Find Nearby Plumbers In Fontana, California

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism across all three reviews, with consistent praise for cleanliness, respectfulness, clear communication, and honest diagnosis. Project completion is solid with quick response times and efficient work delivery. Pricing appears fair and transparent based on two explicit mentions comparing value favorably to competitors. However, the sample size is small (only 3 reviews, all from 2020-2022) and all are 5-star ratings, which limits confidence in the overall assessment. The contractor shows genuine skill in diagnostics and customer service, but more recent reviews would strengthen reliability.

• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — consider whether this represents genuine universal satisfaction or potential selection bias
• Most recent review is from March 2022 (nearly 2 years old); no reviews from past 12 months limits recency assessment
• Sample size is very small (n=3); scores should be treated as preliminary and updated with additional reviews
• Two reviews mention the same contractor by name (Robert), suggesting possible repeat customer base but also limited diversity of reviewer pool

This WW Score of 88.3 should be treated as preliminary due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and lack of recent data; while the reviews are detailed and specific rather than generic, the absence of any critical feedback and age of reviews warrant caution in relying heavily on this score for major decisions.

Ray May Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise the technical knowledge of both counter staff and field plumbers, driving a solid experience score. Professionalism scores well overall, with many reviewers citing punctuality, politeness, and clean work, but is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of negative reviews describing rude office staff, flippant plumbers, and poor communication. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many customers describe fair or competitive pricing, there are multiple credible, specific complaints about price gouging, tripled quotes, uncharged extra fees for correcting a plumber's own mistakes, and high hourly rates — these are too detailed and varied to dismiss. Project completion is mixed; the majority of service calls appear to be completed satisfactorily, but there are notable failures including a no-show appointment, an abandoned job, a backed-up system days after work was done, and a plumber who lacked the right equipment. The score reflects a genuinely capable business with a real but inconsistent track record.

• Multiple negative reviews contain very specific financial details (e.g., $250 quoted then $850 charged, $77 charged to correct plumber's own work, $170 charge to retrieve forgotten equipment) — these are credible and materially impact the pricing score.
• One negative review (2023-07-05) was written '3 years later' about an incident from approximately 2020, which reduces its recency weight but not its credibility given the specificity of the complaint.
• Several positive reviews are from 2014–2016 and carry reduced recency weight; the most recent reviews (2022–2024) show a more mixed picture than the older review base.
• A small number of positive reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Best customer service', 'Great place, counter help knows their stuff') with no specifics — these were counted for mentions but treated conservatively in scoring.
• No clear pattern of fake reviews detected; positive reviews span many years, reference specific staff by name (Floyd, Dana, Kris, Armando, Steve, Tom, Justin, Gary), and include a mix of ratings. The review corpus appears authentic.
• One reviewer (2023-10-21) explicitly contrasts Ray May with a competitor they describe as having 'thousands of fake reviews' — this is anecdotal but adds context about the competitive landscape, not about Ray May's own reviews.
• The project completion dimension includes a no-show appointment (2014-01-21) with a detailed account of repeated scheduling failures — this is a significant service failure and was weighted accordingly.

This WW Score is based on 62 reviews spanning approximately 12 years with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence; however, consumers should note that pricing and project completion carry meaningful downside risk based on multiple specific, credible negative accounts, and the score should be interpreted as reflecting an above-average but imperfect contractor rather than an exceptional one.

This contractor demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with many customers praising quick response times and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—numerous reviews document unexpectedly high charges, lack of upfront estimates, and allegations of price gouging, particularly toward elderly customers and for straightforward jobs. Professionalism is mixed: while many technicians are courteous and knowledgeable, several reviews report communication failures, no-shows, and unprofessional behavior. The company's long history and family ownership generate loyalty among repeat customers, but newer or one-time customers frequently report negative experiences with billing practices.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (at least 15+) explicitly cite unexpectedly high charges, lack of transparent upfront estimates, and allegations of overcharging. This is the single most consistent complaint across the dataset.
• VULNERABLE POPULATION CONCERN: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention elderly customers being charged excessive amounts ($1,300+ for routine work, $675 for a flange replacement, $493 for toilet installation). One reviewer stated 'I felt I was taken advantage of being a female.'
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document no-shows without proper notification (2024-09-24, 2022-06-30, 2020-12-15), failure to follow up on promised callbacks, and inconsistent messaging about service fees vs. repair costs.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Wide variance in technician professionalism—some highly praised (Barry, Bryan, Brandon, Sean, Don in positive reviews) while others criticized for rudeness, arrogance, and carelessness (Don in 2020-11-21, 2020-09-14; Kevin in 2020-04-28; unnamed driver in 2021-10-27).
• INCOMPLETE DIAGNOSTICS: Review from 2016-05-30 documents inadequate inspection of tankless water heater (only $135 token effort) followed by failure to return for promised callback, requiring customer to hire specialist who found serious burner corrosion.
• BUSINESS NAME CONFUSION: Multiple reviews indicate customers were misled by '$25 Plumbing' name, expecting $25 service calls when actual service fees are $49-$90+. This suggests either misleading marketing or poor phone communication about pricing structure.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative pricing complaints cluster in 2020-2021 period, but recent reviews (2024) show continued communication issues. Positive reviews are distributed across entire timeline, suggesting company has maintained core customer base despite documented problems.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('family owned business,' 'very professional,' 'highly recommend') but these appear distributed across different time periods and include specific details, so pattern is not conclusive.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable but reflects a company with significant structural problems in pricing transparency and communication, offset by genuine technical competence and strong project completion rates. The HIGH overall confidence is justified by the large sample size (80 reviews) and consistent patterns, but customers should be aware that pricing disputes and communication failures are documented concerns that may not be fully captured in the score weighting.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses operating under similar 'All About Plumbing' or 'Allison Plumbing' names, making direct attribution difficult, but the overall picture is a contractor with a strong positive majority offset by a meaningful minority of serious complaints. Professionalism scores are dragged down by recurring patterns of no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, and failure to return calls — issues mentioned explicitly across dozens of negative reviews spanning multiple years. Pricing receives a moderate-to-low score because while many customers praise fair and competitive pricing, a notable cluster of reviews describe bait-and-switch tactics, charges added without consent, overcharging seniors, and prices that jumped significantly from quoted amounts. Project completion is similarly mixed: the majority of jobs are described as completed well, but multiple reviews describe abandoned work, callbacks not honored, problems made worse, and in at least two cases customers had to take legal action or dispute charges. Experience scores highest because the technical skill of individual plumbers is frequently praised, with many reviewers noting knowledgeable diagnosis and quality workmanship — though a handful of reviews describe misdiagnosis, broken pipes caused by the plumber, and failed repairs.

• MULTIPLE BUSINESS ENTITIES: Reviews appear to cover several distinct businesses operating under similar names including 'All About Plumbing,' 'All In A Day Plumbing,' 'Allison Plumbing,' and variations. Scores reflect an aggregate and may not represent any single contractor accurately.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews about Ray Buchanan dated 2023-03-25, two identical reviews about the 'ALL ABOUT NOT CARING' experience dated 2024-05-27, two identical reviews about the Troy water hammering job, two identical reviews about the water filtration estimate with Xzavia). This inflates review count and may indicate review manipulation or platform aggregation artifacts.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text content and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their presence in high volume is a mild fake-review signal.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are dated 2022 or earlier, including many from 2019 and before. Older reviews carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) continue to show both strong positives and serious negatives, suggesting persistent quality inconsistency.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege fraud, unauthorized credit card charges, charging for work not performed, referring customers to fraudulent contractors, and in one case a customer reports winning a court judgment against the company. These are not scored but significantly reduce trust in the overall profile.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 10 distinct reviews across multiple years describe scheduled appointments where no plumber arrived and no call was made. This is a persistent and documented pattern affecting the professionalism score.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: The large volume of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Great service,' 'Excellent,' 'Professional,' 'Fast reliable service') alongside blank-text 5-star entries raises moderate concern about review padding. Confidence is not reduced to LOW given the large volume of detailed genuine reviews, but the inflated positive count should be noted.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but moderate trust reliability due to the presence of multiple business entities in the dataset, duplicate reviews, blank reviews, and serious misconduct allegations that suggest the true score for any single contractor may differ materially from this aggregate.

Mr. Rooter Inland Empire demonstrates strong professionalism and communication across the majority of reviews, with technicians frequently praised for being courteous, punctual, and thorough in explaining work. Project completion scores well overall, with many reviewers confirming jobs were finished promptly and effectively, though a handful of serious negative reviews describe abandoned quality, misdiagnosis, and one instance of a technician being unable to resolve a problem. Experience is generally rated positively, with multiple reviewers citing knowledgeable technicians and skilled problem-solving, but offset by credible accounts of unnecessary work, misdiagnosis, and at least one case where a wall was opened unnecessarily. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a significant margin, with multiple independent reviewers across different years describing quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors, bait-and-switch advertising, and allegations of predatory pricing targeting vulnerable customers including elderly and recently bereaved individuals.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text 'Friendly and effective' posted on 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-02 — possible fake or system-duplicated review; confidence in those entries reduced.
• 39 reviews contain no text at all (blank body, rating only) — these provide no usable qualitative data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Multiple independent, detailed negative reviews across different years (2021, 2022, 2023, 2024) describe quotes 3–10x higher than competitors for identical jobs. One reviewer documented a $5,000 quote vs. a $1,250 competitor price; another cited $75 fix vs. hundreds quoted; another paid $150 after advertised price of $88.
• ETHICAL CONCERN: Two separate reviews allege predatory behavior targeting vulnerable individuals — one describes a technician pressuring an elderly tenant to sign a contract without owner approval; another describes overcharging a customer whose husband was in the hospital.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2023) alleges a technician doctored an invoice with false discounts and misrepresented the work performed, describing it as bait-and-switch fraud.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: One reviewer paid an additional $4,000 to a second plumber to fix poor-quality work left by Mr. Rooter, and describes a year-long failure to receive follow-up from the company.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 and fall within the past 12 months, which increases the reliability of the overall score. Older negative reviews (2020–2023) are still included as they describe systemic patterns rather than isolated incidents.
• PATTERN WARNING: The pricing complaints are not isolated — they span multiple years, multiple reviewers, and multiple technicians, suggesting a systemic pricing practice rather than individual bad actors.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with high mention counts across all dimensions, giving it statistical weight, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to credible, detailed, and recurring allegations of predatory pricing, misrepresentation, and targeting of vulnerable customers — issues that are not fully captured by the aggregate score alone.