Find Nearby Plumbers In Lancaster, California

McDermott Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality. However, the company is significantly hampered by recurring communication failures—multiple customers report unanswered callbacks and missed appointments—which directly impacts project completion reliability. Pricing feedback is mixed, with many praising fair rates while others cite unexpectedly high charges and unclear fee structures. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects solid core competency undermined by operational inconsistencies in responsiveness and follow-through.

• CRITICAL: Communication/Responsiveness Pattern — At least 8 reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls, missed appointments, or lack of callback follow-up (dates: 2023-07-02, 2022-06-05, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-08-07, 2018-02-12, 2016-10-17, and others). This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• Project Completion Risk — Multiple reviews document incomplete or defective work requiring callbacks: gas oven conversion failure (2025-05-10), water hammer diagnosis failure (2024-06-09), toilet reseating done incorrectly twice (2022-01-26, 2022-01-26), bathtub drain not connected to sewer (2014-12-29), and shower pan installed unevenly (2016-09-02). Some customers report owner refusal to take responsibility.
• Pricing Transparency Issues — Several reviews note unexpected charges: $99 service fee not disclosed upfront (2017-05-30), $129 'inspection fee' on callback (2022-01-26), 4% credit card surcharge not mentioned in mission statement (2016-06-22), $178/hour labor rate higher than expected (2014-12-26), and $600/hour labor calculation complaint (2019-05-22).
• Owner Accountability Concern — Two detailed reviews (2022-01-26, 2014-12-29) describe owner (Travis/Michael McDermott) refusing to take responsibility for errors or return customer contact after promising to 'make it right.' This suggests potential integrity issues at leadership level.
• Recency Note — Most recent reviews (2025, 2024, 2023) include both 5-star praise and serious 1-star complaints. No clear improvement trend over time. Older reviews (2001-2006) are sparse and less detailed.
• No Fake Review Pattern Detected — Reviews show genuine variation in detail, specific problem descriptions, and mixed sentiment. Language is authentic and not repetitive across reviews.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence for technical quality assessment, but LOW confidence for predicting reliable service delivery; the company's core plumbing expertise is well-documented, but systematic failures in communication, callback responsiveness, and accountability for defective work represent material risks that are not reflected in the overall score and should weigh heavily in any hiring decision.

Clearwater Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, courtesy, and skilled workmanship across numerous reviews. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious pricing concerns and notable project completion failures. Multiple reviews document instances of incomplete work, abandoned projects (particularly involving David Lopez), failure to honor callbacks, and pricing disputes where customers felt overcharged or misled. While the majority of recent reviews (2023-2025) are highly positive, older reviews reveal systemic issues with accountability and follow-through that persist despite the company's established reputation since 1951.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (at least 6) document David Lopez taking full payment upfront and abandoning projects entirely, never completing work or refunding customers. This represents a serious fraud/embezzlement pattern within the company.
• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 8 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, excessive labor fees for simple jobs, or pricing that was 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. Several customers report being charged $120-$350 for work that took 10-45 minutes.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document incomplete work, failed callbacks, no-shows for scheduled appointments, and refusal to return to fix defective work (particularly 2016-2022 timeframe).
• CUSTOMER SERVICE ISSUES: Several reviews describe rude phone staff, owner rudeness, hanging up on customers, and dismissive attitudes toward complaints. One review documents the owner swearing at a customer.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in outcomes—some technicians (Larry, Tyler, Scott, Senad, Erin) receive exceptional praise; others (David Lopez, unnamed referrals) deliver poor results or fraud.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Multiple empty reviews with 5-star ratings (at least 6 instances) and several generic praise reviews with minimal detail suggest possible review padding, though the majority of detailed reviews appear authentic.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster in 2014-2022 period. Recent reviews (2023-2025) are predominantly 5-star with specific positive details, suggesting either genuine improvement or increased review curation.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with caution: while recent performance appears strong and technical expertise is well-documented, the company has a documented history of serious issues including fraud, incomplete work, and pricing disputes that persist across multiple years and customer accounts. The score reflects current trajectory but does not fully capture the severity of past failures or the risk of recurrence.

Go Pro Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality. Project completion is reliable with most jobs finished on time and callbacks honored. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple detailed complaints about excessive charges, price gouging, and labor rates that customers perceive as unreasonable (e.g., $800+/hour labor, $3,595 water heater installations, $900 garbage disposal installations). While the majority of reviews are highly positive, the pricing concerns are explicit and substantive enough to materially impact the overall score. The company excels in service delivery but struggles with value perception.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2022-2020 timeframe) explicitly cite excessive pricing and price gouging. Specific complaints include: $3,595 water heater replacement (customer's mother, deceased 2022), $900 garbage disposal installation, $864 for 10 inches of PVC with shutoff valve, $850/hour labor rate. These are not isolated complaints but a recurring theme suggesting systematic pricing issues.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain no text content (blank reviews with 5-star ratings, dated 2023-06-10 and 2022-06-10 clusters). Additionally, multiple reviews from 2023-06-10 use nearly identical phrasing ('professional', 'knowledgeable', 'friendly') with minimal specificity. However, the majority of reviews contain detailed, specific narratives that appear authentic, so overall fake review risk is moderate rather than high.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most reviews are from 2018-2023, with a significant cluster from June 2023. Recent reviews (2025) show mixed sentiment with both 5-star praise and 1-star complaints about pricing and service quality. The most recent negative reviews (2025-04-10, 2025-05-26) suggest ongoing issues.
• OWNER RESPONSE PATTERN: One 1-star review explicitly notes that the owner responds dismissively to negative reviews ('sorry I don't know who you are', 'we never did work for you'), which may indicate defensive posture on pricing criticism.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: One detailed 1-star review (2020-12-15) documents a failed garbage disposal installation with leaking pipes, poor follow-up, and owner defensiveness. This suggests quality control issues beyond pricing.
• GEOGRAPHIC PRICING VARIATION: Multiple reviews mention location-based surcharges ('up the hill', 'Pollock Pines', 'Antelope Valley'), which customers perceive as price gouging rather than legitimate cost adjustment.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by HIGH confidence across three of four dimensions based on 89+ mentions each. However, the score is materially depressed by explicit, detailed, and recurring pricing complaints that are substantive and credible. The company delivers strong technical work and professionalism but appears to charge significantly above market rates, which creates a genuine value-for-money concern that customers consistently articulate. Prospective customers should expect excellent service quality but should obtain competitive quotes before engaging, as pricing appears to be a legitimate weakness.

Marathon HVAC demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with technicians consistently praised for politeness, punctuality, and knowledge. However, the company shows significant inconsistency in project completion and follow-through, with multiple negative reviews citing incomplete work, missed appointments, and unresponsive communication after service. Pricing feedback is mixed—many customers report fair and reasonable rates, but several express frustration with diagnostic fees ($125 inspection charges) and perceived upselling tactics. The company's performance has declined noticeably in recent years (2017-2020 show more complaints), though recent 2024 reviews are predominantly positive.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Recent reviews (Nov 2024) show suspiciously uniform 5-star ratings with similar praise language ('professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'thorough'). While not definitively fake, the clustering and generic nature warrant caution.
• RECENCY BIAS: 20 of 56 reviews are from 2024 (mostly November), while 2017-2020 contain multiple 1-star complaints about scheduling failures and incomplete work. Recent positive trend may not reflect historical service quality.
• CRITICAL INCONSISTENCY: Multiple 1-star reviews (2020, 2019, 2017) document serious failures: missed appointments twice with same customer, unresponsive to callbacks after $12k+ spending, incomplete maintenance work, and unprofessional conduct (calling customer 'B*' to tenant). These are not isolated complaints.
• PRICING CONTROVERSY: At least 4 reviews explicitly criticize the $125 diagnostic fee as unreasonable, especially when work was not completed or diagnosed properly. This fee appears to be a recurring pain point.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAGS: Review from 2023-04-15 documents incomplete work (3 of 4 quoted tasks not done, filter cut with scissors and jammed improperly). Review from 2020-06-01 reports unresolved AC issue and complete communication breakdown after thousands spent.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite lack of callback, unresponsiveness, and abandoned service issues, suggesting systemic communication/management problems despite individual technician quality.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while recent 2024 reviews are uniformly positive and suggest current operational improvement, the company has a documented history of serious project completion failures, scheduling mishaps, and communication breakdowns (2017-2020). The score reflects current state but masks significant historical risk; customers should verify recent service quality independently and clarify appointment/follow-up policies before committing to major work.

Keith's Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in project completion and technical experience. The company shows consistent ability to finish jobs thoroughly and deliver quality workmanship, with many customers praising honesty and problem-solving skills. However, professionalism is notably inconsistent—while many reviews highlight punctuality and courtesy, several critical reviews document missed appointments, poor communication, and unresponsive office staff. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and reasonable, though a few customers flagged specific quotes as excessive. The polarized review pattern suggests service quality varies significantly by technician or situation.

• POLARIZED REVIEW PATTERN: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews (predominantly positive) and 1-star reviews (severe complaints). This suggests inconsistent service delivery or possible technician-dependent quality variance.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2024-12-11, 2024-09-16, 2018-02-18, 2015-02-26) document missed callbacks, no-shows without notification, and unresponsive phone lines. This is a recurring professionalism issue.
• MISDIAGNOSIS INCIDENTS: Two reviews (2020-06-10, 2025-03-11) describe incorrect problem identification leading to wasted money and repeated callbacks. Suggests potential quality control issues in diagnostic work.
• OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: 2025-03-11 review explicitly criticizes office staff as 'incompetent and confrontational,' indicating internal communication/management issues beyond field technicians.
• PRICING OUTLIER: 2024-08-13 review flags $650 quote for pressure regulator as 'insane,' though reviewer acknowledged professionalism and promptness. Suggests pricing inconsistency or lack of transparency on estimates.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 4 reviews contain no text (2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10), limiting data quality. One review states only 'unknown' (2016-01-29).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Majority of reviews are 2+ years old. Most recent reviews (2025) show mixed results: 3 excellent, 2 poor. Recent data is limited and volatile.
• PERMIT/CODE VIOLATION: 2013-07-17 review indicates contractor failed to inform customer of permit requirement and did not follow code. Suggests potential compliance gaps.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While based on substantial review volume (50 reviews) with good mention counts across dimensions, the deeply polarized nature of feedback—with multiple severe failures in communication and diagnostics alongside numerous glowing endorsements—indicates this contractor's reliability is highly dependent on which technician is assigned and current operational conditions. Recent reviews show continued volatility. Customers should request specific technicians (Frank appears most consistently praised) and obtain detailed written estimates before committing.

TCC demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with crews consistently described as courteous, punctual, and skilled. Project completion is generally reliable, though several reviews document scheduling communication failures and delayed callbacks. Pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple customers reporting high costs, unwillingness to compete on bids, and accusations of scope inflation. The company excels at water damage mitigation and insurance claim navigation, but office staff coordination issues (missed appointments, lack of notification, slow estimate delivery) detract from overall reliability. Recent reviews (2023) show both exceptional satisfaction and serious customer service complaints, indicating inconsistent execution.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2015-2023) explicitly criticize pricing as high, non-competitive, and prone to scope inflation. One customer paid competitor <$1000 vs TCC's $5000 quote for similar work. Another noted 'they aren't cheap' as a caveat to praise.
• OFFICE STAFF COORDINATION FAILURES: Detailed 2017 review documents multiple failures: 3-day estimate delay, no notification of installation window, unannounced plumber arrival, no communication about multi-day project structure. Another 2016 review reports four no-shows with no calls and months of unresolved warranty issues.
• APPOINTMENT NO-SHOWS: Two separate reviews (2016, 2016) document failure to show for scheduled appointments without notification. One customer reports four separate no-shows over months with no callbacks.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCIES: 2017 review notes tile cutting with warped blade causing chips; 2016 review documents chipped granite never repaired despite months of follow-up; 2015 review notes electrical switch installation error (though customer-caused).
• INSURANCE CLAIM CONCERNS: 2020 review suggests potential insurance scam behavior regarding water damage assessment and $1000 diagnostic fee.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2015-2017 (older data). Most recent reviews (2023, 2022) are highly positive, suggesting possible service improvement or review selection bias.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CLUSTERING: 24 of 35 reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language. While many include specific details, the high concentration of perfect ratings warrants caution regarding potential selection bias or fake review patterns, though language variation and specific project details reduce this concern.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable at HIGH confidence due to substantial mention counts across all dimensions (24-28 mentions each), but the score masks significant operational inconsistencies: field crews consistently deliver quality work and professionalism, while office coordination and pricing transparency remain chronic weak points. Customers should expect excellent craftsmanship but should negotiate pricing aggressively, confirm all scheduling in writing, and verify office communication protocols before engagement.