Find Nearby Plumbers In Lancaster, California

Perfect Plumbing has a large and long review history showing genuinely strong technician-level professionalism — many reviewers praise individual techs (Eli, Bob, Cam, Joel, James) as friendly, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative. However, the record is significantly undermined by a persistent and recurring pattern of serious failures: multiple reviews across different years describe missed appointments, no-shows, unreturned calls, and jobs left unfinished for months. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling the service expensive or feeling overcharged, and at least two reviews describing what appear to be unnecessary upselling or outright misdiagnosis. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with credible accounts of abandoned work, failed inspections never remedied, and warranty disputes going back years. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) skew more positive, suggesting possible operational improvement, but older negative reviews document serious systemic issues that cannot be ignored.

• 40 of 125 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews cannot be scored and inflate the apparent review count without providing usable evidence. This pattern may indicate review padding.
• Several reviews use 'unknown' as the review text, which provides no usable data and may indicate imported or placeholder reviews.
• A cluster of reviews dated 2025-03-11 and 2025-05-10 appear to have been submitted in batches with identical dates, which may indicate coordinated review submission rather than organic customer feedback.
• Multiple serious negative reviews describe abandoned jobs, unfinished work lasting months, and an owner (Josh/Frank) who repeatedly failed to return calls or complete contracted work — these are credible, detailed, and span multiple years (2013, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2024).
• At least two reviews describe potential misdiagnosis or unnecessary upselling (sump pump repair quoted at $10,000 that cost $200 elsewhere; water heater reset misdiagnosed as needing full replacement at $895 labor).
• One review describes a deeply serious allegation: a job paid in full ($14,000) that was abandoned, leaving an elderly woman's yard in a dangerous state. This was reported to the BBB and Iowa Plumbers Board of Licensure.
• Review dates span from 2006 to 2025 — nearly 20 years. Older reviews (pre-2020) are given reduced weight per recency rules, but the negative patterns they document are consistent with more recent negative reviews, suggesting these are not isolated incidents.
• The name of the owner appears inconsistently across reviews as both 'Frank' and 'Josh', which may indicate this profile aggregates reviews for more than one business entity or location, reducing score reliability.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews with usable text, but the score itself should be treated with caution given the serious and recurring nature of the negative reviews, the large number of blank reviews that may artificially inflate ratings, and the possibility that this profile aggregates multiple business entities operating under the same name.

Abe Lincoln Plumbing has a large and genuinely mixed review record spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a recurring pattern of no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to return calls — a complaint that appears across multiple years and multiple reviewers, offsetting the many glowing accounts of friendly, prompt technicians like Jeff, Paul, and David. Pricing is a serious concern: while several reviewers praised fair and transparent quotes, multiple credible negative reviews describe inflated estimates, prices that dropped only when challenged, charges for incomplete or defective work, and at least one allegation of invoice alteration — these are not isolated incidents. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with documented cases of abandoned jobs, unresolved leaks months after service, incomplete installations, and work that required a second plumber to correct. Experience scores are moderate-positive, with many reviewers praising diagnostic skill and technical knowledge, but offset by instances of defective workmanship, improper installations, and at least one technician who lacked necessary tools and equipment.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Paul for fixing a drainage sump ('Honest, knowledgable, and skilled!') appears verbatim twice — dated 2023-06-10 and 2023-01-19. This is a likely fake or copy-pasted review and has been counted only once.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Paul's Sunday drain clearing ('He did not require payment up front...') appears verbatim twice — dated 2023-06-10 and 2022-07-19. Counted only once.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The Jeff water heater review ('Prompt, honest, and skilled service from Jeff...') appears in nearly identical form twice — dated 2021-06-10 and 2021-03-20. Counted only once.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTER: A large number of reviews dated exactly 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, and similar round dates with no specific detail are likely aggregated or imported reviews of uncertain authenticity. Many blank-text reviews with 5-star ratings are present and provide no usable data.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviewers across different years (2012, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2013) explicitly describe being stood up, having calls ignored, or having jobs left incomplete. This is a systemic reliability concern, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple reviewers describe quotes that dropped when questioned, charges for work not completed correctly, and one allegation of invoice alteration by owner Ralph. The $9,500 quote for a problem resolved elsewhere for $1,200 is a significant red flag.
• OWNERSHIP/ACQUISITION NOTE: One reviewer explicitly states the company was acquired by Bonney and that they would no longer use the service. This may mean some reviews reflect a different operational era or ownership structure, reducing cross-period comparability.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative reviews (2024-2025) include a wrong phone number complaint and a serious upselling/fraud allegation, suggesting quality concerns persist under current operations. Positive reviews from 2024 are also present but fewer in number relative to the 2020-2022 peak period.

This WW Score carries HIGH statistical confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given confirmed duplicate reviews, a cluster of undated or detail-free 5-star entries, a documented multi-year pattern of no-shows and incomplete work, and serious pricing integrity concerns raised by multiple independent reviewers.

Absolute Best Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising Tom and his crew for responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and fair pricing across a large volume of smaller jobs. However, the review set contains several serious negative reviews that significantly temper the scores across all dimensions. Professionalism is dragged down by complaints about phone rudeness, no-callback behavior from the owner after billing disputes, and an employee ignoring mask requirements. Pricing scores are reduced by two credible accounts of inflated or questionable charges — one involving an $800 overquote for a job that needed only a washer, and another involving a disputed $142 strainer labor charge with no owner follow-up. Project completion is the most heavily penalized dimension, with multiple detailed negative reviews describing incomplete or defective work on larger jobs including a failed gas line installation with a week-long leak, a botched whole-house replumb and shower installation that required a third party to remediate, ongoing problems five years after a plumbing replacement, and a snake allegedly broken off in a drain with no evidence found by a subsequent plumber. Experience scores reflect strong positive feedback on smaller repairs but are pulled down by credible accounts of code-failing water heater installation, improper gas line fittings, and an inexperienced technician sent alone who caused additional damage.

• 8 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews (2018-04-08 and 2018-03-08) are nearly identical in content and wording, describing the same billing dispute. These appear to be duplicate submissions by the same customer and were counted as a single incident for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews dated 2020-12-06 and 2021-06-10 are word-for-word identical ('Tom was great. He was very busy but still made time for me...'). This is a likely duplicate or copied review and was counted only once.
• A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2021-06-10, 2022-06-10, and 2020-06-10 with no text or vague text and all rated 1 or 5 stars may indicate platform date-rounding artifacts or potentially inauthentic submissions. Treat with caution.
• Several 5-star reviews use generic praise with no job-specific detail ('Service was excellent', 'unknown', 'His company name says it all'). These were not counted toward dimension scores due to lack of usable evidence.
• The majority of detailed positive reviews describe small, quick jobs (faucets, disposals, minor leaks). The most detailed negative reviews describe larger, multi-day projects. This suggests a possible skill or capacity gap between routine and complex work that prospective customers should weigh carefully.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2023–2025) include a disproportionate number of negative experiences relative to the overall review set, which may indicate a decline in service quality over time. Recent reviews should be weighted more heavily by prospective customers.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (101 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but prospective customers should note that the most serious negative reviews involve complex or large-scale jobs and that recent reviews trend more negative, suggesting the score may overstate current service quality for anything beyond routine plumbing repairs.

American Plumbing Services has a large and genuinely mixed review record spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple credible negative reviews describing rude technicians, ignored callbacks, no-shows, and dismissive office staff — including serious allegations of dishonesty and attempted fraud — despite a strong majority of reviewers praising individual technicians by name for courtesy and communication. Pricing is a notable weak point: multiple reviewers explicitly called out a paid estimate fee ($45–$70), opaque lump-sum billing, and quotes that were dramatically higher than competitors, while a meaningful number of others praised affordability and fair pricing, creating a polarized picture. Project completion is moderately positive but undermined by several reviews describing abandoned work, missed appointments, unresolved callbacks, and a technician who installed a water softener cartridge without removing its shrink wrap. Experience scores are generally positive — many reviewers praised technical knowledge and problem-solving — but are offset by credible accounts of misdiagnosis, refused safety tests, and at least one allegation of deliberate dishonesty in diagnosing a leak.

• 6 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating (all 5-star). These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews appear to originate from different geographic markets (New Jersey water main work vs. DFW plumbing vs. California locations), suggesting this may be a shared business name or aggregated profile across multiple unrelated companies. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect a single contractor.
• A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2021-09-21 to 2021-09-22 (three reviews within one day) use very similar language praising affordability, promptness, and knowledge with no specific job details. These show possible fake review patterns and have been weighted conservatively.
• Multiple serious misconduct allegations are present: one reviewer alleges a technician fabricated evidence of a water leak (2020-02-22); another alleges a technician refused to perform a covered gas leak test leaving the household in a dangerous situation for 4 weeks (2020-01-10); another alleges theft of items from a garage (2019-12-16); and another alleges a technician made a comment about the homeowner's wealth to justify a charge (2021-07-29). These are not isolated complaints and materially reduce confidence in professionalism and integrity scores.
• A pattern of deteriorating service quality over time is noted by multiple long-term customers (reviews from 2015 and 2016) who explicitly state that quality declined as the company grew. More recent negative reviews (2019–2023) continue this trend.
• The review corpus spans from 2014 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) represent the majority of the dataset and may not reflect current service quality. Recent reviews (2022–2025) are more mixed-to-positive but fewer in number.
• One review (2019-10-02) appears to be a misdirected review for an unrelated business ('AV Auto Electric') and was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given credible allegations of fraud, safety negligence, and theft, a likely multi-entity review pool spanning different geographic markets, and a documented pattern of service quality decline noted by repeat customers over time.

Mr. Rooter Plumbing of Palmdale earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness, with many reviewers praising punctuality, clear communication, and friendly technicians — particularly Hugo Sanchez and Jorge Vallarta. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished efficiently and correctly, though one detailed negative review documents a recurring clog, a disputed $120 charge, and a months-long refund saga that was never resolved. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: multiple 1-star reviews describe quotes of $675 for a drain cleaning, $500+ for a cartridge replacement, and a disputed $500 charge that was only reduced after a confrontation — these are serious red flags that drag the pricing score down significantly. The business also has a no-show complaint from 2021 where a customer waited hours without contact, which negatively impacts project completion confidence. Overall, the company performs well for straightforward jobs but has a documented pattern of aggressive or opaque pricing that prospective customers should be aware of.

• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 3 separate reviewers explicitly describe prices as grossly inflated — $675 for a single drain line, $500+ for a cartridge, and a disputed $500 kitchen drain charge. These are not isolated incidents and represent a meaningful pattern.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: One reviewer (April 2021) reports scheduling an appointment with a 2–5pm window and never receiving a visit or a call. A second reviewer (November 2021) reports calling for 24hr service and never receiving a callback. These directly undermine project completion and professionalism scores.
• UNRESOLVED REFUND: One detailed 1-star review (December 2019) documents a $120 refund that was approved but never delivered after months of follow-up calls, including a staff member hanging up on the customer. This is a serious customer service failure.
• 14 REVIEWS HAD NO TEXT: 14 of 57 reviews contained only a star rating with no written content. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE REVIEW: Two reviews dated August 2023 and August 9, 2023 appear to describe the exact same service visit (same technicians Hugo and Jose, same faucet and pressure gauge job, same customer). These may be duplicate submissions from the same customer and were counted as one data point for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY NOTE: The negative pricing and no-show reviews are predominantly from 2018–2021. The 2022–2025 reviews are almost entirely positive. This may indicate service improvement over time, but the pricing pattern is severe enough to retain as a flag.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several short reviews ('Great service', 'Hugo was excellent', 'Hugo is the best', 'Very professional') lack any specific detail. While not conclusively fake, they add limited evidentiary value and were weighted conservatively.

This WW Score is based on 43 reviews with usable content across a multi-year period and carries HIGH overall confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the pricing dimension heavily — documented overcharging complaints are specific, credible, and recurring, and the score of 48 in that dimension reflects a genuine risk area despite the otherwise positive service feedback.

Boardwalk Contractors receives strong praise across the majority of reviews for professionalism, responsiveness, and quality of workmanship, particularly in water damage restoration scenarios. However, several negative reviews meaningfully drag down scores: one reviewer describes a dishwasher installation error and a dismissive supervisor attitude, another reports threats of a lien despite regular payments and alleged dishonesty, and a third describes a warranty dispute over a cracked granite countertop that was refused. Project completion is generally strong but is penalized by recurring callbacks, incomplete work, and at least one refusal to even provide an estimate without a pre-signed contract. Pricing confidence is low due to limited explicit mentions, but the negative financial dispute review introduces a serious concern about billing practices that suppresses the pricing score significantly.

• Several reviews are significantly older than 12 months — 9 of 22 reviews are from 2021 or earlier, with some dating back to 2013–2016. These older reviews carry reduced weight and may not reflect current business practices.
• The negative review from 2020-10-15 alleges financial threats (lien threats), dishonesty about payment agreements, and unprofessional billing conduct. This is a serious flag regarding business integrity.
• The negative review from 2020-06-10 alleges refusal to honor a warranty on a cracked granite countertop, suggesting potential issues with post-completion accountability.
• The 2019-07-23 review flags a concerning business practice: requiring a signed contract before providing any estimate, which is non-standard and potentially exploitative.
• The 2024-10-17 review (most recent) is negative and describes measurement errors, a broken toilet blamed on the customer, and a dismissive supervisor — this recency increases its weight and is a meaningful concern.
• Some 5-star reviews use generic praise language with limited specifics (e.g., 2016 and 2014 reviews), which may slightly inflate positive sentiment. However, most positive reviews include enough specific detail to be considered credible.
• Supervisor name inconsistency noted across reviews (Alfonso, Alonzo, Jose, Brian, Ticus, Steve) — this is consistent with a multi-crew operation over many years and is not flagged as fake review activity, but noted for context.

This WW Score is based on 22 reviews spanning over a decade, with a meaningful mix of detailed positive and negative accounts; the score carries HIGH overall confidence due to review volume, but users should weigh the most recent negative review (October 2024) and the billing/warranty complaints heavily when making a hiring decision.