Find Nearby Plumbers In Reno, Nevada

This contractor shows severe inconsistency in service delivery. While two reviews praise Dan's technical skill and integrity (5-star ratings from 2018-2019), three recent reviews document critical failures in professionalism and project completion: no-shows, unresponsive communication, and a disputed double-payment incident. The positive reviews highlight strong experience and fair pricing when work is completed, but the pattern of missed appointments, poor responsiveness, and financial mishandling significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. The 2021 theft allegation is particularly concerning and unresolved.

• CRITICAL: Serious allegation of financial misconduct (double-payment theft) in most recent review (2021) with no documented resolution or company response
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: Multiple reviews (2018-2019) document failure to appear for scheduled appointments despite confirming availability
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Consistent complaint across multiple reviews about unresponsiveness to phone calls and texts after initial scheduling
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 3-6 years old, but the 2021 theft allegation is recent and unresolved, suggesting ongoing issues
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews praising professionalism/skill and 1-star reviews documenting severe service failures suggests either highly variable performance or potential reliability issues

This score should be treated with caution due to conflicting evidence and serious unresolved allegations; the contractor demonstrates technical competence but has documented patterns of unreliability, poor communication, and a recent unresolved financial dispute that raises significant trust concerns.

Gore Plumbing shows severe inconsistency across reviews spanning 2013–2018. Two recent positive reviews (2016, 2013) praise quick response, fair pricing, and professional demeanor on emergency repairs. However, a damaging 2018 review documents multiple critical failures: improper material selection causing rust and electrolysis ($3,500 in repairs), faulty filtration installation ($2,500 in repairs), and refusal to honor warranty obligations or respond to callbacks. A 2016 review documents poor communication and unexplained bid rejection. The pattern suggests either significant quality degradation over time or inconsistent service delivery. The most recent substantive review (2018) reveals serious workmanship and accountability issues that heavily weight the overall score downward.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed negative review is from 2018 (6+ years old), but it documents severe, costly failures and warranty refusal that are highly credible and specific.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between glowing emergency-response reviews (2013, 2016) and detailed failure documentation (2018). Suggests either service quality decline or inconsistent execution.
• CRITICAL WORKMANSHIP ISSUES: 2018 review documents multiple technical failures (material incompatibility, improper installation, missing components) totaling $6,000+ in customer remediation costs—not opinion-based complaints.
• WARRANTY/ACCOUNTABILITY FAILURE: Explicit documentation of refusal to honor work, missed appointments, and avoidance after statute of limitations passed. This is a serious red flag for professionalism and integrity.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Two separate reviews document poor communication (no estimate follow-up, unexplained bid rejection, delayed responses).

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (4 reviews) and significant age disparity, but the 2018 review's specificity regarding technical failures, costs, and warranty refusal is highly credible and cannot be dismissed. The WW Score reflects genuine service quality concerns, particularly around project completion and accountability.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across all dimensions. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by multiple explicit complaints about no-shows, failure to return calls, and rude behavior — with 4 out of 9 reviews describing serious responsiveness failures. Project completion is similarly damaged by accounts of abandoned work, unresolved issues, and a customer left without water for days, though a handful of positive reviews do describe jobs completed quickly and thoroughly. Pricing received moderate marks, with a few reviewers calling it reasonable, but one review explicitly flagged undisclosed fees and disputed charges. Experience scores low due to one detailed review citing multiple instances of subpar workmanship including leaks, improper installations, and working outside the contractor's qualifications.

• Multiple reviews (2024, 2016, 2015) describe complete failure to respond to calls or show up for appointments — this is a recurring and serious pattern, not an isolated incident.
• One detailed 1-star review (2017) alleges undisclosed emergency dispatch fees, billing for parts not used, and work performed outside the contractor's qualifications — this is a significant integrity concern.
• The same 2017 review also documents multiple prior workmanship failures (leaking sink, shower head, improper vent installation, damaged wet bar sink), suggesting a pattern of poor quality work.
• Most positive reviews are dated 2016–2020, while the most recent review (2024) is a 1-star complaint about no response. This recency trend is concerning and suggests possible decline in service quality.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, and specificity, suggesting they are genuine.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews spanning 2015–2024 with usable data across all four dimensions; confidence is moderate overall, but the score should be treated seriously given the consistent and specific nature of the negative reviews, particularly the recency of complaints about non-responsiveness.

This contractor's review set reveals a deeply inconsistent track record that pulls scores down significantly across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: while several reviewers praised punctuality, communication, and responsiveness, at least three reviews describe being stood up, ignored after payment, or chronically late — a serious pattern that cannot be dismissed. Project completion is the weakest area, with multiple explicit accounts of paid work left unfinished and no-shows after promising to return, which is a critical failure for any contractor. Pricing received relatively positive mentions from those who did have completed work, but the context of non-completion undermines the value perception. Experience scores moderately — some reviewers praised skill and problem-solving, but one review describes outright damage caused by improper technique, which significantly tempers confidence in workmanship quality.

• SERIOUS PATTERN — At least 3 reviews describe being paid in full and then abandoned, with the contractor failing to return or respond. This is a recurring and consistent complaint, not an isolated incident.
• DAMAGE REPORTED — One reviewer explicitly states the contractor improperly removed a float valve, leaving the swamp cooler non-functional and potentially causing further damage. This is a workmanship safety concern.
• UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR FLAG — One reviewer explicitly states this contractor is unlicensed and references filing complaints with the Nevada State Contractors Board. This is a significant legal and liability concern for prospective customers.
• NAME DISCREPANCY — Reviews reference both 'John' and 'Alfonso' as the contractor's name. This may indicate multiple operators under one profile, a business name inconsistency, or a data aggregation issue. Treat with caution.
• RECENCY NOTE — The two most recent reviews (2023) are split: one strongly positive, one strongly negative. The negative 2023 review includes specific, detailed allegations of damage and non-completion, which carries significant weight.
• REVIEW SPREAD — Older reviews (2021) are also mixed, suggesting this is not a recent decline in quality but a long-standing inconsistency in service delivery.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS — Reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating. No obvious fake review patterns detected, which means the negative reviews should be taken at full face value.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review volume is small but the data is highly specific and internally consistent in identifying serious recurring failures around project completion and follow-through, which meaningfully anchors the score.

Riley Plumbing and Heating has a deeply polarized review profile spanning 2015–2024, with a significant volume of serious negative reviews that drag all four dimensions down substantially. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing price gouging, inflated estimates, and charges far exceeding competitors — including a $2,700 estimate for work another company completed for $510, and a $10,000 quote for work that turned out to be entirely unnecessary. Project completion is severely undermined by recurring accounts of abandoned follow-ups, missed appointments without communication, incorrectly installed equipment requiring multiple return visits, and at least one case where a furnace was never made to function properly after four follow-up visits. Professionalism scores are pulled down by documented incidents of rude office staff, threatening customers over minor billing disputes, failure to return calls for weeks, and a manager who refused to acknowledge legitimate complaints. Experience scores reflect a mixed picture — some technicians are praised as knowledgeable and skilled, while others made dangerous installation errors involving gas lines, fireplace shutters, and disconnected sewage pumps that were left unresolved. The positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are outnumbered and outweighed by the volume and specificity of the negative accounts.

• LICENSING CONCERN: One reviewer (2018) alleged the business was suspended by the California Secretary of State after 2006 and suspended in Nevada in 2004 for bouncing a check. This is a serious flag and prospective customers should independently verify current licensing status before hiring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) are mixed — two positive and one strongly negative — suggesting issues have not been fully resolved over time. The negative patterns (pricing, communication, follow-through) appear consistently across a 7-year span from 2017 to 2024.
• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: At least four independent reviewers across different years explicitly describe receiving estimates dramatically higher than competitors for identical work, suggesting a systemic pricing practice rather than isolated incidents.
• WORKMANSHIP SAFETY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe dangerous installation errors — including an improperly vented gas stove, an incorrectly adjusted fireplace shutter creating a fire hazard, and a disconnected sewage pump — none of which were acknowledged or remedied by the company.
• MANAGEMENT/CUSTOMER SERVICE PATTERN: At least three reviews independently describe the office manager or owner as dismissive, rude, or retaliatory when complaints were raised, indicating a systemic customer service failure at the leadership level.
• OLDER REVIEWS: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 14 of 30) are from 2018 or earlier, which reduces their weight in the current score. However, the negative patterns they describe are corroborated by more recent reviews, lending them continued relevance.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: The positive reviews contain specific technician names, job details, and varied language. They do not appear to be fabricated, but they are substantially outnumbered by detailed negative accounts.

This WW Score of 42.1 is based on 30 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable signal of below-average contractor performance, particularly in pricing transparency and project follow-through.

CJ's Plumbing shows severe deficiencies in project completion and professionalism, with a WW Score of 42.8 indicating below-average performance. Multiple reviews document chronic issues with follow-through, missed appointments, no-shows, poor communication, and unresponsiveness to callbacks—patterns that appear across different time periods. While pricing is fair when work is completed and some technical competence is evident, the company's inability to finish jobs reliably, honor commitments, and maintain professional communication standards significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. The owner's behavior—including hanging up on customers and blaming employees—further damages the professionalism dimension.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2018-11-17 and 2015-10-21) are flagged as potentially fake. The 2018 review uses generic, repetitive phrasing ('thousands have before,' 'cut the headaches out') with no specific details about actual work performed. The 2015 review contains only 'unknown' as text. These were excluded from scoring but noted for context.
• SEVERE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across 2016-2024 document identical failure modes: no-shows, missed appointments, lack of callback responsiveness, and job abandonment. This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2014-2018, but the most recent review (2024-01-04) replicates the same problems (non-responsiveness, warranty work avoidance, false claims about third-party involvement). This suggests ongoing issues.
• HEALTH/SAFETY FLAG: One review documents the owner instructing an employee to install a shower over black mold to cut corners, creating potential health hazards.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe unprofessional owner behavior including hanging up on customers, throwing employees under the bus, and prioritizing payment collection over job completion.

This WW Score of 42.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 10 usable reviews with consistent, corroborating evidence of systemic failures in project completion and professionalism across an 8-year period. The pattern of no-shows, missed deadlines, poor communication, and job abandonment is documented repeatedly by independent reviewers with specific details. While sample size is moderate, the consistency and severity of complaints, combined with recent corroboration, indicate this score accurately reflects genuine operational deficiencies.