Find Nearby Plumbers In Bakersfield, California

Toolin' Around demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently prompt communication, friendly demeanor, and reliable scheduling across 22 mentions. Pricing is perceived as fair and reasonable across 8 mentions. However, project completion shows significant concern: while most jobs are completed, the May 2024 pantry review reveals critical failures including incomplete work, multiple callbacks, poor quality control on door installation, and most seriously, illegal asbestos removal without homeowner consent or proper safety protocols. Experience is solid with good craftsmanship on routine tasks, but the same review exposes gaps in technical knowledge regarding construction regulations. Two additional reviews from 2024 and 2022 document communication breakdowns where promised follow-ups never occurred.

• CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE: May 2024 review documents illegal asbestos removal without homeowner consent, proper testing, or safety precautions (no respirator masks, no job site enclosure, no legal disposal). Contractor claimed ignorance of legal requirements for asbestos removal under 100 sq ft, which is a serious liability and regulatory violation.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: Same May 2024 review shows multiple callbacks required (bottom shelf built incorrectly, accordion door handles drilled three times with permanent damage to doors, holes never properly filled, final promised callback never completed).
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Two separate reviews (May 2024 and February 2022) document promised follow-ups and estimates that were never delivered despite multiple customer contact attempts.
• QUALITY CONTROL GAPS: Dog door installation (October 2023) shows sloppy workmanship including removed structural bracket, non-flush screws, stripped screw holes, missing caulking, and poor hole-filling attempts.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2024) contain two 1-star and one 3-star rating documenting serious issues, suggesting potential deterioration in service quality or consistency.

This score should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH overall confidence in data volume. The company demonstrates genuine strengths in routine handyman work and professionalism on standard projects, but the May 2024 review reveals critical deficiencies in safety compliance, regulatory knowledge, and project management on complex work—particularly demolition involving potential hazardous materials. The pattern of incomplete work and communication failures in recent reviews (2024, 2022) suggests systemic issues beyond isolated incidents. Recommend this company only for straightforward handyman tasks and explicitly avoid any demolition, asbestos-related, or complex construction work.

Tommy's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and pricing across most reviews, with technicians consistently praised for politeness, punctuality, and fair rates. However, project completion is a significant weakness, with multiple reviews documenting incomplete work, failed repairs requiring callbacks to competitors, and unresolved billing disputes. The company shows technical competence in routine jobs but struggles with complex problems and follow-through on commitments. The stark contrast between 16 five-star reviews and 3 severe one-star reviews suggests inconsistent service quality and possible quality control issues.

• CRITICAL: Three severe negative reviews (1-star ratings from 2024-10-21, 2021-08-17, 2023-06-01) document serious failures: abusive customer treatment, charging for incomplete work, failed drain repairs requiring competitor intervention, and refusal to honor callbacks. These are not minor complaints.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Multiple reviews explicitly state the company failed to complete work properly or refused to return for callbacks (2024-10-21, 2023-06-01, 2021-08-17). This directly contradicts the positive narrative in other reviews.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERN: 2024-10-21 review documents charging for work not performed, threatening legal action, and charging extra for materials promised to be included. 2021-08-17 review documents promised refund never issued.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2019-2022 (older than 1 year). The most recent review (2024-10-21) is severely negative, suggesting possible service degradation.
• POTENTIAL QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE: Inconsistency across reviews suggests different technicians deliver vastly different service levels. Named technicians (Rick, Marcus, Dan) receive praise, but unnamed technicians are associated with failures.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: 8 reviews (2021-2022 period) use nearly identical phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'reasonable prices,' 'professional,' 'quick service') with minimal specific detail. However, this is offset by detailed negative reviews and some detailed positive reviews, so confidence is not fully reduced.

This score should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH confidence in data volume. The WW Score of 78.2 masks a deeply polarized customer base with critical failures in project completion and billing integrity documented in recent reviews. The company's true reliability appears significantly lower than the score suggests due to unresolved callback issues and customer service failures that directly contradict stated commitments.

Thomas Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently fast response times, friendly technicians, and courteous service across 14 reviews. Technical expertise is solid with skilled problem-solving and efficient work completion noted in 9 reviews. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness: multiple reviews (8 mentions) explicitly criticize flat-rate charges as excessive and non-transparent, with complaints about $159 for 15 minutes of work and parts marked up significantly above retail. Project completion shows mixed results—most jobs are finished promptly, but one critical 2018 case involved a 2+ month failure to complete a water heater repair, severely damaging trust. The company's strength in responsiveness and professionalism is offset by pricing concerns and one major completion failure.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2018, 2017) explicitly criticize flat-rate pricing as unfair and non-transparent. One reviewer noted $159 for 15 minutes of work; another paid $80/hour with no proration for 20 minutes. This contradicts claims of being 'affordable' in business name.
• MAJOR PROJECT FAILURE: June 2018 review documents a 2+ month failure to complete water heater repair under home warranty. Customer had to hire friend to fix it. This is a critical red flag for project completion reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 4-7 years old (2015-2018). Only 3 reviews from 2019 onward. Recent performance data is limited. The 2018 negative reviews may or may not reflect current operations.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('amazing,' 'highly recommend,' 'fast service') with minimal specific detail. However, the presence of detailed negative reviews and specific pricing complaints suggests genuine mixed feedback rather than fabricated reviews.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported by 9-14 mentions, but pricing concerns are substantive and documented across multiple independent reviews, and the most recent data is 4+ years old, limiting confidence in current pricing practices and operational consistency.

Drain Pro demonstrates strong technical expertise and reasonable pricing, with most customers praising workmanship and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by multiple documented failures in punctuality, communication, and follow-through—including two explicit no-shows with no callback, unresponsive technicians, and rude behavior. Project completion is solid overall but marred by the same communication and reliability issues. The company shows inconsistency: excellent service from some technicians (Eric, Ricky, Robert) contrasts sharply with poor experiences involving Jeff and unnamed staff. This volatility suggests operational or management issues rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: Two separate 1-star reviews (2021-04-29 and 2015-05-07) document identical failure patterns—scheduled appointments with explicit no-shows and no callback communication. This is not isolated and represents systemic reliability issues.
• INCONSISTENCY ALERT: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising specific technicians (Eric, Ricky, Mike, Robert, Chris) and 1-star reviews citing rudeness and unresponsiveness from other staff (Jeff, unnamed owner). Suggests quality control or hiring/training problems.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 3+ years old (2015-2017). Only 4 reviews from past 2 years (2023-2022). Recent data is limited, making current reliability assessment uncertain.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATOR: One 2016 review explicitly flags another review as fake ('you can see right through because they only have done one review and it's just negative'). This suggests awareness of review manipulation but does not itself constitute fake review evidence.
• PROFESSIONALISM VOLATILITY: 11 mentions span from 5-star praise ('kind,' 'patient,' 'courteous,' 'responsive') to 1-star condemnation ('surly,' 'rude,' 'annoyed,' 'untrustworthy'). This wide variance is unusual and indicates inconsistent service delivery.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH overall confidence. While the score reflects genuine high-quality work and expertise, the documented pattern of no-shows, missed callbacks, and inconsistent professionalism represents material risk. The company excels at technical execution but fails at reliability and communication—two critical dimensions for service businesses. Prospective customers should be aware that excellent workmanship may come with scheduling and responsiveness challenges. The age of most reviews (3-6 years) further limits confidence in current operational standards.

C&C Concerns earns consistently positive marks for professionalism, with numerous reviewers citing punctuality, courteous behavior, quick responsiveness, and good communication across many years of reviews. Project completion is generally strong — most reviewers confirm work was finished as promised and on time — but two notable complaints (uneven gate installation and an alleged $95 overcharge for materials) introduce meaningful deductions. Pricing is a mixed dimension: several reviewers praised affordability and fair quotes, but the overcharge complaint and one review noting a very low charge (implying inconsistency) temper the score. Workmanship quality is generally described positively, with references to good attention to detail and professional execution, though few reviews go into deep technical specifics. The overall picture is a reliable, responsive contractor with a strong track record, slightly undermined by a handful of negative experiences and the age of most reviews.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2023). The vast majority of reviews are from 2010–2015, making it difficult to assess current performance. The WW Score should be interpreted with caution given this staleness.
• One review (2014-07-30, 0.5 stars) explicitly alleges overcharging of $95 for materials the customer had already purchased. This is a credibility and pricing concern.
• One review (2011-04-08) reports dissatisfaction with gate installation quality, noting the gates were uneven and the contractor failed to communicate this issue in advance.
• One review (2012-07-31) contains only a period '.' and was treated as unusable for scoring purposes.
• One review (2010-02-08) states the customer had not yet used the contractor — only received a bid. This was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no post-service data.
• Several reviews use generic positive language ('great service,' 'very satisfied,' 'good job') with no specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual data points, though the volume of detailed reviews offsets this concern.

The WW Score carries HIGH volume confidence due to 29 usable reviews, but should be treated with caution given that nearly all reviews are more than 8 years old and only one review is from the past 12 months, making current performance largely unverifiable.

Elite Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism (82.5) with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across 187 mentions. Pricing is competitive and fair (78.0) with 68 mentions highlighting reasonable costs and transparency. However, project completion shows the most concern (72.5) with 142 mentions revealing significant follow-through issues: multiple callbacks not honored, incomplete work requiring repeat visits, poor communication about scheduling, and several instances of abandoned jobs. Experience/skill is solid (80.0) across 95 mentions, with technicians generally demonstrating competence and problem-solving ability. The company's performance is inconsistent—excellent technical work undermined by administrative and follow-through failures.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (15+) document severe project completion failures including abandoned jobs, non-responsive callbacks, and incomplete work requiring other contractors to finish repairs. Examples: septic tank project abandoned 6 months in, water heater installation never completed, faucet replacement never followed up on.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Recurring pattern of unresponsive office staff (Nicole mentioned multiple times), voicemail boxes full, no return calls, and email-only communication causing delays. At least 12 reviews cite inability to reach the company.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in service quality depending on technician assigned. Some technicians (Frank, Ryan, Salvador, Dale) consistently praised; others (Stewart, Brandon) associated with poor follow-through and unprofessional behavior.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Approximately 20 recent reviews (dated None/no date) show suspiciously identical phrasing patterns ('Salvador/Sal was professional,' 'responded immediately,' 'highly recommend') with generic praise and no specific details. These cluster at end of review list and lack dates. Confidence reduced slightly due to this pattern.
• CREDIT CARD FRAUD ALLEGATION: One review (2024-05-26) alleges unauthorized credit card processing without customer authorization—serious compliance concern.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent dated reviews (2025) are from Payless Plumbing/different company name. Older Elite Plumbing reviews (2003-2016) show more detailed narratives; recent undated reviews lack specificity, suggesting possible review manipulation or company rebranding.
• WARRANTY COMPANY DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (8+) document conflicts with home warranty companies, suggesting either systemic billing/coverage issues or poor coordination with warranty processes.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by extensive mentions, the project completion score is significantly dragged down by documented failures in follow-through and communication. The recent cluster of undated, suspiciously similar positive reviews raises authenticity concerns. Prospective customers should prioritize requesting specific technician assignments (Frank, Ryan, Salvador, Dale show best track records) and establish clear written completion timelines with penalty clauses, as administrative follow-through appears to be the company's primary weakness despite solid technical capability.