Find Nearby Plumbers In Bullhead City, Arizona

Craig Plumbing shows a mixed track record across the reviews analyzed. On the positive side, several customers praised prompt response times, courteous service personnel, and jobs completed efficiently. However, significant negatives weigh the score down: one customer was never called back at all, another reported a plumber who misdiagnosed a problem twice and then proposed an additional $250 camera fee — a practice a competing plumber called non-standard. Pricing transparency is a notable weak point, with one customer explicitly stating they felt potentially ripped off due to refusal to provide an itemized bill and undelivered warranty documentation. The overall picture is a contractor with some capable technicians but inconsistent quality control and transparency issues.

• Two reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from dimension scoring.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (most recent is from August 2017); no recent data is available to assess current performance. Scores should be treated with caution.
• The no-callback complaint (1-star, 2017) and the billing transparency complaint (1-star, 2017) represent the most recent reviews on record, which is a concerning recency signal.
• Small sample size of only 10 reviews total, with only 8 containing usable data — WW Score reliability is limited.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to a small review pool, two uninformative reviews, and the fact that all reviews are over 6 years old with no recent data to validate current service quality.

Plumbers Crack receives generally positive marks for responsiveness, friendliness, and willingness to work on holidays without excessive charges, which bolsters professionalism and pricing scores. However, a notable 1-star review describes a technician failing to resolve an active, damaging water heater leak — charging $85 while leaving the problem unresolved and requiring a second plumber — which significantly drags down project completion and experience scores. Pricing is mixed: two reviewers praised fair or reasonable costs, while the negative reviewer implies the charge was unjustified given no repair was made. With only 4 reviews spanning roughly 18 months, the dataset is too small to draw firm conclusions, and all scores should be treated with caution.

• Very small sample size (4 reviews total) — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should not be treated as definitive.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (all dated between 2021 and 2022), reducing recency relevance.
• One serious negative review describes incomplete and potentially harmful work (unresolved leak causing mold risk), which is a significant project completion red flag.
• Three of four reviews are 5-star with relatively brief, generic praise — mild concern about review depth, though not conclusive evidence of fake reviews.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 4 reviews, all dated over 12 months ago, and a meaningful negative outcome report that cannot be offset by the limited positive data available.

Action One Plumbing has a deeply polarized review history spanning over 15 years, with strong positive experiences from loyal repeat customers offset by a substantial volume of serious complaints. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: dozens of reviewers explicitly describe being quoted one price and billed significantly more, being charged for warranty work that should have been free, and receiving estimates two to three times higher than competing plumbers — this drove the pricing score to a very low 28. Professionalism is similarly mixed: many reviewers praise specific technicians (Ruben, Javier, Carlos, Steve, Charles) for punctuality, friendliness, and communication, while a comparable number describe rude behavior, no-shows, missed appointment windows with no notification, and unauthorized work being performed. Project completion scores moderately, as the majority of jobs that were started appear to have been finished, though several reviews describe abandoned or incomplete work, warranty repair delays exceeding 10 days, and one instance of a plumber leaving a home without water. Experience scores in the low-to-mid range: skilled technicians are praised in positive reviews, but multiple negative reviews describe incorrect diagnoses, unnecessary upselling of repairs, and at least one instance where a subsequent plumber had to fix the original plumber's work.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2007–2024) describe the same pattern — low or vague phone quotes followed by dramatically higher bills upon job completion. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY SCAM ALLEGATIONS: At least three separate reviewers (2012, 2018, 2019) allege being charged for parts and labor on warranty-covered water heaters, with one reviewer confirming via the manufacturer that Action One should have been reimbursed and not charged the customer.
• UNAUTHORIZED WORK: Two reviewers explicitly state work was performed without their authorization, followed by demands for payment.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several 5-star reviews contain no review text (only a rating and date). These blank reviews cannot be scored and were excluded from dimension analysis. Their presence slightly inflates the raw star average without contributing usable data.
• ONE REVIEW (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2017-06-11) contains text describing permit violations, price-switching, and illegal work — yet was submitted with a 5-star rating. This is internally inconsistent and may indicate a data entry error or a manipulated review.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review corpus spans 2007–2024. Pricing complaints are present across the entire date range, suggesting the pattern is not improving over time. The most recent substantive negative review (2024-02-25) continues to cite dishonest pricing as the primary complaint.
• COMPETITOR MENTIONS: Multiple negative reviewers name specific competing plumbers who completed the same job for significantly less cost, lending credibility to the overcharging allegations.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 17 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the persistent, multi-year pattern of pricing complaints and warranty fraud allegations that suggest systemic rather than isolated business practice issues.

Air Time Home Repairs presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praise Jonathan's responsiveness, fair pricing, and willingness to return for follow-up visits at no charge, suggesting genuine strengths in customer care when things go well. However, a significant cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning 2020 through 2022 — describes repeated no-shows, unanswered calls, abandoned jobs, and work left incomplete or broken, which severely drags down both professionalism and project completion scores. Serious concerns about technical competence are raised in multiple reviews, including allegations of adding Freon to a sealed system, recommending unnecessary compressor replacements on aged units, and performing work without proper licensing or permits. One review also alleges the contractor attempted to leverage a bad review removal in exchange for fixing damage he caused, which is a significant ethical red flag. The positive reviews are largely older (2018–2019) or lack specific detail, while the most damaging reviews are more recent and highly specific.

• ETHICAL VIOLATION FLAGGED: One reviewer (2022-05-28) explicitly alleges Jonathan offered to repair damage he caused only if the customer removed a negative review — this constitutes review manipulation and is a serious red flag.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One reviewer (2020-11-19) explicitly states Jonathan performed work requiring a license he does not hold and failed to pull required permits. This is a potential legal and safety issue.
• TECHNICAL COMPETENCE CONCERN: Multiple reviews allege substandard or incorrect work — including adding Freon to a sealed system, recommending compressor replacement on an end-of-life unit, and leaving wiring and fan in disrepair.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: At least 4 reviews (2020-07-23, 2021-07-30, 2022-09-19, 2022-05-28) describe Jonathan promising to return or fix issues and then going silent — blocking calls, not responding, and failing to show up repeatedly.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2018–2019, while the most detailed and severe negative reviews are from 2020–2022. This suggests a possible decline in service quality over time. No reviews exist from 2024 or later.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): Several 5-star reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 2018-06-02, 2018-03-16). While not conclusive, these reviews contribute limited evidentiary weight and confidence in the positive scores is modestly reduced.
• INCOMPLETE JOB PATTERN: Multiple negative reviewers describe work that was started but not completed, or repairs that failed shortly after completion with no follow-through from the contractor.

This WW Score is based on 17 reviews with a high volume of dimension-specific mentions, giving it statistical reliability, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the serious nature of the negative allegations — including licensing violations, abandoned work, and alleged review manipulation — which suggest meaningful risk in hiring this contractor.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While two reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, and fair pricing, three reviews document serious failures in project completion (abandoned work, unfinished callbacks, sloppy workmanship) and follow-through. The most recent negative review (2024-07-01) describes unprofessional pressure tactics and abandonment. Quality of workmanship is disputed—one review praises excellent work while another criticizes poor craftsmanship and attempts to hide mistakes. The WW Score of 58.3 reflects a contractor with capability but unreliable execution and communication.

• CRITICAL: Three of five reviews are 1-star with serious complaints about project completion and professionalism. Pattern suggests systemic issues, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent negative review is from July 2024 (very recent), indicating ongoing problems. Older positive reviews (2023, 2021) may not reflect current performance.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: Two separate reviews document failure to honor callbacks or complete agreed-upon work (2024-07-01 and 2022-04-26).
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Workmanship quality is disputed—one review praises 'excellent' work while another documents sloppy work with hidden defects (quarter round not nailed, covered by TV).
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Review from 2022-04-26 explicitly states contractor 'ignored every attempt to reach him' after initial work.

This score should be treated with caution due to high volatility in reviews and recent negative feedback. The contractor demonstrates capability in some areas but has documented failures in reliability, follow-through, and communication that represent significant risk.

Rooter King Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile spanning over 15 years. Positive reviews — concentrated among customers who hired the company directly or had straightforward jobs — consistently praise specific technicians (Jacob, Javier, Santos, Cullen, Jerry, David, Joel) for professionalism, friendliness, and competence. However, a very large volume of negative reviews — many from customers assigned through home warranty companies (AHS, 2-10, AHW) — describe a systematic pattern of inflated 'code upgrade' or 'modification' charges, misdiagnosis, incomplete work, rude office staff (particularly a figure named Pedro), and failure to honor callbacks or schedules. Pricing is the most damaged dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly alleging overcharging, fraudulent billing to both the customer and warranty company simultaneously, and charges for work not performed. Project completion is also significantly impaired, with multiple reviews describing jobs left unfinished, problems recurring shortly after service, and technicians refusing to perform agreed-upon work. The experience dimension is mixed: some technicians are clearly skilled, while others are described as incompetent or deliberately evasive to avoid difficult work.

• SYSTEMATIC PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: A very high number of independent reviewers across multiple years describe near-identical schemes involving inflated 'code upgrade' or 'modification' charges on water heater replacements, often ranging from $430 to $970+, which second-opinion plumbers consistently found unnecessary. This is not isolated — it appears to be a business practice.
• DUAL BILLING ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers allege Rooter King billed both the customer out-of-pocket AND the home warranty company for the same work, or collected warranty payment for work never performed. These are serious fraud allegations.
• NAMED INDIVIDUAL 'PEDRO' REPEATEDLY CITED: Across reviews spanning 2015–2021, a supervisor or office manager named 'Pedro' is repeatedly named as rude, dismissive, threatening, and willing to hang up on or scream at customers. This suggests a persistent management-level customer service failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2005 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) show some improvement in technician quality and responsiveness, but pricing complaints and incomplete work complaints persist into 2025. Older reviews (pre-2020) carry less weight but establish a long-standing pattern.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Six reviews contained no text (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• POSSIBLE FAKE/GENERIC REVIEWS: A small number of very short, generic 5-star reviews ('Very professional', 'Fast and thorough', 'Great technician', 'Keep up the good work', 'Awesome best in the world superb customer service reasonable prices above and beyond quality workmanship') contain no specifics and may be inflating the positive review count. Confidence is not materially reduced given the large overall sample, but these reviews were weighted minimally.
• SENIOR CITIZEN TARGETING: At least two reviews explicitly allege that the company targeted or took advantage of elderly or senior customers with inflated pricing.
• WARRANTY COMPANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST: A significant portion of negative reviews come from customers assigned via home warranty companies. Some reviewers allege Rooter King deliberately misdiagnoses or inflates costs to extract out-of-pocket payments while also collecting warranty fees, suggesting a structural incentive problem when operating as a warranty contractor.

This WW Score of 52.1 is based on a very large sample of 125 reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable representation of the contractor's overall performance — the score reflects a company with genuinely capable individual technicians undermined by serious, well-documented, and recurring issues with pricing transparency, billing integrity, job completion, and office-level customer service.