Find Nearby Plumbers In Glendora, California

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile: a strong cluster of positive reviews praising individual technicians like Walter, Rodrigo, Sammy, Ralph, and Ray for professionalism, punctuality, and honest pricing, offset by a significant number of severe negative reviews describing abandoned work, unresponsiveness, rude behavior from the owner, and botched repairs. Professionalism scores moderately due to repeated complaints about the owner Walter's attitude, no-shows, and technicians leaving messes or unfinished work, even though many individual field techs received genuine praise. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing incomplete jobs, walls left open, return visits never materializing, and weeks-long delays with no water service. Pricing fares somewhat better, with several reviewers noting fair and transparent quotes, though a few described being charged for work that solved nothing. The experience dimension is mixed: skilled technicians like Ray and Rodrigo received specific praise for diagnosing and resolving complex issues, while others described technicians arriving without proper tools, misdiagnosing problems, or making situations worse.

• A large cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 with no timestamps is suspicious — many are extremely brief ('Great service.', 'Best service ever!!', 'Excellent service way to go guys!', 'A very nice guy', 'Awesome!!!') with no specifics, suggesting possible review padding or bulk submission on a single date.
• Nine reviews in the dataset contain no review text at all — only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• The positive reviews skew heavily toward recent dates (2024–2025) while the most detailed and credible negative reviews span 2016–2021, suggesting a possible reputation recovery effort or selective solicitation of positive reviews.
• Multiple negative reviews reference the owner Walter by name as the source of rude, dismissive, or unprofessional behavior, which is a structural business concern beyond individual technician performance.
• Several negative reviews describe a pattern of unresponsiveness after payment or warranty claim submission — unreturned voicemails, missed appointments, and walls left open — indicating a systemic project completion problem rather than isolated incidents.
• The single 2025 review contains no text, only a 5-star rating, and provides no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most detailed negative reviews are from 2016–2021 and may not reflect current operations. However, the 2024 negative review about a driver and the 2024 review about being charged $380 for an unresolved problem suggest issues persist.

This WW Score carries HIGH statistical confidence due to the large number of reviews with usable data across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the strongly bimodal review distribution, credible evidence of fake or bulk-submitted reviews, and a recurring pattern of serious service failures documented across multiple years.

The review set is deeply polarized, with roughly half of reviewers praising the company and half reporting serious failures. Positive reviews consistently highlight the $49.50 flat-fee pricing, punctual arrivals, courteous technicians, and effective drain clearing. However, a substantial number of negative reviews describe a bait-and-switch pricing pattern — technicians arriving under the $49.50 promise and then refusing to complete the job without charging 3–7x more — which severely damages both the pricing and project completion scores. Professionalism is similarly split: several technicians were praised as polite and thorough, while others were described as arrogant, careless, and dishonest. Workmanship quality is inconsistent, with multiple reports of jobs not being completed correctly, flooding caused by technicians, and no-shows on follow-up appointments, pulling the experience score down significantly.

• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple independent reviewers (at least 4) describe the same scheme — technician arrives under the $49.50 advertised price, claims the job requires a different method, and quotes $285–$468 instead. This is a systemic business practice concern, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW / APPOINTMENT FAILURE PATTERN: At least 2 reviews describe the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments with no proactive communication, indicating a reliability problem.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviews report the drain problem recurring within 24 hours to a few days after service, and at least one review describes technicians flooding the customer's home.
• BUSINESS CONTINUITY NOTE: At least one review (2016) notes the company sold its San Diego operations to another company. The reviews span 2010–2016, meaning ALL reviews are older than 8 years. This score should be treated with significant caution as the business may have changed ownership, practices, or ceased operations entirely.
• RECENCY WARNING: No reviews are within the past 12 months. The most recent review is from March 2016. This data is stale and may not reflect current business practices.
• DUAL BRANDING NOTE: Multiple reviews confirm this company also operated under the name 'Option One Plumbing,' which may complicate reputation tracking.

While the volume of reviews is sufficient to calculate a WW Score with HIGH statistical confidence, the score's practical reliability is significantly undermined by the age of all reviews (all pre-2017), a documented bait-and-switch pattern reported by multiple unrelated customers, and evidence of a business ownership change — consumers should not rely on this score to predict current service quality.

The reviews present a deeply mixed picture of this contractor. Professionalism is the most consistently discussed dimension and is a clear weak point: two reviews describe technicians who were visibly annoyed, dismissive, or failed to show up entirely, while three older reviews praise specific technicians like Mike and Joe as punctual and professional. Project completion is similarly troubled — one technician abandoned a job without notice or callback, and another misdiagnosed a fixable AC unit as requiring a full $7,000 replacement that a competitor fixed for $200, representing a serious failure of both follow-through and technical judgment. Pricing transparency is a recurring concern, with one customer blindsided by a minimum labor fee on top of the service call fee that was never disclosed upfront. The owner Dave is consistently praised for responsiveness and genuine care when problems are escalated, which partially offsets the negative experiences but does not change the underlying service delivery issues. Scores are held conservative given the small review pool and the severity of the documented failures.

• Two of the three positive reviews (Mike and Joe) are from 2020 and one is from 2012 — all are more than 3 years old and should be weighted less heavily than the more recent 2022 and 2024 reviews.
• The most recent review (January 2024) is a 1-star describing a no-show with no callback, which is the most current signal of service quality.
• The 2022 diagnostic review (originally 1-star, updated to 5-star) reflects owner intervention rather than baseline service quality — the underlying technician failure was serious and should not be obscured by the owner's goodwill gesture.
• The 2012 Groupon review is over 12 years old and carries minimal evidentiary weight for current operations.
• Small sample size of 6 reviews limits statistical reliability across all dimensions despite HIGH confidence labels being triggered by mention counts.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to the small review pool, significant recency skew toward negative experiences, and a pattern where positive reviews are predominantly older while recent reviews document serious service failures.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across a very small review set. While several reviewers praise punctuality, communication, and reasonable pricing, a serious 1-star review from January 2024 describes abandoned work, a demand for additional payment beyond the original bid, and an allegation that the contractor is unlicensed — all of which significantly drag down the professionalism and project completion scores. The project completion dimension is particularly penalized because the negative review is detailed, credible, and recent, describing a $2,000 payment made in full with work left incomplete. Positive reviews are largely brief and lack specifics, reducing their evidentiary weight. The most recent reviews (2024) present contradictory signals, making it difficult to establish a reliable pattern of quality.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: One detailed 1-star review (2024-01-20) alleges work was left incomplete after full payment of $2,000, contractor demanded an additional $1,100 to finish, and contractor is reportedly unlicensed, uninsured, and unbonded.
• LICENSING ALERT: Reviewer explicitly states the contractor is not licensed. This is a significant legal and safety risk for consumers and cannot be ignored in scoring.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews total, making any score statistically unreliable. A single negative review has outsized impact on the overall picture.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One positive review dates to 2017 (over 7 years old) and should be given minimal weight. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12–24 months.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Several positive reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'great pricing,' 'nice and reasonable'), which limits their evidentiary value and raises mild concern about authenticity.
• CONTRADICTION: Two reviews from January 2024 present opposite experiences — one praising the service, one describing abandonment and dishonesty — suggesting inconsistent service quality or selective customer treatment.

This WW Score should be treated with very low confidence due to the extremely small review sample (5 reviews), a credible and detailed allegation of incomplete work and unlicensed operation, and the presence of a 7-year-old review that may not reflect current business practices.

This review dataset cannot be scored using the WW Score methodology. The overwhelming majority of reviews (approximately 85%) are for a UPS Store location, not a plumber or contractor. Only approximately 15 reviews pertain to Discount Rooter, a plumbing company. The WW Score engine is designed to evaluate contractor/plumber performance across professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience. The UPS Store reviews discuss retail shipping services, employee friendliness, and package handling—dimensions that do not map to the four WW Score dimensions. Additionally, the plumbing reviews that are present lack sufficient structured data across all four dimensions to generate a reliable composite score.

• CRITICAL: Dataset contamination — approximately 85% of reviews are for UPS Store (retail shipping services), not a plumbing contractor. This is not the correct business type for WW Score evaluation.
• Only ~15 reviews are for Discount Rooter (plumbing company). This is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• The UPS Store reviews discuss customer service, employee attitudes, and package handling—none of which align with the four WW Score dimensions (professionalism in plumbing context, pricing transparency, project completion, technical experience).
• Mixed business entities in single dataset makes scoring impossible. UPS Store and Discount Rooter are entirely different service categories.
• Recommendation: Resubmit with reviews exclusively for a single plumbing/contractor business.

This dataset cannot produce a valid WW Score. The reviews are primarily for a UPS Store retail location, not a plumbing contractor, making dimensional scoring impossible and unreliable.

Both reviews are positive and mention professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience. However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. The reviews are also dated 2020–2021, making them over 3 years old and not reflective of current service quality. All dimensions show LIMITED confidence due to minimal mention count.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• Both reviews are older than 1 year (2020–2021) — recency is poor and may not reflect current operations
• Both reviews are 5-star with generic praise language ('super friendly', 'professional', 'quality parts') — pattern suggests possible review curation, though sample is too small to confirm fake review activity

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 usable reviews required). Collect additional recent reviews before relying on any scoring.