Find Nearby Plumbers In Berkeley, California

Infinity Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication, punctuality, and courteous staff across most engagements. Pricing is generally competitive and transparent, though some customers report aggressive upselling of pressure relief valves and other add-ons. Project completion is solid overall, but a notable subset of reviews (approximately 8-10) report no-shows, incomplete work, follow-up failures, and unresolved callbacks. Technical expertise is consistently praised when work is completed, with skilled diagnostics and quality installations. The company shows significant variability in execution quality and customer service consistency, particularly around warranty work and pressure valve recommendations.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (at least 8) report aggressive upselling of pressure relief valves (PRV) at $525-$800, with customers claiming the PRV was unnecessary or already installed. This appears to be a systematic practice, particularly with American Home Shield warranty work.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 3 reviews explicitly report missed appointments, no-shows, or failure to arrive during scheduled windows without communication or apology.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (at least 4) report incomplete work, promised callbacks never made, and unresponsiveness after initial service.
• GHOSTING ON REFUNDS: Two identical reviews report being ghosted after overpaying by $1,200 on a sewer lateral job, with no response to phone or email requests for refund.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews cite rude, condescending, or argumentative behavior from office staff (particularly one named 'Gina'), including name-calling and lack of empathy.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are overwhelmingly 5-star with generic praise and minimal detail, suggesting possible review manipulation or fake reviews. Older reviews (2019-2023) show more balanced criticism.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTERING: Approximately 40 reviews from June 2025 and February 2025 contain nearly identical phrasing ('great job,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specificity, raising authenticity concerns.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Wide variance in outcomes—some reviews praise exceptional work and honesty; others report substandard installations, code violations, and incomplete jobs by the same company.
• WARRANTY COMPANY FRICTION: Multiple reviews indicate the company operates primarily through home warranty companies (AHS) and appears to use warranty work as an opportunity for upselling and claim denial tactics.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in responsiveness, technical skill, and professionalism in many cases, the presence of systematic issues (PRV upselling, no-shows, follow-up failures, and ghosting on refunds) combined with suspicious clustering of recent 5-star reviews suggests the overall score may be artificially inflated. The company appears to deliver inconsistent service quality depending on the technician, job type, and whether warranty work is involved. Customers should verify references, confirm appointments with a person (not online booking), and be skeptical of PRV recommendations.

Acme Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and technical competence across a large number of technicians including Anthony, Norval, Alejandro, Clay, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 20-25 across the full dataset — raise serious concerns across all four dimensions: the owner (Ed) is repeatedly cited for rude behavior, threatening customers with lawsuits over billing disputes, and hanging up on clients; pricing transparency is a recurring problem with multiple reviewers describing hidden fees, undisclosed per-plumber hourly charges, and feeling overcharged; and project completion failures include abandoned jobs, missed callbacks, work left unfinished, and at least one instance of work done without required permits. The technician-level work is generally rated well, but owner/management conduct meaningfully drags down professionalism and pricing scores. Recency of reviews (2024-2025) shows continued strong positive feedback but also continued negative incidents, suggesting these issues are not fully resolved.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 'Super Bowl Sunday' review featuring Norval Cunningham appears verbatim twice — once dated 2024-02-12 and once dated 2024-06-09. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The billing dispute review describing charges of $678 vs. agreed $372 and threats of lawsuit appears nearly verbatim twice — once dated 2021-06-10 and once dated 2020-09-16. Counted only once for scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 (approximately 20+ reviews) share the same date with no timestamps, many are very short and generic ('Professional service', 'Great friendly and fast service', 'Outstanding work'), and several are blank 5-star submissions. This pattern is consistent with a bulk review import or solicitation campaign. Confidence in this cluster is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 15-18 reviews contain no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• OWNER CONDUCT — RECURRING NEGATIVE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, 2021, 2024, 2025) describe the owner (Ed) as rude, threatening legal action over billing disputes, hanging up on customers, and failing to honor service commitments. This is a persistent and credible pattern.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY — RECURRING NEGATIVE PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviews describe undisclosed fees, surprise charges, or feeling significantly overcharged. One reviewer documented a $303 estimate that became $344.74 with an undisclosed service fee added. Another described being charged $678 when $372 was agreed. This materially reduces the pricing score.
• PROJECT COMPLETION — NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least 3 reviews describe work left unfinished, missed follow-up appointments with no notice, or jobs requiring a second plumber to correct Acme's work. One review describes work done without required permits.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive detail are from 2019-2025, which were weighted more heavily. Reviews from 2004-2013 were included but given reduced weight due to age and potential changes in company ownership or staffing over time.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews reference Monterey/Salinas, CA locations while others reference Durham, NC. This may represent two different Acme Plumbing franchises or locations. Scores reflect the combined dataset as provided, but users should be aware the reviews may not all pertain to a single business entity.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (155 total, ~130 with usable data) spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to: a cluster of same-day generic reviews suggesting possible solicitation, confirmed duplicate reviews, persistent owner-conduct complaints across many years, and possible geographic mixing of two different business locations.

Mr. Plumber has a strong baseline of positive reviews spanning many years, with repeated praise for polite, professional technicians and solid technical problem-solving across complex jobs. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including multiple instances of no-shows, missed callbacks, arriving late without notice, and at least one case of incomplete work followed by billing confusion — meaningfully drags down both professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing feedback is mixed: several reviewers praised fair or competitive pricing, while others explicitly noted the company was on the pricey side or felt overcharged. The most recent substantive negative review (2023) describes a serious failure in workmanship, follow-through, and billing integrity, which carries elevated weight due to recency. Overall, the company demonstrates genuine skill and many satisfied long-term customers, but recurring reliability and communication failures prevent a high score.

• Multiple reviews contain no usable content ('unknown', '.', '..', 'good', 'Great.', 'Fixed without replacing', 'Plumbing issues solved.') — these were counted toward total reviews but excluded from dimension scoring.
• Recency concern: The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2007–2017. Only a small number of reviews are from 2018–2023, and the most recent substantive review (2023, 1-star) describes significant failures in workmanship, follow-through, and billing.
• No-show pattern detected across multiple reviews (2009, 2011, 2015, 2020, 2023): at least 5 separate reviewers reported missed appointments or no callbacks, suggesting a systemic scheduling and communication problem.
• Billing irregularity flagged in the 2023 review: conflicting instructions from owner vs. owner's son regarding whether a bill should be paid, followed by a third-party call demanding payment after verbal cancellation — this is a significant integrity concern.
• One reviewer (2015, 3-star) described being charged $245 more than planned due to repeated equipment failures and tardiness across multiple visits — suggests operational inconsistency.
• Some older 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'good', 'Great.', 'unknown') with no detail. While not conclusively fake, they add no evidentiary value and were excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score is based on 91 reviews with a broad date range (2007–2023); confidence in the score is HIGH due to volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given that recent reviews skew negative and a recurring no-show and communication failure pattern has been documented across multiple independent reviewers.

Pat O'Neill has a strong overall reputation built on decades of positive reviews praising her technical knowledge, reasonable pricing, responsiveness, and warm demeanor. However, several credible negative reviews — particularly the detailed 1-star review from 2017 describing multiple novice-level mistakes on a bathroom remodel, a broken faucet incident in 2012 where she charged for her own error, and multiple complaints across years about unreturned phone calls — meaningfully drag down her professionalism and project completion scores. The responsiveness issue is a recurring pattern across at least 4 separate reviews spanning 2014–2015, suggesting it is a genuine and persistent weakness rather than an isolated incident. Her pricing scores well because multiple reviewers explicitly praised her as competitive, reasonable, or better than alternatives, and she honored original quotes even when jobs ran long. Project completion is scored conservatively because the 2017 bathroom remodel review describes abandoned work, in-wall errors that cannot be corrected, and a refusal to take responsibility — a serious and detailed account that cannot be dismissed.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 7 years, with most clustered between 2009–2014. Only a handful of reviews exist from 2015 onward. The most recent review (2017) is the most negative and detailed. The score should be treated with caution as a reflection of current service quality.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: At least 4 separate reviews (2014, 2015 x2, 2015) explicitly complain about unreturned calls or dismissive responses to inquiries. This is a documented recurring weakness, not an outlier.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT: The 2017 1-star review is highly detailed and credible, describing multiple in-wall plumbing errors on a bathroom remodel that a subsequent plumber confirmed, cosmetic damage to a new fixture, refusal to install contracted items, and no apology or accountability. This is weighted heavily in the project completion and experience scores.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE REVIEWS: Two reviews dated 2013-12-14 (one at 11:28:17 and one at 00:00:00) describe nearly identical experiences involving a 1908 house, leaking toilet and bathtub, and rebuilding the toilet. These may be duplicate submissions from the same household or coordinated reviews, which slightly inflates the positive review count.
• GENERIC PRAISE PRESENT: Several short reviews (e.g., 2010-02-03, 2010-01-18, 2009-06-23) contain effusive but vague praise with no specific job details. These were included but given lower evidentiary weight in scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (51 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable; however, the strong recency skew toward older reviews (most from 2009–2014), a credible and detailed 2017 complaint describing serious unresolved workmanship failures, and a documented pattern of unreturned calls mean this score should be treated as a historical snapshot rather than a confident indicator of current service quality.

ATP Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise Tom and his crew for responsiveness, honesty, and technical skill across a wide range of plumbing jobs. However, several serious negative reviews — including allegations of poor workmanship, lying about permits and certifications, overcharging, blocking a customer after a major job failure, and starting work without authorization — meaningfully drag down all four dimensions. The pricing dimension is mixed: many reviewers call prices fair and reasonable, but at least two reviews cite significant overcharging and one notes a lack of upfront hourly rate disclosure. Project completion is similarly split, with most jobs finished well but notable failures including a ceiling collapse after a $50,000 job, a water heater that leaked immediately, and a failed city inspection requiring costly rework. The review base spans 2009–2022, with the most serious negative reviews appearing in 2016, 2021, and 2022, suggesting quality or integrity issues may have persisted or worsened over time.

• Several reviews are older than 5 years (2009–2016), and the most recent reviews (2021–2022) include two serious 1-star complaints; recency weighting reduces confidence in positive historical scores.
• The 2021 1-star review alleges a $50,000 job resulted in structural damage (ceiling collapse), the contractor claiming not to recognize the customer, and ultimately blocking the customer — this is a severe project completion and professionalism failure.
• The 2016 1-star review alleges multiple lies (misidentifying pipe material, false permit claims, false manufacturer certification), immediate workmanship failure, overcharging, and leaving the family without a working shower for 5 days — corroborating a pattern of integrity concerns.
• The 2009 2-star review alleges work started without owner authorization and rude, impatient behavior once the job began — an early data point consistent with the later negative pattern.
• Multiple positive reviews use enthusiastic, effusive language and strong recommendations, but most include specific job details and unique phrasing, reducing the likelihood of fake reviews. No fake review flag is raised, but the contrast between glowing positives and severe negatives suggests possible inconsistency in service quality across clients or over time.
• A 3-star review (2011) notes ATP failed a city rough-in inspection for improper dryer venting through another unit's walls, indicating a knowledge gap in code compliance for non-standard work, though remediation was done at ATP's expense.

This WW Score is based on 25 reviews spanning 13 years with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable; however, the presence of multiple detailed, credible negative reviews describing serious integrity and workmanship failures means prospective customers should treat the score as a moderate-confidence indicator and carefully vet ATP Plumbing before engaging them for large or complex projects.

Toto's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and competitive pricing, with extensive positive feedback on sewer lateral work, responsiveness, and fair estimates. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by multiple documented incidents of hostile, aggressive, or dismissive behavior toward customers—particularly regarding contract requests, communication failures, and confrontational interactions. While many reviews praise Raul's skill and honesty, the pattern of interpersonal conflicts and occasional follow-up failures (missed callbacks, unresolved issues) creates material trust concerns. The company excels at complex technical work but struggles with consistent customer service standards.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 7) document aggressive, hostile, or rude behavior by owner Raul or crew members toward customers. This includes yelling in a bathroom, refusing to discuss contracts, making scenes, and blaming customers for rudeness. This is a systemic professionalism issue, not isolated incidents.
• PATTERN: Several customers report Raul agreeing verbally to refunds/adjustments then refusing to follow through or not answering calls (reviews from 2024-08-15, 2023-11-08, 2014-04-28).
• PATTERN: Multiple instances of incomplete diagnosis or inadequate problem-solving (e.g., 2023-01-04 review: failed to identify full extent of sewer, charged more than estimate, other plumbers found 90 additional feet of pipe Raul missed).
• PATTERN: Communication/responsiveness failures documented in multiple reviews (2017-08-17 no-show without notice, 2017-05-16 no response to Friday calls/emails, 2011-09-24 rude response about missing address despite three confirmations).
• CONCERN: One review (2013-06-16) alleges Raul recommended unnecessary sewer lateral replacement; city inspector found no permit pulled and Water Board confirmed lateral was fine. Customer was refunded.
• CONCERN: Review from 2023-11-08 describes Raul becoming 'very hostile' when questioned about $1,200 sidewalk repair that was never performed and was unnecessary.
• RECENCY: Most negative professionalism incidents are from 2024, 2023, and 2022, suggesting ongoing behavioral issues rather than historical problems.
• NOTE: Several reviews mention language barrier (accent/English difficulty), but this does not excuse hostile behavior or communication failures.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable but reflects a company with significant internal inconsistency: exceptional technical work and fair pricing are undermined by documented patterns of hostile customer interactions, communication failures, and occasional follow-through problems. The HIGH confidence is based on substantial review volume (150 reviews, 89+ mentions per dimension), but customers should be aware that positive technical outcomes do not guarantee professional treatment or responsive communication.