Find Nearby Plumbers In Highland, California

National Plumbing receives strong praise across professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill from a large majority of reviewers, with many customers specifically naming technicians like Henry, Jaime, and Reynaldo for courteous, on-time, and competent service. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — several involving home warranty assignments — describe serious concerns including double-billing, incomplete work, dishonest reporting to warranty companies, overcharging for parts not installed, and failure to follow up. These negative reviews are specific, credible, and span multiple years including recent 2025 dates, which meaningfully suppresses scores across all dimensions. Pricing confidence is dragged down by multiple accounts of inflated modification charges and suspected upselling through home warranty channels. Project completion is the most impacted dimension, with several reviewers explicitly stating work was left unfinished, incorrect, or abandoned without callback.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 pairs of near-identical or word-for-word duplicate reviews were found (e.g., two identical 'Henry and his crew did a wonderful job' reviews dated 2023-11-04 and 2024-06-09; two identical reviews about water heater and shower cartridges dated 2023-01-26; two identical 'They are just great people, very honorable' reviews dated 2022-10-10). These duplicates inflate positive review counts and reduce reliability.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews contain generic praise with no specific details ('Great people and amazing service highly recommend', 'These guys are awesome. Quick to respond professional and friendly.'). Combined with duplicate entries, there is a moderate risk that some positive reviews are artificially inflated.
• HOME WARRANTY FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent 1-star reviewers allege that National Plumbing deliberately misreported findings to home warranty companies (AHS) to deny coverage, then solicited the same customers directly for out-of-pocket repairs. This pattern appears in at least 3 separate reviews and is a serious ethical and legal concern.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 3 reviews explicitly describe work that was paid for but not completed or not completed correctly — including straps and valves charged but not installed, a toilet leak that persisted after repair, and a two-week unresolved toilet repair.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are concentrated in recent dates (2024–2025), while many positive reviews are from 2021–2023. This suggests a possible decline in service quality over time. Recent performance should be weighted more cautiously.
• ONE REVIEW WITH NO TEXT (Rating 1.0, Date 2025-05-10) was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• THREE REVIEWS WITH NO TEXT (Ratings 5.0) were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large review set and carries HIGH statistical confidence in volume, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by confirmed duplicate reviews, a credible pattern of home warranty fraud allegations from multiple independent sources, and a visible trend of worsening negative reviews in 2024–2025; prospective customers should treat this score as a moderate signal and independently verify recent performance before hiring.

AJ Heating & Air Conditioning receives strong praise across most dimensions, with multiple reviewers highlighting Abel's punctuality, professionalism, honest communication, and competitive pricing. The experience dimension is supported by specific examples of problem-solving, catching hazards missed by other technicians, and successful installations. However, one negative review (1-star, 2022) explicitly accuses the company of performing quick fixes rather than proper repairs, which meaningfully impacts the project completion score and introduces doubt about workmanship consistency. The majority of positive reviews are older than 12 months, with only one review from the past 12 months (2023), which limits confidence in how current the positive pattern is.

• One 1-star review (Feb 2022) explicitly alleges intentionally incomplete or low-quality repairs to collect payment quickly — this is a serious workmanship and integrity concern that has been factored into project completion and experience scores.
• Six of eight reviews are more than 3 years old (2013–2021), and only one review is within the past 12 months (June 2023). The score may not reflect current service quality.
• Several positive reviews use similarly enthusiastic language ('highly recommend', 'professional and honest'), but most include specific details (restaurant install, Goodman diagnosis, competitor price comparisons) that reduce fake review suspicion. No strong fake review pattern detected, but the older reviews carry reduced recency weight.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the positive dimensions are supported by multiple specific reviews, but the recency of most data is poor and one credible negative review introduces meaningful uncertainty about consistent job completion quality.

Stemmle/Simple Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with many reviews praising specific technicians' friendliness, knowledge, and responsiveness. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious project completion issues—multiple reviews document missed appointments, no-shows, lack of follow-up communication, and failure to honor callbacks. Pricing is a notable weakness, with several customers reporting unexpectedly high charges, overquoting, and disputes over service costs. The presence of multiple 1-star reviews citing unprofessional driving behavior, incomplete work, and poor office communication suggests systemic operational challenges that undermine otherwise competent field technicians.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 6) document no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to communicate cancellations—indicating serious scheduling/reliability issues.
• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, unexpectedly high bills, or pricing disputes. One customer reported being quoted $6,800 when competitors charged ~$3,800 for the same work.
• OFFICE STAFF ISSUES: Multiple reviews cite poor phone communication, combative customer service representatives, and failure to follow up on promised callbacks.
• UNPROFESSIONAL DRIVING: At least 3 reviews document reckless driving behavior by company vehicles (tailgating, unsafe lane changes).
• INCOMPLETE/INCORRECT WORK: Several reviews report work done incorrectly on first attempt, refusal to warranty prior work, or jobs left unfinished.
• MIXED COMPANY IDENTITY: Reviews reference both 'Stemmle Plumbing' and 'Simple Plumbing'—unclear if these are the same entity or different companies. Analysis treats them as one based on overlapping review patterns.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews lack dates or are undated (appears to be 20+ reviews with 'Date: None'). Dated reviews from past 12 months show higher proportion of negative feedback, suggesting recent deterioration in service quality.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: Large cluster of undated 5-star reviews with minimal detail ('Great experience', 'The Best', generic praise) may indicate review manipulation or aggregation from multiple sources.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the sample size is adequate (89 reviews), the company exhibits a stark bifurcation between field technician quality (generally high) and operational/business practices (significantly problematic). The prevalence of no-shows, pricing disputes, and office communication failures in recent dated reviews suggests the score may overstate current reliability. Customers should expect competent technical work but should verify appointment confirmations, obtain detailed written quotes, and be prepared for potential scheduling issues and cost disputes.

All three reviews speak positively across multiple dimensions, with consistent praise for punctuality, personability, and successful resolution of plumbing issues. The 2022 review provides the most detail, describing a thorough diagnostic process, minimal disruption during business hours, and complete odor resolution after a 10-year problem — strong evidence of both skill and follow-through. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews but with limited specificity, warranting a conservative score. Project completion is well-supported across all three reviews, with each describing a problem that was identified and fully resolved. Overall confidence is constrained by the very small review pool of only three reviews, one of which dates back to 2015.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-confidence until more reviews are available.
• One review dates to 2015 (approximately 9+ years old) and one to 2022 — only one review falls within the past 12 months (May 2024). Recency weighting is a concern.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings. While the review content is sufficiently varied and specific to avoid a fake review flag, the absence of any critical feedback means the score reflects only a best-case picture.
• The 2024 review lacks specific detail on pricing and technical work, limiting its contribution to experience and pricing dimensions.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with just one from the past 12 months, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be treated as representative of current or consistent performance.

Brooks Plumbing has a deeply polarized review profile spanning over a decade. A substantial base of loyal, long-term customers consistently praise timely service, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship — particularly from technicians like Paul, Terry, Carlos, Oliver, and Phillip. However, a significant and recurring pattern of negative reviews specifically targets the owner John for rude, combative, and condescending behavior when customers question billing, which substantially drags down the professionalism and pricing scores. Pricing complaints are among the most serious and specific, with multiple reviewers citing charges they allege were inflated by 2x–4x compared to competitors, and at least two reviewers describing disputed charges during the February 2021 Texas winter storm. Project completion scores are moderate-to-good among those who saw jobs through, but several reviews describe abandoned follow-through, missed appointments, and unresolved callbacks that prevent a higher score.

• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: At least 12 separate reviews across multiple years explicitly name the owner (John/John Basalone) as rude, combative, condescending, or prone to hanging up on customers — this is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• OVERCHARGING PATTERN: Multiple detailed, specific reviews across 2016–2021 allege significant overcharging with itemized examples (e.g., $700 for 2ft copper pipe, $125 permit that city confirmed costs $52, $1800 quote vs $500 competitor price). This is too specific and recurring to dismiss.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated exactly '2025-04-10', '2025-06-02', '2025-06-03', '2022-06-10', '2021-06-10', '2020-06-10', '2019-06-11', '2018-06-11', and '2023-06-10' contain no review text (rating only) or extremely generic praise with no specifics. These batch-dated blank or vague reviews inflate the star average and reduce confidence in the positive review pool.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are predominantly positive and suggest possible improvement in service quality or staff changes. However, a 1-star review from February 2025 still cites overcharging and an unfriendly technician, indicating the issues have not been fully resolved.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: At least 4 reviews describe being completely ignored after initial contact — no follow-up, no estimate delivered, no callback — suggesting systemic communication gaps.
• ABANDONED/INCOMPLETE WORK: The 2019 sewer pump review describes months of incomplete, repeatedly failing work with the owner eventually telling the customer to 'part ways.' A 2019 review also describes a no-show estimate appointment. A 2016 review describes a job delayed by incorrect diagnosis. These are serious project completion concerns.
• 21 reviews contained no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted toward total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score of 68.2 is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 2011–2025 and carries HIGH overall confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the persistent and specific pattern of owner-related rudeness and overcharging complaints heavily, as these represent a structural risk that positive technician-level reviews do not fully offset.

This contractor's reviews are deeply polarized, with strong positive reviews praising punctuality, professionalism, and quality work, directly offset by severe negative reviews alleging no-shows, non-responsiveness, financial misconduct, and unlicensed work. The negative reviews are highly detailed and specific, lending them significant credibility and pulling scores down substantially across all dimensions. Pricing is a particular concern, with one detailed review alleging deliberate overcharging and unauthorized credit card use. Project completion is also seriously undermined by multiple accounts of missed appointments and abandoned or incomplete work. The positive reviews, while genuine-sounding in some cases, lack the specificity and detail of the negative ones, reducing their counterbalancing weight.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One detailed review alleges the contractor used a customer's credit card to overcharge for materials (billing $1,000 for a $500 water heater) and claims he is unlicensed. This is a significant red flag.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least one reviewer explicitly states the contractor missed two scheduled appointments without response, resulting in alleged $50,000 in property damage. This is a critical reliability concern.
• PAYMENT DISPUTE FROM SUBCONTRACTOR: One 1-star review appears to be from a person hired by the contractor (not a customer), alleging the owner refused to reimburse out-of-pocket expenses. While not a direct customer review, it speaks to business ethics and character.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most detailed and damaging negative reviews are from 2017 and 2023. The positive reviews cluster in 2022 and 2024. The 2017 review is over 7 years old and should be weighted less, but its specificity and severity still warrant inclusion as a flag.
• IDENTITY CONCERN: One reviewer alleges the contractor operates under a fake name ('Mark Banderas' instead of 'Marco Ramirez'), which is a serious trust and verification concern.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 7 total reviews exist. This is a very small sample size, meaning individual reviews — both positive and negative — carry disproportionate weight. The WW Score should be treated with caution.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability due to the small review pool (7 reviews), a wide date range spanning 2017 to 2024, and deeply conflicting accounts — the highly specific and serious nature of the negative reviews significantly undermines confidence in the positive ones, and prospective customers should exercise strong caution before hiring.