.
• SERIOUS SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete repairs, defective parts installation, unresponsiveness during emergencies (customer without heat for 1+ month), and misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary charges.
• PRICING INTEGRITY ISSUES: Reviews explicitly mention overcharging ($110 for unnecessary diagnosis), inflated labor rates ($50/hour 'favor' charges), and aggressive upselling of unnecessary replacements.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Pattern of unresponsiveness, no-shows, and poor follow-through on callbacks across multiple independent reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to the presence of 11 suspicious 'unknown' 5-star reviews that artificially inflate the company's historical rating. When excluding these, the substantive reviews reveal a company with serious and documented failures in project completion, responsiveness, and pricing transparency, particularly in recent years (2019–2022). The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting data, but the detailed negative reviews are highly credible and specific, suggesting real operational decline.

Kaiser Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile with stark inconsistency between positive and negative experiences. While 5-star reviews consistently praise Ed's technical expertise, promptness, and professionalism when he engages directly, the majority of reviews (13 of 21) document severe communication failures, missed appointments, and incomplete work. Critical issues include repeated non-responsiveness to voicemails and calls, failure to follow up on service orders, and at least two documented cases where initial repairs failed within days, requiring customers to hire competing plumbers at their own expense. Behavioral concerns are also raised in multiple reviews. The company's heavy reliance on home warranty referrals appears to correlate with poor service delivery, suggesting possible systemic issues with that channel.

• SEVERE POLARIZATION: 10 one-star reviews vs. 7 five-star reviews with minimal middle ground suggests two distinct service experiences or inconsistent quality control
• COMMUNICATION CRISIS: 11 reviews explicitly mention communication failures (non-responsiveness, no callbacks, vague scheduling, text-only communication). This is the dominant complaint pattern
• WORK QUALITY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document incomplete repairs (water leak returned within 1 week, shower left running after repair, unable to complete dishwasher installation)
• BEHAVIORAL RED FLAGS: 2 reviews allege inappropriate conduct toward customers; 1 review alleges false reporting and fraud; 1 review documents customer intimidation
• HOME WARRANTY PATTERN: 12+ reviews reference home warranty company referrals; nearly all express frustration, suggesting systemic issues with that service channel
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are older (2012-2020), but communication failures persist in reviews through 2023, indicating ongoing issues
• INCONSISTENT PERFORMER: Positive reviews consistently reference 'Ed' by name and praise his technical work; negative reviews often involve non-contact or incomplete service, suggesting possible single-person operation with capacity/reliability issues

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization and documented service inconsistencies. While the score of 52.3 reflects the high volume of serious complaints, the presence of genuinely positive experiences suggests the company is capable of good work under certain conditions—but reliability and communication are severely compromised, particularly for home warranty clients. The score is most reliable as a warning indicator rather than a predictor of individual outcomes.

United Plumbing shows a deeply polarized performance profile with critical failures in project completion and professionalism. Two recent reviews (Nov 2024, Oct 2024) document severe issues including no-call no-shows, incomplete work, permit violations, dishonest billing practices, and shoddy workmanship requiring third-party remediation. Three positive reviews praise quick service and reasonable pricing, but these lack detail and cannot offset the documented systemic failures. The company's inability to complete jobs correctly, follow through on commitments, and maintain honesty with customers represents fundamental business failures that dominate the overall assessment.

• SEVERE POLARIZATION: 2 one-star reviews with extensive documented failures vs. 3 five-star reviews with minimal detail. This suggests either inconsistent service quality or potential review authenticity concerns.
• PATTERN OF SERIOUS VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews document no-call no-shows, incomplete work, permit violations, dishonest billing, and refusal to provide documentation. These are not isolated complaints but systemic issues.
• REGULATORY COMPLAINT: One review explicitly states a complaint was filed with the State Contractor's Board, indicating serious legal/regulatory concerns.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most critical failures are from Oct-Nov 2024 (within past 30 days), suggesting ongoing problems rather than historical issues.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS LACK SPECIFICITY: The 5-star reviews are generic and brief, lacking the detail present in negative reviews. This asymmetry warrants caution in weighting positive feedback.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews), but the documented pattern of project failures, dishonesty, and regulatory complaints in recent reviews provides credible evidence of serious business problems that outweigh positive feedback lacking substantive detail.