Find Nearby Plumbers In Camarillo, California

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe Phil and AAA Plumbing in deeply negative terms across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most severely impacted dimension, with dozens of reviews documenting verbal abuse, hanging up on customers, no-shows, missed appointment windows, condescending behavior toward women, and outright refusal to perform work. Project completion is nearly as damning, with repeated accounts of abandoned jobs, broken equipment left behind, work performed incorrectly requiring a second plumber to fix, and chronic failure to follow through on scheduled appointments. Pricing drew consistent complaints about inflated out-of-pocket charges for code upgrades that other plumbers quoted at a fraction of the cost, as well as allegations of attempting to double-bill home warranty companies. Experience scores slightly higher than the other dimensions only because a small cluster of positive reviews — primarily from non-warranty direct clients — describe Phil as highly skilled, knowledgeable, and capable of solving complex problems others could not; however, multiple negative reviews describe outright incompetent diagnoses and botched repairs that worsened the original problem.

• STRONG PATTERN: The vast majority of negative reviews involve home warranty company assignments (First American, Old Republic). Phil appears to systematically use code-upgrade claims to extract out-of-pocket payments beyond warranty coverage, a pattern repeated across at least 12 independent reviews spanning 2016–2023.
• SPLIT REVIEWER PROFILE: Positive reviews almost exclusively come from direct-hire or long-term personal clients, while negative reviews are almost entirely from home warranty-assigned customers. This suggests a deliberate two-tier service model rather than random quality variation.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several 5-star reviews are unusually brief and generic (e.g., 'very professional and courteous', 'honest as they come', 'great service call') with no specific details. These contrast sharply with the highly detailed negative reviews. Confidence in positive scores is reduced accordingly.
• BEHAVIORAL RED FLAGS: Multiple reviews independently describe Phil screaming at customers, calling customers derogatory names (including gendered slurs), hanging up mid-conversation, and retaliating against customers who questioned his pricing. At least two reviews describe dangerous driving behavior in a company vehicle.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span the full date range from 2016 through 2023, indicating no improvement in conduct over time. The most recent reviews (2023) continue to document the same patterns as reviews from 2016–2018.
• LICENSING/PERMIT CONCERN: At least one review (2022) states that Phil claimed no permit was needed for a water heater installation, the customer independently obtained a permit, and city inspectors found multiple installation violations. This raises serious questions about licensing compliance.
• ABANDONED WORK: Multiple reviews describe Phil disconnecting water heaters, removing toilet components, or disassembling fixtures and then leaving the property mid-job without completing the work, leaving customers without water or functional plumbing for days or weeks.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on 52 reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's overall service quality; the volume and consistency of negative evidence across multiple years and independent reviewers leaves little ambiguity.

AP Plumbing's reviews paint a consistently negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension and is severely damaged by repeated no-shows, failure to return calls, missed appointment windows, and poor communication across the majority of reviews — with only two reviews offering any positive counterpoint. Project completion is similarly poor, with multiple accounts of abandoned appointments, incomplete work, and jobs requiring multiple rescheduled visits that still failed to materialize on time. Pricing drew explicit concern in one detailed review alleging double-dipping on labor charges and inflated fees for trivial work, with a second review noting unresolved billing confusion with the home warranty company. Experience scores slightly higher due to two genuinely positive reviews praising plumber knowledge and workmanship, but these are heavily outweighed by accounts of technicians arriving unprepared, lacking tools, and refusing to perform required work. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with serious systemic operational failures.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews date from 2012–2015. Only one review is from 2015, and none are from the past several years. This score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current operations.
• PATTERN FLAG: The two positive reviews (5-star ratings from 2012 and 2013) are notably generic in praise relative to the highly specific negative reviews. The 2012 positive review contains no detail about the job performed. Low-confidence positive outliers in an otherwise overwhelmingly negative dataset.
• SYSTEMIC ISSUE: Multiple independent reviewers describe the same failure patterns — no-shows, unreturned calls, missed windows, and poor scheduling — suggesting organizational dysfunction rather than isolated incidents.
• BILLING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly alleges the company charged inflated fees for trivial work and may have been double-billing labor on top of warranty payments. A second reviewer reports unresolved billing confusion involving the home warranty deductible.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the high mention counts for professionalism and project completion provide statistical grounding, but the age of all reviews (2012–2015) means this score should be treated as a historical indicator only and not assumed to reflect current contractor performance.

Nation Side Plumbing has an overwhelmingly negative review profile across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is catastrophically low, with dozens of reviews explicitly describing technicians as rude, condescending, threatening, and verbally abusive — including one account of a technician calling a customer a profanity on the way out, and the owner allegedly threatening legal action and making intimidating phone calls to reviewers. Pricing is the lowest-scoring dimension, with a consistent and well-documented pattern of fraudulent upselling, fabricated code violations, grossly inflated parts costs, and charges for work not performed — often exploiting home warranty customers who feel trapped. Project completion is nearly as poor, with numerous reviews describing abandoned jobs, misdiagnoses that left problems worse than before, failed inspections, and technicians closing tickets prematurely without resolving the issue. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small cluster of positive reviews (primarily from 2019–2020) describe competent work, but these are vastly outweighed by recent accounts of botched repairs, incorrect diagnoses, and work that actively caused additional damage.

• SUSPECTED FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: The positive reviews (all 5-star) show several hallmarks of inauthenticity — generic superlatives ('exceptional,' 'outstanding,' 'amazing'), lack of specific detail, unusually formal phrasing, and one review reads almost like a marketing brochure ('Nation Side Is On Your Side'). The ratio of 1-star to 5-star reviews is extreme, and one negative reviewer explicitly states the good reviews appear fake.
• OWNER THREATENING BEHAVIOR: Multiple independent reviewers report receiving threatening phone calls from the owner (identified as 'Armen' or 'Armani') after posting negative reviews, including one reviewer whose companions described the call as sounding like a physical threat. This is a serious red flag for review manipulation and customer intimidation.
• SYSTEMATIC FRAUD PATTERN: Across more than 20 reviews spanning 2020–2024, there is a consistent and specific pattern of: (1) misdiagnosing problems to avoid covered warranty work, (2) submitting false reports to home warranty companies, (3) fabricating code violations to charge out-of-pocket fees, and (4) charging for parts not installed. This is not isolated poor service — it appears to be an intentional business practice.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are uniformly 1-star and describe the same patterns as older reviews, indicating no improvement over time. The positive reviews are concentrated in 2019–2020 and are treated with reduced weight accordingly.
• BBB AND STATE CONTRACTOR BOARD COMPLAINTS: At least two reviewers explicitly state they have filed complaints with the California State Contractor's License Board and/or the Better Business Bureau. One reviewer notes the company has an F rating on BBB.
• VERBAL AND PHYSICAL SAFETY CONCERNS: One reviewer reports a technician called her a profanity on exit; another reports misogynistic treatment; another reports a technician appeared intoxicated; another reports a driver in a company vehicle used foul language and drove recklessly. These represent serious liability and safety concerns beyond typical poor service.

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews with very HIGH data density across all four dimensions and should be considered highly reliable — the score of 18.7 accurately reflects a contractor with a documented, multi-year pattern of unprofessional conduct, fraudulent billing practices, incomplete work, and poor technical execution, with the small number of positive reviews insufficient to meaningfully offset the overwhelming volume of detailed, credible negative accounts.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. While both reviews are positive and mention problem-solving ability, honesty, and fair pricing, the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about contractor performance across all dimensions.

• Only 2 reviews available — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Reviews are significantly dated (2013 and 2016) — no recent data from past 12 months
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise; limited specific detail about scope or outcomes
• Insufficient mention density across dimensions — most dimensions mentioned in only 1-2 reviews

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume and age; at least 3 recent reviews are needed for trustworthy assessment.

Both reviews explicitly praise Nshan Kazandzhyan for professionalism (punctuality, politeness, honesty, cleanup), fair pricing (no charge for second opinion, saved customer thousands), project completion (work completed, drain service provided), and experience (technical knowledge, proper diagnostic equipment, problem-solving). However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is critically insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. All reviews are from 2023 (1-2 years old) and both are 5-star ratings with enthusiastic language.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2023 (1-2 years old). No recent reviews from past 12 months available.
• SAMPLE BIAS: Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or balanced perspective. No negative or neutral reviews present to validate claims.
• PATTERN ALERT: Both reviews contain enthusiastic, emphatic language ('forever plumber', 'You'll thank me later', 'true professional') and focus heavily on comparison to competitors rather than standalone service quality. This pattern warrants caution.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2). The available data shows consistently positive feedback across all dimensions, but the small sample size, age of reviews, and absence of critical feedback prevent confident assessment of true service quality.

This single review describes a severely problematic engagement with Dr Drain involving aggressive upselling, unnecessary destructive work, damage to existing plumbing, and violation of contractor licensing board regulations. The contractor removed functional drains, broke a cast iron pipe with a hammer, and demanded excessive deposits ($1,635 and $2,700 post-dated checks) for work that was not needed. The customer fired the contractor mid-project after discovering the original problem was only a blocked j-bend requiring minimal repair. All four dimensions score extremely low due to explicit evidence of poor professionalism, predatory pricing practices, incomplete/abandoned work, and questionable technical judgment.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required)
• SEVERE CONTRACTOR MISCONDUCT: Review alleges deliberate destruction of functional plumbing, fraudulent upselling, and violation of state contractor licensing board deposit limits
• POTENTIAL LEGAL ISSUE: Customer references complaint to Contractors Licensing Board — suggests formal complaint may exist in public record
• REVIEW AGE: This review is from May 2012 (12+ years old) — does not reflect current business practices if contractor is still operating
• SINGLE DATA POINT: All dimension scores are based on one review only — confidence is LIMITED across all dimensions

This report cannot produce a valid WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 1 review; minimum 3 required). The single review contains extremely serious allegations of contractor misconduct, but a single data point—especially one over a decade old—cannot reliably represent current business performance. If this contractor is still in operation, current reviews are essential before drawing conclusions.