Find Nearby Plumbers In Camarillo, California

AZ Air Conditioning and Heating presents a deeply split profile. On the positive side, a large volume of reviews — particularly from 2023 to mid-2025 — praise individual technicians (Mike, Oscar, Joaquin, Chris, Evin, Pedro, Christian, Tito, etc.) as professional, punctual, knowledgeable, and courteous, driving reasonably solid professionalism and experience scores. However, a significant and consistent body of negative reviews — spanning 2022 through 2024 — describes serious systemic failures: multi-week or multi-month delays in service and repairs, failed city inspections, abandoned or incomplete work, misdiagnosis, price gouging, and near-total unresponsiveness from management and scheduling. Pricing is a major liability, with multiple independent reviewers citing charges 2–3x competitor quotes, hard-sell tactics, and bait-and-switch behavior. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with numerous detailed accounts of jobs left unfinished for months, repeat failed inspections, and warranty commitments not honored. The contrast between glowing field-tech reviews and scathing systemic/management reviews suggests a company with capable individual workers but deeply dysfunctional operations, scheduling, and business ethics.

• SUSPECTED DUPLICATE REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., 'Excellent work' 5-star on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; 'Mike was great.' on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; 'Mike was very professional and efficient...' on both dates; the Tito 'BYOND AWESOME' review on both dates; the Mike mold review on both dates). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or padding. Confidence in the aggregate positive score is reduced accordingly.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A disproportionate number of reviews are extremely short, generic, and content-free (e.g., 'Excellent work', 'Great', 'Very well done', 'Mike did awesome.', 'Very professional', blank-text 5-star reviews). Many of these provide no verifiable detail and inflate the positive review count artificially.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 12-15 reviews contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY CONCERN — NEGATIVE TREND: The most detailed and credible negative reviews are concentrated in the 2023–2024 period, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting a decline in service quality following what appears to be a change in company ownership or management. This suggests the company's current operational quality may be significantly worse than its historical average.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Multiple reviewers cite charges of $16,000–$22,000 for systems competitors quoted at significantly less, $890 for refrigerant only, $4,000 for misdiagnosed repairs, and $500+ for non-existent wifi components. One reviewer documented being charged 2.5x a competitor's price for identical work. These are not vague complaints — they are specific, credible, and corroborated across multiple independent reviewers.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES ARE SYSTEMIC: Multiple reviewers describe: city inspection failures lasting 4–8+ months, incomplete installations requiring 6+ return visits, gas leaks post-installation, units installed but non-functional, and promised refunds or callbacks never delivered. One reviewer documented a permit remaining open for 4+ months after a failed city inspection.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: A recurring theme across negative reviews is complete inability to reach management, unanswered calls and emails over weeks or months, and promises of callbacks that never materialize. This is mentioned in at least 15 independent negative reviews.
• COSTCO ASSOCIATION RISK: Many customers chose this company specifically due to its Costco partnership, which created elevated trust expectations. The gap between those expectations and actual service delivery is a recurring source of dissatisfaction and may represent a reputational risk for both parties.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted with significant caution — the presence of confirmed duplicate reviews, numerous content-free 5-star reviews, and a stark bifurcation between positive field-tech experiences and severe systemic operational failures means the true customer experience is likely worse than the blended score suggests, particularly for customers requiring post-installation support, warranty service, or project completion follow-through.

This contractor exhibits a stark performance divide. Positive reviews (5 from 2011–2020) consistently praise technical expertise, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, with customers noting knowledgeable staff and efficient problem-solving. However, two recent reviews (2021–2022) document severe professionalism failures: no-shows, broken promises, and complete lack of communication despite multiple contact attempts. The recency and consistency of these failures suggest a serious operational breakdown. While experience and pricing remain strong when work is completed, the dramatic collapse in punctuality and responsiveness significantly undermines overall trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL: Two recent reviews (2021–2022) document repeated no-shows and communication failures, contradicting the positive pattern from 2011–2020. This suggests either a significant operational decline or a change in management/staffing.
• Recency concern: Most positive reviews are 8+ years old (2011–2013). Only 2 recent reviews available; both are 1-star with identical complaint patterns (promised arrival times not honored, no callbacks).
• Professionalism score heavily penalized by explicit no-show and communication failures documented in 2 recent reviews, despite older reviews praising professionalism.
• Project completion score reflects uncertainty: older reviews show completed work; recent reviews show abandoned commitments before work even began.

This score should be treated with caution. While historical data suggests competent work at fair prices, the recent pattern of no-shows and communication breakdowns raises serious concerns about current reliability. Recommend requesting recent references and clarifying current operational status before engaging.

On The Level Plumbing has a mixed record across reviews spanning 2011 to 2017. Earlier reviews (2011–2015) paint a consistently positive picture: Shawn Upton was praised for punctuality, friendliness, transparency, reasonable pricing, and solid workmanship including follow-up visits at no charge. However, two significant negative reviews — one from 2016 describing a refusal to honor a stated one-year guarantee, and one from 2017 describing a complete failure to follow up on a prospective job for a returning customer — meaningfully drag down scores in professionalism and project completion. The 2017 and 2016 negative reviews are the most recent data points available, which under recency weighting carry elevated importance and suggest a possible decline in service quality or business responsiveness in later years.

• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2015-06-22) contains only the text 'unknown' and provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• All positive reviews are dated 2011–2015; both negative reviews are from 2016–2017. This recency pattern suggests a possible decline in service quality over time and reduces confidence in the positive scores.
• The most recent review (2017) is now over 7 years old. All reviews are older than 1 year, meaning this score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current service quality.
• The sample size of 6 usable reviews is very small. While confidence labels reflect mention counts per dimension, the overall WW Score reliability is limited by the low total review volume.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific names, dates, job details, and varied language across both positive and negative entries.

This WW Score should be treated with caution: it is based on only 6 usable reviews, all older than 7 years, with the two most recent reviews being negative — suggesting the score may overstate current service quality.

Camarillo Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is sharply divided: older reviews (pre-2020) frequently praise punctuality, friendliness, and communication, while more recent reviews (2022–2024) describe argumentative behavior, failure to show up, rude office staff, and lack of transparency. Pricing is the most damaging dimension, with numerous explicit complaints about wildly inflated quotes — including a $4,500 quote for a job done elsewhere for $200, a $975 garbage disposal charge with no upfront disclosure, and a $6,500 quote for a $12.99 fix — dragging this score down severely. Project completion is mixed: several reviews praise thorough, complete work, but others describe abandoned tasks, improperly installed components, caused leaks, and no-shows. Experience scores moderately, with some reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, but offset by reviews describing sloppy workmanship, incorrect installations, and poor diagnostic judgment. The company appears to have undergone ownership changes around 2022, which correlates with a notable decline in review sentiment.

• OWNERSHIP CHANGE FLAG: Multiple reviews explicitly note a change in ownership around 2022, with the new ownership operating under 'All Toasty Heating & AC' while still presenting as Camarillo Plumbing. This creates a split-identity concern and makes pre-2022 reviews potentially unreliable as indicators of current performance.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2022–2024) are predominantly negative (1-star), while the majority of positive reviews are from 2013–2021. Scores have been weighted to reflect this downward trend in recent performance.
• LICENSING/INSURANCE FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states that not all workers are licensed plumbers and that the company does not carry workers comp insurance for all employees. This is a serious operational and legal concern.
• PRICING PATTERN FLAG: At least 5 separate reviews describe quotes that were dramatically higher than what competitors charged for identical work (e.g., $4,500 vs $300; $4,500 vs $200; $6,500 vs $12.99). This pattern suggests a systemic practice of inflated quoting rather than isolated incidents.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe faulty installations that caused secondary damage — including a garbage disposal that broke open and flooded a cabinet, improperly fitted pipes, and a tub handle installed upside down that caused a leak to the floor below.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, length, and rating. No evidence of coordinated fake positive reviews was found. The positive reviews appear genuine but are largely dated.

This WW Score is based on 51 reviews spanning 14 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the clear post-2022 ownership-related decline — prospective customers should weight the 2022–2024 reviews most heavily when making a hiring decision.

Plumbing Tech presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. While several reviewers praised individual technicians (Kyle, Robert S., Matt S., Matt K.) for professionalism, communication, and quality workmanship, these positives are heavily counterbalanced by serious negative reviews alleging scam-like upselling, price inflation, and abandoned work. Pricing is the most damaged dimension, with multiple credible accounts of bills escalating dramatically — one from $3k to $38k and another involving a fabricated sewer collapse diagnosis to justify a $5,400 job. Project completion is also significantly impacted by a review describing a 7-foot hole left in a front yard for 3 months and a separate failure to ever deliver a promised quote. The experience dimension is similarly split: some reviewers describe skilled, thorough work while others describe technicians misdiagnosing problems or being unable to complete basic tasks without upselling.

• SERIOUS FRAUD/SCAM CONCERN: At least two independent reviews (May 2019 and April 2019) describe nearly identical patterns — a routine drain call escalating to a high-cost repair recommendation that a second plumber later determined was unnecessary or grossly overpriced. This is a strong signal of a systematic upselling or scam practice, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK: One review explicitly states a technician (Andy) left a 7-foot hole in the front yard for 3 months with a broken line unrepaired. This is a severe project completion failure.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: One reviewer reports being promised a quote that never arrived after 3+ weeks of follow-up, and a separate reviewer reports a promised callback from Matt that never came.
• REVIEW DATE RANGE: All reviews are from 2018–2021. The most recent review is from May 2021. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, meaning current service quality cannot be assessed. Scores should be treated with caution regarding present-day performance.
• MIXED TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Named technicians vary significantly in quality. Positive reviews name Kyle, Robert S., Matt S., Matt K., and Ron. Negative reviews name Matt and Andy. This suggests inconsistent staffing rather than uniform service quality.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Review language is varied, specific, and includes both positive and negative experiences with named individuals and specific dollar amounts. No fake review pattern detected.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews spanning 2018–2021 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution due to the severity of fraud-related allegations, an abandoned project, and the absence of any reviews from the past 12 months.

This contractor's review set is deeply divided, with a cluster of enthusiastic 5-star reviews offset by a significant number of detailed, credible 1-star complaints. Pricing is the most damaged dimension: multiple reviewers independently describe being dramatically overcharged, threatened with liens, and subjected to bait-and-switch tactics, with one reviewer citing a $1,500 charge for roughly 2.5 hours of digging and another quoting $2,000 for a hydrojet that a competitor performed for $850. Project completion is also severely impacted, with one review describing a water heater installation left unfinished for over a year and another detailing raw sewage left throughout a garage for over a week with inadequate remediation. Professionalism scores are pulled down by multiple accounts of aggressive owner behavior, dismissive communication, and failure to follow through on commitments, though positive reviews do describe kind, responsive, and punctual service. Experience receives a slightly higher score due to some credible positive accounts of skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but is undermined by accounts of improper technique causing additional damage.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several 5-star reviews use unusually effusive, generic praise with limited specific job detail (e.g., 'I love this company, great service every time'). These contrast sharply in tone and specificity with the detailed negative reviews, raising the possibility that some positive reviews may not be fully authentic.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 5 years, with the most recent review dated April 2020. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• PRICING ABUSE PATTERN: At least four independent reviews describe significant overcharging, aggressive collection tactics including lien threats, and bait-and-switch pricing behavior. This is a consistent and serious pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least two reviews describe work that was either never completed or left in a worse condition than before the contractor arrived, suggesting a systemic project completion problem.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews specifically name the owner (Santiago) in connection with aggressive, dismissive, or unprofessional behavior toward customers, including an elderly client.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the volume of reviews analyzed, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the age of the data (all reviews are 4–10 years old), the presence of suspected low-detail positive reviews, and a strong, consistent pattern of serious pricing and conduct complaints from multiple independent reviewers.