Find Nearby Plumbers In Jurupa Valley, California

Eric's Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and competitive pricing, with multiple reviews praising fair costs and skilled workmanship. However, professionalism and project completion are significantly undermined by serious documented failures: one customer reported complete abandonment of callbacks and rudeness after multiple contact attempts, and another detailed substandard HVAC installation with improper wiring and sealed ductwork causing $3,225 in repairs. While many positive reviews highlight responsiveness and friendliness, the severity of these failures—particularly the refusal to address complaints—creates substantial reliability concerns that offset the company's technical strengths.

• CRITICAL: Review dated 2019-03-11 documents severe service failure including abandoned callbacks, rudeness, and avoidance behavior (hanging up, not answering calls). Customer threatened licensing complaint.
• CRITICAL: Review dated 2017-02-27 documents substandard workmanship on commercial HVAC installation (improper wiring, unsealed ductwork) completed in 2016, with owner refusing to take responsibility or answer phone calls regarding $3,225 in corrective repairs.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 10 reviews are from 2012-2015 (5+ years old). Only 2 reviews from 2019 and 1 from 2017. Recent data is limited and mixed.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: Review dated 2014-06-03 ('It was great. I'm very hapy.') is suspiciously generic with no specifics and contains a typo, suggesting low authenticity.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between positive reviews praising reliability and responsiveness versus documented cases of complete service abandonment and refusal to communicate. This suggests either inconsistent service delivery or significant changes in business practices over time.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical skills appear solid, two well-documented cases of severe service failures (abandoned callbacks, refusal to address defective work) create serious trust concerns that are not fully captured by the overall score. The age of most positive reviews (5+ years) and limited recent data further reduce confidence. Potential customers should heavily weight the documented failures against the older positive reviews.

This contractor shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is a significant weakness, with one recent (2024) scathing review citing disrespect and unprofessionalism, while older reviews praise courtesy and responsiveness—suggesting possible service degradation over time. Project completion scores are solid, with multiple reviews confirming timely work and follow-through, though one 2006 review noted difficulty scheduling callbacks. Experience is rated positively based on explicit mentions of knowledgeability and skill. No pricing data was available in any review. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects moderate reliability, heavily influenced by the recent negative professionalism review and the age of most positive feedback.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 10+ years old (2006–2013). Only 2 reviews from the past decade; the most recent (2024) is highly negative, suggesting possible service quality decline.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Review dated 2015-11-05 contains only a period (.) with a 5-star rating—appears to be spam or placeholder data. Excluded from analysis.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONTRADICTION: Strong positive mentions (2012–2013) contrast sharply with recent 1-star review (2024) citing disrespect and unprofessionalism. This inconsistency warrants caution.
• SCHEDULING ISSUE: 2006 review explicitly mentions poor responsiveness and difficulty getting callbacks, indicating a potential chronic operational weakness.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: No reviews mention pricing, value, or transparency—cannot assess this dimension.

This score should be treated with caution due to the age of most positive reviews, the stark contradiction with the recent negative review, and insufficient data on pricing. The WW Score reflects historical performance but may not accurately represent current service quality.

All three reviews are recent (mid-2023) and consistently praise Pinedo Bro Plumbing across professionalism, communication, and job completion. Reviewers specifically highlight honesty, timely response, and skilled workmanship, including camera diagnostics, sink installation, PEX line runs, and tankless water heater flushing. Pricing is noted favorably in two reviews, with one reviewer explicitly contrasting Pinedo's approach against $5,000–$6,000 quotes from competitors, suggesting strong value. Project completion is well-supported, with all three reviews confirming problems were resolved. However, the total review count of only 3 severely limits confidence in any of these scores, and all dimensions should be treated with caution.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation. Results are highly sensitive to individual review bias and should not be considered statistically reliable.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• Two of the three reviews were posted within 10 days of each other (July 5 and July 7, 2023), which could indicate a coordinated review push, though no identical phrasing was detected.
• Review sample is too small to detect meaningful patterns. A minimum of 10–15 reviews is recommended before treating any dimension score as reliable.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered a preliminary signal only — significantly more review data is needed before this score can be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality.

Rooter King Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile spanning over 15 years. Positive reviews — concentrated among customers who hired the company directly or had straightforward jobs — consistently praise specific technicians (Jacob, Javier, Santos, Cullen, Jerry, David, Joel) for professionalism, friendliness, and competence. However, a very large volume of negative reviews — many from customers assigned through home warranty companies (AHS, 2-10, AHW) — describe a systematic pattern of inflated 'code upgrade' or 'modification' charges, misdiagnosis, incomplete work, rude office staff (particularly a figure named Pedro), and failure to honor callbacks or schedules. Pricing is the most damaged dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly alleging overcharging, fraudulent billing to both the customer and warranty company simultaneously, and charges for work not performed. Project completion is also significantly impaired, with multiple reviews describing jobs left unfinished, problems recurring shortly after service, and technicians refusing to perform agreed-upon work. The experience dimension is mixed: some technicians are clearly skilled, while others are described as incompetent or deliberately evasive to avoid difficult work.

• SYSTEMATIC PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: A very high number of independent reviewers across multiple years describe near-identical schemes involving inflated 'code upgrade' or 'modification' charges on water heater replacements, often ranging from $430 to $970+, which second-opinion plumbers consistently found unnecessary. This is not isolated — it appears to be a business practice.
• DUAL BILLING ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers allege Rooter King billed both the customer out-of-pocket AND the home warranty company for the same work, or collected warranty payment for work never performed. These are serious fraud allegations.
• NAMED INDIVIDUAL 'PEDRO' REPEATEDLY CITED: Across reviews spanning 2015–2021, a supervisor or office manager named 'Pedro' is repeatedly named as rude, dismissive, threatening, and willing to hang up on or scream at customers. This suggests a persistent management-level customer service failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2005 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) show some improvement in technician quality and responsiveness, but pricing complaints and incomplete work complaints persist into 2025. Older reviews (pre-2020) carry less weight but establish a long-standing pattern.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Six reviews contained no text (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• POSSIBLE FAKE/GENERIC REVIEWS: A small number of very short, generic 5-star reviews ('Very professional', 'Fast and thorough', 'Great technician', 'Keep up the good work', 'Awesome best in the world superb customer service reasonable prices above and beyond quality workmanship') contain no specifics and may be inflating the positive review count. Confidence is not materially reduced given the large overall sample, but these reviews were weighted minimally.
• SENIOR CITIZEN TARGETING: At least two reviews explicitly allege that the company targeted or took advantage of elderly or senior customers with inflated pricing.
• WARRANTY COMPANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST: A significant portion of negative reviews come from customers assigned via home warranty companies. Some reviewers allege Rooter King deliberately misdiagnoses or inflates costs to extract out-of-pocket payments while also collecting warranty fees, suggesting a structural incentive problem when operating as a warranty contractor.

This WW Score of 52.1 is based on a very large sample of 125 reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable representation of the contractor's overall performance — the score reflects a company with genuinely capable individual technicians undermined by serious, well-documented, and recurring issues with pricing transparency, billing integrity, job completion, and office-level customer service.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews needed for confidence. The dataset is severely imbalanced: one 5-star review from 2016 praising skill and project completion, one 1-star review from 2017 criticizing pricing, and one 1-star review from 2024 regarding driver conduct (unrelated to plumbing work quality). No dimension has adequate mention frequency (5+ reviews) to establish HIGH confidence. The 2024 driver complaint and 2017 pricing complaint are both dated or tangential, while the positive review is 8+ years old.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 total reviews — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required, but confidence requires 5+ mentions per dimension)
• RECENCY ISSUE: Positive review is from January 2016 (8+ years old). Negative reviews from 2017 and 2024 are more recent but sparse
• SCOPE MISMATCH: First review (2024) concerns driver safety on freeway — not directly related to plumbing work quality or contractor professionalism
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: 2 one-star reviews vs. 1 five-star review with no middle ground — suggests small sample size volatility
• NO PROFESSIONALISM DATA: Despite 3 reviews, none explicitly address punctuality, communication, attitude, or responsiveness in plumbing context

This score cannot be trusted. The dataset is too small (3 reviews), no dimension meets the 5-mention threshold for HIGH confidence, reviews span 8 years with inconsistent relevance, and critical dimensions lack explicit evidence.

With only two reviews, meaningful scoring is severely limited. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by a serious complaint in the first review — a staff member asked a female caller if she was single, which is unprofessional and potentially harassing conduct. The second review paints a more positive picture, noting the team was knowledgeable, thorough, and honored a clog warranty with a prompt return visit. Project completion and experience scores are based solely on that single positive review and should be treated with extreme caution. No pricing information was mentioned in either review.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Serious professionalism concern flagged: one review explicitly reports a staff member made an inappropriate personal remark (asking a caller if she was single) during a business inquiry, which led the customer to seek services elsewhere.
• All dimension scores are based on 1–2 mentions only — treat all scores as LOW CONFIDENCE estimates.
• Review dates span 2015 to 2019 — all reviews are older than 5 years and may not reflect current business practices or staff.

This WW Score report has very low reliability due to an insufficient number of reviews (only 2), all of which are over 5 years old, and the presence of a significant professionalism complaint that cannot be contextualized against a broader data set.