Find Nearby Plumbers In Highland, California

The overwhelming majority of reviews across all four dimensions are negative, with recurring complaints about unprofessional behavior, dishonest pricing, and incomplete or botched work. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple accounts of rude staff (both on-site workers and phone dispatchers, including the owner), no-shows, and late arrivals with conflicting excuses. Pricing complaints are frequent and serious, including bait-and-switch tactics, charges higher than quoted, and repeat billing for unresolved problems within days. Project completion is a major failure area, with multiple reviews describing work left unfinished, damage caused and not disclosed, and tanks not fully pumped despite full charges being collected. Experience scores slightly higher only because a handful of positive reviews describe technically competent work, but these are substantially outweighed by accounts of broken pipes, improper installations against city code, and failure to diagnose root causes. The small number of positive reviews (5 out of 18) are insufficient to meaningfully offset the volume and severity of negative experiences documented.

• Most reviews are dated between 2014 and 2022, with the majority older than 12 months from a current analysis date; recency weighting reduces confidence in any positive trend.
• The five positive reviews are notably brief and generic compared to the highly detailed negative reviews, raising a mild concern about authenticity; however, no identical phrasing was detected so a fake review flag is not definitively warranted.
• Multiple reviews independently describe the same pattern of charging full price for incomplete septic pumping and then billing again shortly after — this is a systemic business practice concern, not isolated incidents.
• The owner ('Doc') is personally named in a negative review for yelling at a customer and charging double hours, and is also named positively in one review — suggesting highly inconsistent owner-level conduct.
• At least one review describes work installed against city code, which is a serious regulatory and safety concern beyond mere customer service issues.
• A pattern of price discrepancies between quoted and charged amounts appears in multiple independent reviews, suggesting a systemic pricing transparency problem.

This WW Score is based on 18 reviews with strong data across all four dimensions and HIGH confidence throughout; the score of 34.2 is considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's documented performance, and prospective customers should treat it as a serious warning signal.

Solid Plumbing demonstrates severe and consistent problems across all dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by missed appointments, poor communication, and lack of courtesy callbacks. Pricing is a major complaint with multiple reviews citing bait-and-switch tactics, double-charging, and quotes that are 2-3x higher than promised. Project completion is critically weak, with incomplete jobs, abandoned work, and unnecessary demolition causing customer harm. While a few positive reviews mention politeness and acceptable work quality, the overwhelming pattern of financial dishonesty, failed appointments, and incomplete projects creates a deeply problematic service record.

• CRITICAL: Strong pattern of pricing fraud across multiple independent reviews (2016, 2021, 2020) — customers report being quoted one price and charged significantly more, suggesting systemic dishonesty rather than isolated incidents
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document incomplete or abandoned work — garbage disposal not installed, bathroom repair left unfinished after unnecessary tile removal, creating customer liability and property damage
• CRITICAL: Appointment reliability failure — customer scheduled for 3:30 PM Friday, received no service and no courtesy notification despite multiple follow-up calls
• Age concern: 4 of 10 reviews are from 2012-2016 (8+ years old); only 3 reviews from 2021 or later, limiting recency assessment
• Positive reviews (3 five-star ratings) are notably generic and lack specific detail, while negative reviews are highly detailed and specific — suggests possible review manipulation or that satisfied customers leave minimal feedback while dissatisfied customers provide extensive documentation

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data and small sample size, but the consistency and specificity of fraud allegations across multiple independent reviews from different years suggests the low score reflects genuine systemic problems rather than isolated incidents; the company's pattern of pricing deception and incomplete work represents significant financial and property risk to customers.

Only two reviews are available, both dated in 2021–2022, making this dataset too small and too old to draw reliable conclusions. Professionalism is lightly supported by mentions of reliability and punctuality across both reviews. Pricing receives modest positive signals from explicit mentions of fair pricing and no upselling in both reviews. Project completion is touched on in only one review, referencing a last-minute repair that was handled without scope creep, but no detail is given about full job completion or follow-through. Experience is entirely unaddressed — no reviewer commented on skill, workmanship, or technical ability.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are over 2 years old (2021 and 2022) — recency is a concern; no recent performance data is available.
• Reviews are brief and generic with limited specifics, reducing confidence in all dimension scores.
• No negative feedback present, but sample size is too small to treat this as a meaningful signal of quality.

This score report should be treated as highly unreliable due to an insufficient number of reviews and the age of the available data; prospective customers should seek additional recent references before making a hiring decision.

Both reviews speak positively about professionalism, with the first review specifically praising Kevyn's patience, flexibility, and customer service despite a busy schedule, and the second noting quick booking and responsiveness. Project completion is supported by both reviews — the sewer inspection was completed under difficult conditions and recurring plumbing issues were resolved satisfactorily. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where the customer noted prices were not outrageous, suggesting fair value. Experience is touched on in the first review, where Kevyn demonstrated technical problem-solving ability navigating a complex sewer line without a standard clean-out access point. However, with only 2 total reviews, no dimension reaches even MODERATE confidence, and a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings. While the reviews contain specific details and do not appear to be fake, the absence of any critical feedback and the small sample size means scores should be treated with significant caution.
• No review dates older than 12 months — both reviews are recent (2024), which is a positive signal for recency relevance.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score — all dimension scores and observations should be considered preliminary and not representative of consistent contractor performance.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review praises professionalism (friendly, easy to communicate with), experience (many years mentioned), and project completion (garbage disposal replaced). However, pricing is not addressed. With only 1 mention per dimension, confidence is severely limited and the score cannot be considered statistically meaningful.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review is from 2021 (over 3 years old). No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• Generic praise language with minimal specific detail about the work performed.
• No pricing information provided, making value assessment impossible.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient data (only 1 review). At least 3 reviews are required to generate a trustworthy score.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer noted a reasonable price and that the contractor honored his original quote despite the job taking longer than expected, which reflects positively on both pricing transparency and professionalism. Project completion was achieved, though the job required an unplanned trip to Lowe's for additional tools, suggesting some limitations in preparation. Experience is scored conservatively given the minor complication encountered, though the job was ultimately completed to the customer's satisfaction.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2020-09-18, which is more than 1 year old. Recency weighting is low.
• Single review provides insufficient data to detect fake review patterns or establish scoring trends.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single review from over four years ago and carries very limited evidentiary weight across all dimensions.