Find Nearby Plumbers In Las Vegas, Nevada

Capital Plumbing has a large and long review history spanning roughly 2006 to 2025, with a clear majority of positive experiences but a meaningful and recurring pattern of serious complaints. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is significantly dragged down by multiple credible negative reviews describing no-shows, unreturned calls, broken promises, and in at least one case aggressive or belligerent behavior from the owner — these are not isolated incidents but appear across multiple years and multiple reviewers. Pricing is generally viewed as fair or competitive by satisfied customers, though several negative reviewers describe overcharging, lack of itemized receipts, and billing disputes, keeping this score moderate rather than high. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: multiple reviewers describe unfinished work, failed repairs, warranty disputes, and jobs that required third-party contractors to correct — including a sewer replacement that caused ongoing problems and a new pipe line that developed leaks and caused sheetrock damage. Experience scores moderately well among satisfied customers who praise technical knowledge and problem-solving, but is offset by reviews explicitly citing poor workmanship, use of defective materials, and incompetence. The overall picture is a contractor with genuine capability and many happy customers, but with a persistent and credible pattern of reliability and quality-control failures that cannot be ignored.

• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2012–2021. Only a handful of reviews are from 2023–2025, and several of those are blank (no text, only a 5-star rating). Scores are weighted toward more recent substantive reviews but the volume of recent data is limited.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 13 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating (all 5 stars). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence. Their presence slightly inflates the apparent star average.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The cluster of blank 5-star reviews (particularly the group dated 2019-06-11, 2020-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2023-06-10) with no text and identical formatting is suspicious. This pattern is consistent with review padding. Confidence has been adjusted accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'Originally checked and replaced backflow valve for outdoor sprinkler system' appears twice with different dates (2021-06-10 and 2020-11-25). Only counted once for scoring purposes.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN — NO-SHOWS AND ABANDONMENT: At least 6 separate reviewers across different years describe being stood up for appointments, never receiving promised estimates, or having calls go unreturned. This is a recurring operational failure, not an isolated incident.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN — INCOMPLETE OR DEFECTIVE WORK: Multiple reviewers describe work that was left unfinished, repairs that failed shortly after completion, defective materials being used, and the company refusing to honor warranty or callback commitments. This directly and significantly impacts the project completion score.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN — BILLING AND PRICING DISPUTES: At least 3 reviewers describe being overcharged, receiving no itemized receipt, or being charged for a consultation fee that was promised to be waived. One reviewer describes a $368 charge for a 30-minute job with $15–$20 in parts.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: One detailed review describes the owner responding to a legitimate complaint with 'a barrage of obscenities.' Another describes intimidation tactics. These are credible behavioral red flags that affect the professionalism score.
• VERY OLD REVIEWS: Several reviews date to 2006–2009. These were given minimal weight in scoring given the age of the data and the likelihood of personnel and ownership changes over time.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (110 reviews) spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously because of a credible pattern of serious complaints about reliability, incomplete work, and billing disputes that appear consistently across multiple years and multiple independent reviewers, and because approximately 13 blank 5-star reviews with no content suggest possible review padding that artificially inflates the raw star average.

Bumble Breeze receives consistently strong marks for individual technician professionalism — punctuality, courtesy, and communication are praised across dozens of reviews, with named techs like Tony, Aaron, Kiefer, Matt, and Omar frequently highlighted. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern: multiple reviewers across different service types (HVAC, plumbing, bidet install, toilet valve, drain snaking) describe quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors, and several use words like 'predatory,' 'bait and switch,' and 'scammers.' Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed well, but there are notable failures including abandoned warranty follow-through, a carbon monoxide hazard from an improperly connected exhaust hose, incomplete contracted work, and a case where a unit was misdiagnosed entirely. Technical experience scores moderately well given the volume of positive skill mentions, but is dragged down by documented misdiagnoses and at least one serious installation error. The gap between front-line technician quality and company-level pricing and accountability practices is the defining tension in this review set.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: At least 10 reviews explicitly describe pricing as excessive, predatory, or dramatically higher than competitors. This is a consistent and credible pattern across HVAC, plumbing, and minor repair categories, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: One review documents a carbon monoxide hazard caused by an improperly connected furnace exhaust hose left after a full system install. Another documents a full winter without functioning HVAC after a paid install. A third describes a misdiagnosis that nearly resulted in an unnecessary $3,800 water heater replacement.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH ISSUES: Multiple reviews describe the company failing to honor callbacks, dodging calls after the sale, and not resolving warranty claims on units making loud noises for months.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN — MINOR FLAG: A small number of reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Exceptional service they really care about their customers,' 'Above and beyond,' 'The most pleasant experience') with no specifics, names, or details. These are consistent with solicited or incentivized reviews. Confidence is not significantly reduced given the large volume of detailed reviews, but these were noted.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews analyzed are from 2022–2024, with the large majority from 2024. The review set is current and recency weighting does not significantly alter the score.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 3 reviews describe the company failing to return calls, missing scheduled appointments without notice, or having sales reps go silent after initial contact.
• BAIT AND SWITCH ALLEGATION: One detailed review describes a quoted price of $1,200 that was later reframed as only covering a water shutoff, with an additional $2,300 required to complete the job — a pattern consistent with bait-and-switch pricing.

This WW Score is based on 82 reviews with strong recency and high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a reliable representation of customer experience — however, the score should be interpreted with caution given the severity and consistency of pricing and project completion complaints, which suggest systemic issues that positive technician interactions do not fully offset.

Anthem Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, many reviewers praise individual technicians — particularly Dennis, Raymond, Deon, Tim, and Garrett — for strong technical skill, knowledgeable work, and quality outcomes, which drives the Experience score to the highest of the four dimensions. However, professionalism and project completion are significantly dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern of no-shows, missed appointment windows, lack of communication, and dismissive attitudes when confronted — complaints that appear across multiple years and multiple reviewers. Pricing is similarly mixed: several reviewers found costs reasonable or fair, but at least two explicitly called out charges as excessive or unjustified, including one reviewer citing a $3,210 water heater installation against a $670 tank cost. The no-show and reliability complaints are not isolated incidents — they span from 2019 through 2024 — indicating a systemic operational problem rather than one-off failures.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 5 separate reviews across multiple years (2019, 2020, 2022, 2023, 2024) describe the same experience — technician fails to arrive within the appointment window, does not call, and offers dismissive or unapologetic responses when contacted. This is a systemic reliability issue, not an anomaly.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW FILTERING: One 1-star reviewer (June 2024) explicitly alleges the company filters out negative reviews. While unverifiable, the cluster of very brief, generic 5-star reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Plumbing repairs', 'Very well and was well worth the investment', 'They were a blessing, so considerate. Will use them again!') is consistent with this concern.
• GENERIC LOW-DETAIL REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews contain no specific details about the job, technician, or outcome. These reviews were counted but treated with reduced evidentiary weight in scoring.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer (August 2024, 1-star) alleges a $3,210 charge for a water heater with a retail cost of approximately $670, suggesting a markup of over 4x. A second reviewer (May 2022, 2-star) called a $300 one-hour labor charge unreasonable. These are explicit pricing complaints that materially affect the pricing score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The no-show and reliability complaints are present in both older reviews (2019–2022) and recent reviews (2023–2024), indicating the problem has not been resolved over time. Positive reviews also continue into 2024–2025, suggesting inconsistent service quality depending on the technician dispatched.
• ONE REVIEW (June 2024, 1-star, 'Go with literally anyone else') contains no usable detail and was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of 44 reviews spanning approximately 10 years, with HIGH confidence across all scored dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the documented pattern of no-shows, the pricing complaints, and credible allegations of review filtering that may mean the true negative sentiment is underrepresented.

Larkin Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism in service delivery, with experienced technicians who consistently diagnose and resolve plumbing issues effectively. However, the company is significantly undermined by widespread pricing concerns—numerous customers report excessive charges, hidden fees, and markups that far exceed industry standards. While project completion rates are generally solid and professionalism is evident in most interactions, the persistent pattern of overcharging and billing disputes creates substantial customer dissatisfaction. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects a company with genuine technical capability but serious trust and value-for-money issues that prevent higher ratings.

• PRICING PATTERN: Extremely consistent complaints about excessive charges across 67 reviews. Customers report markups of 45-250% on parts, inflated hourly rates ($150-220/hr), and questionable time-tracking practices (charging for travel time, waiting time, time spent at parts stores). This is the single largest driver of negative sentiment.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews document aggressive billing practices including charging for hours not worked, refusing refunds despite acknowledged errors, and using service call minimums ($139.50+) for minor work. Several customers report being charged for 2.5+ hours when on-site for 20-30 minutes.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While many reviews praise specific technicians (Bob, Kurt, Blake, Carl, Rick, Keith), others report unprepared technicians, lack of necessary parts, and incomplete work requiring callbacks. This suggests inconsistent training or quality control.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING ISSUES: At least 12 reviews document no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication about delays, and rescheduling failures. Some customers waited 4+ hours with no arrival or courtesy call.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE PROBLEMS: Multiple complaints about rude phone staff, unwillingness to help, hanging up on customers, and poor follow-up on complaints. One review documents a dispatcher telling a customer 'if you don't like it call someone else.'
• INTERNAL LABOR PRACTICES: Two reviews from employees/former employees describe exploitative commission structures, wage deductions for refunds, and nepotism in management.
• POTENTIAL UPSELLING: Several reviews suggest technicians recommend unnecessary work or parts (e.g., recommending $1700 valve replacement when CLR solved the problem, or pushing expensive tankless systems).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2024-2025) show continued pricing complaints and service issues, indicating problems are ongoing, not historical.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain only ratings with minimal or no text (single dots, 'unknown', blank), and several contain suspiciously generic praise with identical phrasing patterns. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews with specific dollar amounts and dates suggests authentic customer feedback overall.

This WW Score is highly reliable due to the large sample size (200 reviews) and consistent patterns across multiple dimensions, particularly the overwhelming consensus on pricing issues. The HIGH confidence rating is justified by 67+ mentions of pricing concerns and 78+ mentions of project completion data. However, customers should be aware that while Larkin demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism, the company's pricing practices represent a significant and persistent value-for-money risk that substantially outweighs its technical strengths.

Fetch-A-Tech demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise with many technicians praised for friendliness, punctuality, and knowledge. However, the company is significantly undermined by widespread pricing concerns, with numerous customers reporting dramatically inflated quotes (often 3-10x competitor prices), aggressive upselling tactics, and alleged deceptive practices including fake photos and false diagnoses. Project completion issues are evident in multiple reviews describing incomplete work, unresolved callbacks, and installation failures. The company shows inconsistency: some customers report excellent service while others describe predatory business practices, suggesting either significant quality variance or systemic issues with sales-driven diagnostics.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing fraud allegations. Multiple independent reviews (at least 12) report quotes 3-10x higher than competitors for identical work. Examples: $15,000 vs $7,300 for AC; $9,000 vs $200 for repair; $2,700 vs $900 for furnace motor; $1,400 vs $120 for flex duct.
• CRITICAL: Alleged deceptive diagnostic practices. Multiple customers report technicians showing fake/misleading photos of their systems, misidentifying refrigerant types (R22 vs 410A), and fabricating problems to justify expensive replacements.
• CRITICAL: Aggressive upselling and sales-driven service model. Numerous reviews describe technicians pressuring customers into unnecessary upgrades, maintenance contracts, and system replacements immediately after declining initial quotes.
• SERIOUS: Installation quality failures. Multiple reviews describe new AC units installed incorrectly (improper ductwork connections, compressor failures within months, noise issues), with company unable to resolve after 15+ service calls.
• SERIOUS: Unresolved callbacks and follow-up failures. Multiple customers report promised callbacks never occurring, unfinished work, and lack of accountability after payment.
• SERIOUS: Potential deliberate sabotage. One detailed review describes furnace pressure switch deliberately disconnected/kinked after customer declined additional services, suggesting intentional damage to force future repairs.
• MODERATE: Inconsistent technician quality. While many individual technicians receive praise, others are described as lazy, unprofessional, or dishonest, suggesting inadequate vetting or training.
• MODERATE: Spam calling complaints. At least one review explicitly mentions repeated unwanted calls as disqualifying factor.
• NOTE: Company ownership/management change noted in multiple reviews. Customers report service degradation after acquisition from Climate Control Specialist, suggesting systemic changes toward aggressive sales practices.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence. While the score reflects genuine data from 100 reviews, the company exhibits a deeply polarized pattern: exceptional service from individual technicians contrasts sharply with systematic pricing fraud, deceptive diagnostics, and installation failures. The HIGH confidence reflects data volume, not consistency. Customers should assume high risk of overcharging and false diagnoses, and obtain independent second opinions before accepting any quotes or authorizing work. The company's business model appears sales-driven rather than service-driven.

Pacific Bath receives strong praise from the majority of reviewers for professional, courteous installers who arrive on time, protect the home, and clean up thoroughly — driving a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (roughly 12–13 out of 78) describes serious failures including abandoned or incomplete projects, ghosting by management, bait-and-switch material substitutions, warranty disputes, and jobs that dragged on for months rather than days, which significantly depresses the project completion score. Pricing is a notable weakness: multiple reviewers — including one-star and even some positive reviewers — flag costs of $13,000–$33,000 as very high, with at least two reviewers explicitly stating they felt overcharged or taken advantage of, particularly elderly customers. Workmanship quality is generally praised by satisfied customers but contradicted by several detailed negative accounts describing poor installations, wrong materials, cracked pans, and unresolved defects. The gap between the best and worst experiences is very wide, suggesting inconsistent crew quality and a pattern of poor post-sale customer service escalation.

• PATTERN WARNING: Multiple negative reviews describe a recurring failure mode — management and supervisors (Josh, Andrea, Gower) failing to return calls or follow through on promises, while individual installers are praised. This suggests a systemic post-sale support problem rather than isolated incidents.
• VULNERABLE CUSTOMER CONCERN: At least two reviews explicitly describe elderly or disabled customers being overcharged or left without a functioning bathroom for extended periods. This is a serious ethical flag.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH ALLEGATION: One detailed review (2023-10-17) describes materials delivered at installation being visually different from samples shown during the sales process. This is a significant fraud-adjacent concern.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, callbacks not honored, and bathrooms left unusable for weeks or months. This is a recurring theme across multiple years (2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025).
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A notable number of 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, or contain no text at all (4 reviews with no text, several with only 1–2 sentences and no specifics). The same installer names (Gariel and James) appear in an unusually high number of 5-star reviews across a wide date range, which may reflect genuine repeat assignment but warrants caution. Confidence in the positive score cluster is slightly reduced.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative reviews (2025-02-25, 2025-06-09) suggest ongoing problems have not been resolved as of mid-2025. The pattern of complaints is consistent across 2021–2025, indicating no clear improvement trend.
• OWNER RESPONSE BIAS: One reviewer explicitly notes the owner only responds to positive reviews, which if accurate suggests selective reputation management rather than genuine customer service engagement.

This WW Score is based on 78 reviews spanning 2020–2025 with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable in volume terms, but the extreme bimodal distribution — many glowing 5-star reviews alongside detailed, credible 1-star accounts of serious failures — means the score of 68.2 should be interpreted as reflecting a genuinely inconsistent contractor where outcomes vary significantly depending on crew assignment, project complexity, and whether post-installation issues arise.