Find Nearby Plumbers In Lancaster, California

Five Star Contractors shows highly polarized performance with significant inconsistency across reviews. Positive reviews (primarily from 2015–2021) praise professionalism, fair pricing, knowledge, and responsiveness. However, negative reviews (spanning 2016–2023) document serious concerns: dishonest upselling tactics during escrow inspections, failure to locate septic tanks despite extended search times, poor communication and rudeness from field staff, overcharging for parts, and non-responsiveness after payment. The company appears to have engaged in predatory practices targeting homeowners in escrow situations, charging for unnecessary work and misrepresenting tank conditions. While some team members (Rod, Tim, Ricardo) receive individual praise, the pattern of complaints suggests systemic issues with quality control and business ethics.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2022–2023) document alleged dishonest business practices, specifically upselling unnecessary repairs and drain line replacements to homeowners in escrow situations. Two separate customers report being pressured into expensive work that independent inspectors later confirmed was not needed.
• PATTERN: At least 3 reviews describe inability to locate septic tanks despite being told the location, resulting in wasted time (1.5–3 hours) and charges for failed service.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Multiple reports of rude, unprofessional field staff behavior, including complaints about a technician making derogatory comments about a customer's home and another hanging up on a female business owner.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Several reviews document owner Tim not returning phone calls after payment, including one instance where a check was held for 6 months before being cashed without explanation.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Negative reviews cluster in 2016–2023 (recent), while positive reviews cluster in 2015–2021 (older). This suggests deterioration in service quality or business practices over time.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One review documents overcharging for a pump part ($175 charged for a $20 part). Another describes a $2,000 charge for 'chemicals' that customer felt pressured to pay during escrow closing.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Two reviews from 2021-10-05 (same date, within minutes) use similar generic praise language ('top shelf,' 'deliver,' 'go-to guys') with minimal specifics. One review from 2021-10-05 is extremely generic ('great in every way'). These may be self-generated or coordinated reviews, reducing confidence in positive ratings from that period.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 58.2 reflects the polarized data, the company exhibits a troubling pattern of alleged dishonest practices targeting vulnerable customers (those in escrow), combined with documented communication failures and inconsistent service quality. The clustering of negative reviews in recent years (2022–2023) suggests current operational issues. Potential customers should heavily weight the detailed negative reviews documenting specific harms over generic positive praise, particularly for escrow-related septic inspections.

This contractor's review pool is deeply polarized: a cluster of recent (2024) positive reviews praises responsiveness, professionalism, and quality workmanship, while a substantial body of older reviews (2012–2018) documents serious concerns including alleged scam pricing, bait-and-switch tactics, no-shows, incomplete work, and rude owner behavior. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out inflated quotes ($265 to clear a sink, $400 for a disposal install, $500 for a ball valve), hidden fees, and a $45 show-up charge that drew strong negative reactions. Project completion is mixed: several reviewers praised same-day or next-day resolution, but others reported abandoned jobs, return visits needed to fix errors, and technicians arriving without tools. Professionalism scores reflect a split between courteous, timely technicians praised by name in recent reviews and documented incidents of attitude problems, no-call no-shows, and an owner who reportedly hung up on a customer. The score is dragged down significantly by the volume and severity of negative reviews, many of which contain specific, credible detail.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The same 1-star review (dated 2014-03-27) appears three times with nearly identical timestamps (15:54, 15:55, 15:56). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation — either the reviewer submitted multiple times or the data source contains duplicates. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• RECENCY BIAS CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are concentrated in 2024, while the majority of negative reviews are from 2012–2018. This may reflect genuine improvement over time, but it could also reflect selective review solicitation. The 2024 reviews are given more weight per scoring rules, but the historical negatives are numerous and specific enough to materially affect all dimensions.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION (MILD): Several older 5-star reviews (2013) contain very similar phrasing patterns — 'within an hour,' 'friendly and knowledgeable,' 'will not need a plumber soon but will call again' — and were posted within days of each other with no reviewer names or specific job details. These may be seeded reviews and were treated with reduced confidence.
• SCAM ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2014, 2015, 2016, 2018) explicitly used the word 'scam' and described consistent patterns: refusal to quote over phone, $45 show-up fee, then dramatically inflated on-site quotes. This pattern is too consistent across unrelated reviewers to dismiss.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: At least two reviews describe jobs left unfinished — one where the technician had to return to fix electrical after a water heater install, and one where a hose bib was left unreplaced after a $500 job. One review also describes damage caused by a technician (boiler rod cap not replaced, causing months of water leakage and mold).
• OWNER CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One detailed review describes the owner (Todd) interrupting a customer, making dismissive statements ('I'm the owner, I can do whatever I want'), and hanging up mid-conversation. This is a significant professionalism flag at the leadership level.
• SERVICE AREA MISREPRESENTATION: Two reviews note that the company's listed location did not match its actual service area, suggesting misleading geographic listings.

This WW Score is based on 49 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the strong temporal split between recent positive reviews and a well-documented history of serious complaints, duplicate review submissions, and credible scam allegations from multiple independent sources.

The three reviews present a sharply divided picture of this contractor. One review describes a serious failure: a toilet was damaged during a snaking job, left unrepaired, and the area was left in an unsanitary state — a significant project completion and professionalism failure. The other two reviews are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, helpfulness, and a broad range of plumbing capabilities. Because the negative review describes a concrete, serious incident while the positive reviews are relatively light on specific workmanship detail, scores have been kept conservative across all dimensions. Pricing was not mentioned in any review and cannot be scored.

• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation; results should be treated as highly preliminary.
• The 1-star review (2024-10-22) is the most recent and describes a serious incident involving property damage and abandoned work — this recency is weighted negatively.
• The two positive reviews are dated 2022 and 2023, making them over 1 year old relative to the most recent review; their reliability as indicators of current performance is reduced.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review; the PRICE FRIENDLY dimension cannot be scored and is excluded from the WW Score calculation.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning two years, includes one serious recent negative incident, and should be considered very low confidence — significantly more review data is needed before this score can be trusted as representative of the contractor's overall quality.

The review set is small (4 reviews) and deeply divided, making confident scoring difficult. The most detailed and recent review (2023) is a damning 1-star account describing overcharging, failure to complete the job, and apparent damage caused to the backwater valve — this single review carries significant weight given its specificity and recency. The three positive reviews are brief and lack operational detail, limiting their evidentiary value. Pricing is the weakest dimension: the 1-star reviewer documented charges far above market rate ($450 for an incomplete snake job, a $4,800 quote for unnecessary work), and while two positive reviewers mention fair pricing, their accounts are vague. Project completion is also heavily penalized because the most detailed review describes a job that was not only left incomplete but left the property in worse condition than before.

• The three positive reviews (2019, 2021, 2023) are notably brief and generic, containing little operational detail. Phrases like 'respectful and reliable' and 'professional clean work' with no specifics raise mild concern about authenticity, though this cannot be confirmed.
• Two of the four reviews are older than 12 months from a 2024 evaluation date (2019 and 2021), and one is from mid-2023. Only the negative 2023 review is relatively recent. Recency weighting favors the negative review.
• The 1-star review is highly specific, internally consistent, and includes verifiable comparative pricing data, giving it substantially higher evidentiary weight than the three brief positive reviews.
• The contractor allegedly caused damage (broke the backwater valve flap) during the service visit and then quoted $4,800 to repair the damage he likely caused — this is a serious workmanship and ethics concern that significantly depresses the experience and project completion scores.

This WW Score is LOW CONFIDENCE overall due to only 4 reviews, two of which are over two years old, and a stark imbalance between one highly detailed negative account and three vague positive ones — prospective customers should seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 4 reviews, making any score highly tentative. On the positive side, two reviews praise fast response times, competitive pricing, and efficient job completion. However, a detailed 1-star review documents serious workmanship failures — a pressure regulator that failed after 8 weeks, a leaking water heater after 5 months, improper grounding, and a missing code-required gas sediment trap — which significantly drags down both the experience and project completion scores. A separate 1-star review flags overcharging and repeated appointment changes, undermining professionalism and pricing scores. The small review pool means no dimension reaches HIGH confidence, and the negative reviews carry substantial weight due to their specificity.

• Very small sample size (4 reviews total) — scores are highly unreliable and should not be treated as representative.
• Reviews span from 2019 to 2022; the most recent review is from August 2022, which is over 2 years old. No recent data is available to assess current performance.
• The detailed 1-star review (2019) documents code violations and installation failures confirmed by a second plumber — this is a serious workmanship red flag.
• One 1-star review explicitly accuses the contractor of overcharging, which directly conflicts with the positive pricing mentions in other reviews.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the two 5-star reviews lack the depth and specificity of the negative reviews, slightly reducing their evidentiary weight.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with no data from the past 12 months, and should be treated as LOW reliability — do not use this score as a confident hiring signal without seeking additional, more recent references.

The three reviews present a deeply mixed picture. The most recent review (2022) describes disorganized scheduling, last-minute rescheduling, and deceptive billing practices — a plumber who demanded payment for an estimate after explicitly stating there would be no charge. The two positive reviews are from 2015 and 2012, making them over a decade old and of very limited relevance to current performance. While those older reviews praise responsiveness, fair pricing, and courteous service, the recency gap is severe and the negative 2022 review carries the most weight as the only recent data point. Overall confidence in this score is low due to the small sample size and the age of the positive reviews.

• RECENCY WARNING: Two of the three reviews are from 2012 and 2015 — over 9 and 12 years old respectively. These reviews should be treated with very low weight and may not reflect current business practices.
• NEGATIVE RECENT REVIEW: The only review from the past 12 months (relative to the most recent date, 2022) is a 1-star review citing dishonesty, last-minute cancellations, and harassment for unauthorized payment. This is a serious red flag.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. No reliable pattern can be established from this data set.
• POTENTIAL BUSINESS CHANGE: The gap between the 2012/2015 positive reviews and the 2022 negative review may indicate a change in ownership, staff, or business practices over time.

This WW Score has very low reliability — it is based on only 3 reviews spanning a decade, with the sole recent review being strongly negative, making it impossible to draw confident conclusions about current contractor quality.