Find Nearby Plumbers In Bullhead City, Arizona

Dockside Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 48.2, driven primarily by severe professionalism deficits (35/100). The company exhibits a pervasive pattern of rude, aggressive, and unprofessional communication from office staff and ownership, with multiple reviews documenting threatening phone calls, yelling, condescension, and harassment of customers who leave negative reviews. Project completion is problematic (52/100), with numerous reports of misdiagnosis, incomplete repairs, refusal to return for warranty work, and poor follow-through on callbacks. While individual technicians (particularly Carlos, Albert, and Jose) occasionally receive praise for technical competence (58/100), this is undermined by inconsistent quality and office-level failures. Pricing concerns (42/100) include allegations of bait-and-switch tactics, inflated estimates, and discrepancies between quoted and charged amounts. The company's heavy reliance on home warranty referrals and documented pattern of submitting reports to deny claims raises serious integrity questions.

• CRITICAL: Multiple credible reports of harassment and threatening behavior. At least 5 reviews document the owner/manager (Chris) calling customers repeatedly (40+ times in some cases), cursing, threatening legal action, and demanding review removal. This constitutes potential criminal harassment.
• CRITICAL: Pattern of claim denial manipulation. Multiple reviews allege the company submits reports to warranty companies designed to deny coverage rather than facilitate repairs—contradicting diagnoses given to customers, mischaracterizing issues, and exaggerating problems to shift liability.
• CRITICAL: Systematic misdiagnosis. Numerous independent verifications show the company's diagnoses were incorrect (shower valve vs. jets, missing vs. wrong part, whole-house clog vs. single toilet, etc.), with second opinions consistently contradicting their assessments.
• HIGH CONCERN: Fake review pattern detected. Approximately 25-30 reviews (mostly 5-star, dated 2024-06-08) contain generic praise with minimal specifics, repetitive language ('professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'highly recommend'), and lack detail about actual work performed. Several appear to reference the same technicians (Carlos, Albert, Chris, David) in nearly identical contexts. This suggests potential review manipulation.
• HIGH CONCERN: Retaliation and intimidation. Multiple reviews document the owner calling customers after negative reviews, with one customer reporting the owner threatened to post her private phone number online and another reporting private threatening messages.
• MODERATE CONCERN: Inconsistent technician quality. While some technicians (Carlos, Albert) receive consistent praise, others (Jose, Gabriel) are frequently cited for laziness, incomplete work, and poor diagnostics. This suggests inadequate training or quality control.
• MODERATE CONCERN: Communication breakdown. Numerous reviews report unanswered phones, voicemails that cut off callers, missed callbacks, and appointment scheduling errors—indicating systemic operational failures.
• MODERATE CONCERN: Warranty company collusion allegations. Multiple customers allege the company is compensated by AHS to deny claims, citing contradictory reports submitted to the warranty company vs. what was told to customers.
• Recency note: Most negative reviews cluster in 2023-2024, with particularly severe allegations (harassment, threats) concentrated in May-October 2024, suggesting ongoing or worsening conduct.

This WW Score of 48.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 127 reviews with extensive corroborating detail across all dimensions. The professionalism and project completion scores are particularly robust (89 and 72 mentions respectively), with consistent patterns of documented failures, misdiagnosis, and unprofessional conduct. The detected fake review pattern (approximately 20-25% of 5-star reviews) actually strengthens confidence in the negative scores, as it suggests the true underlying performance is worse than even the 48.2 score indicates. Customers should avoid this company; if assigned through a warranty provider, requesting an alternative vendor is strongly advised.

This plumbing company exhibits highly polarized performance with severe professionalism and pricing concerns offsetting some positive technical work. Professionalism is significantly compromised by documented patterns of poor communication, non-responsiveness to callbacks, refusal to show up for jobs, and dismissive attitudes toward customers. Pricing practices are deeply problematic, with multiple reports of overcharging, hidden fees, credit card surcharges, aggressive payment demands before/during work completion, and apparent upselling of unnecessary services. Project completion shows mixed results with some jobs finished properly but others abandoned or improperly executed. Technical experience demonstrates competence in actual repairs when work is performed, but this is undermined by misdiagnosis, unnecessary recommendations, and failure to properly assess problems before quoting.

• CRITICAL: Strong pattern of alleged fraudulent practices including misrepresentation of problems to warranty companies, unnecessary upselling, and charging for work not performed (e.g., $65 for pictures only, charging for drain pan not installed, $225 for 15-minute visit with no work completed)
• CRITICAL: Multiple reports of aggressive payment collection tactics including demanding payment before work starts, repeated payment requests during active work, and harassment via text/calls within hours of job completion
• CRITICAL: Documented pattern of poor communication and non-responsiveness including voicemail screening, refusal to call back, and hanging up on customers
• CRITICAL: Ethical concerns regarding warranty company interactions - multiple customers report technician provided false information to warranty companies to deny claims or justify unnecessary replacements
• CRITICAL: Alleged solicitation for cash payments 'on the side' to bypass warranty company processes, suggesting potential insurance fraud
• PATTERN: Positive reviews (5 total) are significantly outnumbered by negative reviews (13 one-star ratings) with a stark quality divide - positive reviews mention quick response and good workmanship; negative reviews allege scams and fraud
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews cluster in 2020-2022 period; more recent positive reviews (2018-2019) suggest possible improvement or selection bias in review sources
• INCONSISTENCY: Same owner 'Enrique' appears in both highly praised reviews and multiple fraud allegations, suggesting either dramatic inconsistency in service delivery or potential fake positive reviews

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on substantial review volume (21 reviews), the extreme polarization (13 one-star vs. 5 five-star with minimal middle ground), multiple detailed fraud allegations, and documented patterns of unethical practices suggest this company presents significant risk. The positive reviews may not reflect typical customer experience given the overwhelming volume and specificity of negative allegations. Customers should independently verify licensing, insurance, and seek references before engaging this company.

The review set presents a deeply divided picture of Brehm Plumbing. On the positive side, several reviews — mostly from 2013 to 2018 — praise the technical skill of the plumbers, their efficiency, and reasonable pricing. However, more recent reviews (2022–2024) paint a troubling picture of serious reliability failures: multiple no-shows without calls, unanswered phones, and a front-office operation described as disorganized and unaccountable. Professionalism and project completion scores are significantly dragged down by repeated, credible accounts of appointments being missed entirely with no follow-up. Pricing receives mixed signals — one reviewer found charges excessive for simple work, while others found costs reasonable — resulting in a middling score. The experience dimension scores highest, as the actual plumbers who did show up were consistently praised for their skill and knowledge.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most positive reviews are from 2013–2018, while the most negative reviews are from 2022–2024. This suggests a possible decline in service quality over time. Recent reviews should be weighted more heavily, which pulls scores down.
• SPLIT ENTITY ISSUE: One reviewer explicitly states their 5-star rating is for the individual plumber (Rene) and NOT the company, and gives the company itself a negative assessment. This inflates the star rating without reflecting company-level quality.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Two separate reviews (Dec 2022, Feb 2023) independently describe plumbers failing to show up for scheduled appointments with no call or follow-up. This is a credible and serious pattern affecting project completion and professionalism scores.
• GENERIC OLDER REVIEWS: The 2018 and 2013 reviews, while positive, are relatively brief and lack specific detail. They are not flagged as fake but carry less evidentiary weight given their age and generality.
• OFFICE VS. FIELD STAFF DISCONNECT: Multiple reviews distinguish between poor office/administrative performance and competent field plumbers. Scores reflect the company as a whole, not individual technicians.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review count is low (9 reviews), the data spans over a decade with a clear negative trend in recent years, and at least one 5-star review explicitly does not represent the company's overall performance.

This company shows significant inconsistency across reviews. One detailed negative review explicitly criticizes workmanship quality (tile work appearing beginner-level and unchanged after promised fixes) and serious professionalism concerns (inappropriate dress and unprofessional conduct). Two positive reviews praise reliability, courteous service, competitive rates, and quality work across multiple projects. The stark contradiction between these accounts, combined with very limited review volume (only 3 reviews), makes it difficult to establish a reliable overall assessment. The professionalism and experience scores are heavily weighted down by the specific documented concerns in the negative review.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 total reviews — insufficient volume for high-confidence scoring. Results should be treated as preliminary.
• CONTRADICTION: One detailed negative review directly contradicts positive reviews on workmanship quality and professionalism. This suggests either inconsistent service delivery or potential service variation by staff member.
• SPECIFICITY IMBALANCE: The negative review contains specific, detailed complaints (tile work quality, unprofessional appearance/conduct). The positive reviews are generic praise without specific project details or dates of service.
• RECENCY: Negative review is most recent (Dec 2023). Positive reviews are from July 2023, suggesting potential service quality decline.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: The negative review documents explicit unprofessional conduct (inappropriate dress) — this is a serious red flag that cannot be ignored despite positive reviews.

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution due to only 3 reviews and direct contradictions between accounts. The score reflects the serious professionalism and workmanship concerns documented in the negative review, but the limited data volume and conflicting narratives mean this assessment is unreliable for decision-making. Additional recent reviews are needed before drawing firm conclusions.

The reviews for Bullhead Plumbing paint a largely negative picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is the most consistently documented concern, with one technician exhibiting hostile behavior before even exiting his vehicle and storming off without completing work. Project completion is also a serious concern, as one reviewer explicitly states that more than half of the listed plumbing issues were left undone. Pricing drew a direct complaint about excessive charges — $150 for a $10 part — suggesting a lack of transparency or fairness. The sole positive review is brief, generic, and lacks any specific detail, which limits its ability to meaningfully offset the two detailed negative accounts.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated with caution.
• The single 5-star review is extremely brief and generic ('on time and very reliable, Thanks') with no specific details about the work performed, technician behavior, or pricing. This pattern is consistent with a potentially inauthentic or low-effort review and has been weighted conservatively.
• Two of the three reviews are dated 2020 and 2022 respectively — all reviews are older than 12 months, meaning there is no recent data to assess current service quality.
• The negative reviews contain specific, credible details (exact dollar amounts, specific behaviors, specific tasks left incomplete) which increases their reliability relative to the vague positive review.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than 12 months, with one potentially generic positive review and two detailed negative accounts — the score should be considered highly unreliable and insufficient for confident contractor evaluation.

The reviews paint a deeply concerning picture of this contractor. Two of the three reviews describe serious failures: repeated no-shows without explanation, abandoned work, misappropriated upfront payment, and complete non-responsiveness to follow-up contact. The single positive review is brief, lacks detail, and is from 2020, making it the least recent and least informative data point. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with two explicit accounts of unfinished work and one contractor abandonment. Professionalism scores are near-floor due to documented ghosting, broken commitments, and failure to communicate.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor took $300 upfront and abandoned the job without completing work — this constitutes potential fraud.
• REGULATORY ACTION FLAG: One reviewer states they are filing complaints with the Nevada Contractors Board and Nevada Attorney General's Office.
• RECENCY FLAG: The only positive review is from 2020, over 3 years before the most recent negative reviews (2022, 2023). The trend is clearly negative over time.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW CONCERN: The single 5-star review is brief and generic ('repaired it quickly, scheduling was quick and easy') with no specific detail. It cannot be confirmed as fake, but it provides minimal usable data and should be weighted cautiously.
• PATTERN WARNING: Two independent reviewers describe the same behavioral pattern — taking money or time commitments, then going completely unresponsive. This consistency across separate incidents increases credibility of the negative accounts.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. Score reliability is limited and should not be treated as a definitive assessment.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be treated as a preliminary warning signal rather than a definitive rating — however, the two negative reviews are highly detailed, consistent, and describe serious misconduct that significantly outweighs the single vague positive review.