Find Nearby Plumbers In Murrieta, California

All four reviews are positive and speak to responsiveness, professionalism, and communication, with multiple reviewers specifically praising named individuals such as Gabe, Neil, and Mark for their attentiveness and follow-through. Project completion is supported by three reviews that describe work being managed, checked daily, and finished to satisfaction. Pricing is mentioned in only one review as 'competitive,' which is too thin a basis for a strong score. Experience and workmanship are referenced in two reviews but with limited technical detail, keeping confidence conservative. The overall picture is favorable but the small sample size and age of the reviews significantly limit reliability.

• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — this warrants caution, though the reviews do contain specific names, details, and varied writing styles that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are between 7 and 8 years old (2016–2020). None fall within the past 12 months. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• Sample size is very small (4 reviews). Scores should be treated as preliminary indicators only.
• One review (Clint Schreiner) discloses a mutual business relationship with the named employees, which introduces a potential conflict of interest and may inflate sentiment.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample (4 reviews), all reviews being more than 7 years old, and at least one reviewer having a disclosed reciprocal business relationship with the contractor.

24-7 Plumbing and Drain shows a clear split personality across its review history: a strong core of positive experiences from roughly 2014–2018 praising professionalism, responsiveness, and fair pricing, offset by a troubling cluster of negative reviews centered on broken appointments, ignored callbacks, and warranty abandonment. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is significantly dragged down by repeated, credible complaints about no-shows, unreturned calls, and dispatching failures — not isolated incidents but a recurring pattern across multiple reviewers. Project completion suffers most, with several reviewers explicitly describing unfinished or defective work, a dishonored 3-year written warranty, and a botched tankless water heater install that cost the customer an additional $900 without resolution. Pricing scores moderately well, with several reviewers noting fair or below-market quotes, though one reviewer flagged a $225 cartridge replacement as excessive. Experience scores reasonably given consistent praise for individual technicians like Donnie, Donald, Pat, and Travis, but is tempered by at least two reviews describing technically incorrect work confirmed by third-party plumbers.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of positive reviews are dated 2014–2018. The most recent reviews (2019–2020) are predominantly 1-star and describe systemic failures in communication, warranty honoring, and follow-through. The contractor's current operational quality may be significantly worse than the overall score suggests.
• WARRANTY ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least two independent reviewers (Sept 2020, Feb 2020) explicitly describe the company refusing to honor written warranties and ignoring repeated contact attempts. This is a serious integrity flag.
• NO-SHOW / DISPATCH FAILURE PATTERN: At least four reviews (Jul 2020, Feb 2020, Oct 2019, Aug 2018, May 2015) describe the same failure mode — appointments confirmed but not kept, calls routed to an answering service that never relays messages, and no proactive communication from the company. This is a systemic operational issue, not a one-off.
• DEFECTIVE WORK CONFIRMED BY THIRD PARTY: The Sept 2020 reviewer had a new plumber confirm that 24-7 used wrong piping and joints. The Sept 2015 reviewer describes a $2,700 total spend on a tankless water heater install that never functioned correctly and was ultimately abandoned by the contractor. These are credible, specific, and serious workmanship flags.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): Several 5-star reviews from 2015–2017 are brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g. 'Outstanding service!!!!! Fast, and great work.'). While not conclusive, a handful of these reviews follow a pattern of vague superlatives without job-specific context. Confidence in the positive tail of the review set is slightly reduced as a result.
• OWNER RESPONSIVENESS NOTE: At least two reviews mention Donnie/the owner proactively reaching out after negative Yelp posts to apologize and make partial amends (Dec 2015, Aug 2015). This is a mild positive signal for accountability, but does not offset the pattern of repeated failures in later years.

This WW Score is based on 55 reviews spanning approximately six years and carries HIGH data confidence by volume, but the strong recency skew toward negative reviews in 2019–2020 means the score likely overstates current service quality — prospective customers should weight the most recent reviews heavily and treat the overall score with caution.

We Care Plumbing, Heating and Air demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for courtesy, knowledge, and communication. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious pricing concerns—numerous customers report markups of 200-400% on parts and labor, with many feeling exploited or misled. Project completion issues are substantial, including missed appointments, delayed follow-ups, incomplete work, and poor accountability after installation. While individual technicians often excel, systemic problems with scheduling, warranty fulfillment, and post-sale service create a pattern of customer dissatisfaction that contradicts the company's name.

• PRICING ABUSE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews document excessive markups (e.g., $440 for a $40 part, $1,600 labor for 20-minute install, $4,995 water heater vs. $2,500 market rate). This is not isolated—42 mentions of pricing issues suggest systemic overcharging.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: 68 mentions reveal chronic problems: missed/cancelled appointments without callback, incomplete installations (drywall unfinished 6+ months later), delayed warranty work, broken components left in new systems, and refusal to take responsibility for installation errors.
• POST-SALE SERVICE COLLAPSE: Multiple customers report being ignored after purchase. Promises to call back are not honored. Warranty claims are denied or delayed. Follow-up work is not scheduled despite being marked 'ASAP' in technician notes.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING: Several reviews describe pushy sales tactics during service calls, including disconnecting equipment to force upgrades, recommending unnecessary repairs, and pressuring customers into extended warranties.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY ISSUES: Documented problems include punched walls, burned siding, cut wiring, improper coil installation, missing parts in new systems, and compressors placed in walkways.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: 15+ reviews from 2025-06-08 to 2025-06-01 contain near-identical phrasing ('very professional,' 'polite,' 'explained everything'), repetitive technician names (Jacob, Arturo, Shane appear multiple times with identical praise), and suspiciously generic language with no specific details. These cluster heavily in June 2025 and may inflate professionalism scores artificially.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews cluster heavily in 2025 (recent) and 2024 spring/summer, while negative reviews span 2023-2024 with consistent themes. Recent positive surge may reflect reputation management rather than genuine improvement.
• COSTCO PARTNERSHIP EXPLOITATION: Multiple reviews indicate customers trusted the company because of Costco affiliation, then felt exploited. Costco involvement appears to be used as a trust signal but does not guarantee quality or fair pricing.
• MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ABSENT: Owners and managers promise follow-up but do not deliver. Yelp responses are noted as 'lip service.' No evidence of systemic resolution of complaints.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with caution: while professionalism and experience scores are HIGH confidence and well-supported, the overall score is heavily dragged down by HIGH-confidence evidence of systematic pricing abuse and project completion failures. The company excels at individual technician interactions but fails at business operations, accountability, and fair pricing. Customers should expect professional service but should obtain multiple quotes, verify all charges in writing, and be prepared for post-sale service delays. The recent cluster of identical positive reviews raises moderate concerns about score inflation.

Big B's Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and technician demeanor — many individual techs (Ryan, Juan, Brandon, Jesse, Hunter, Matthew) are praised by name for punctuality, courtesy, and clear communication. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this review set, with a very large volume of customers explicitly describing quotes as outrageous, predatory, or two to five times higher than competitors — this is not a fringe complaint but a dominant pattern across dozens of reviews spanning multiple years. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed same-day and to satisfaction, but there are notable failures including ghosting a customer mid-diagnosis, a repeated wax seal failure linked to improper installation, an incomplete asphalt repair, and a dryer installation that fell apart immediately after the technician left. Technical experience is generally solid based on reviewer feedback, though several reviews describe misdiagnosis or technicians lacking necessary parts, which tempers the score.

• PRICING PATTERN — CRITICAL: An unusually high volume of negative reviews (30+) explicitly cite price gouging, with customers routinely finding the same work done by competitors for 40–70% less. This is a systemic business practice concern, not isolated incidents.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2024-03-11 and 2024-03-02 are near-identical in content (wax seal complaint), likely submitted by the same customer on different platforms and imported here twice. Counted as one unique incident for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2022-04-27 are word-for-word identical (gas dryer installation complaint). Counted as one unique incident.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2013 to June 2025. The pricing complaints are consistent across all time periods, indicating a long-standing structural issue rather than a temporary problem. Recent 2025 reviews still include pricing complaints.
• 13 reviews contained no text (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The positive reviews are generally specific enough (named technicians, described work) to appear genuine. The volume and specificity of negative pricing complaints also lend authenticity. No strong fake review pattern detected, though the ratio of 5-star to 1-star reviews is polarized, suggesting possible selective review solicitation.
• SERVICE SCOPE NOTE: Some reviews reference HVAC/AC and electrical work in addition to plumbing. Scores reflect all service lines as reviewed.

This WW Score is based on a large, multi-year review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the pricing score in particular should be weighted heavily by any prospective customer, as it reflects an overwhelming and consistent pattern of overcharging that is the single greatest risk of engaging this company.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with a stark divide between recent positive reviews (2025-2017) and older negative experiences (2019-2006). Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented communication failures, rudeness, and unprofessional behavior in multiple reviews. Pricing is a major concern, with numerous complaints about overcharging, price gouging, and inflated estimates, though some reviews praise affordability. Project completion suffers from incomplete work, callbacks not honored, and jobs requiring rework. Experience ratings are mixed—some reviews praise skilled technicians while others document poor diagnostics and sloppy workmanship. The company appears to have improved significantly in recent years, but historical patterns of poor service and billing practices remain concerning.

• CRITICAL: Two distinct company identities detected—reviews reference both 'Wallner Plumbing' (recent 2025-2017 reviews, consistently positive) and 'Half Price Plumbing' (older 2019-2006 reviews, predominantly negative). These appear to be different companies or a major rebranding. Analysis treats all reviews as single entity per instructions, but this conflation significantly distorts scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Recent reviews (June 2025) show suspicious clustering with generic praise, minimal specifics, and identical 5-star ratings within days. Phrases like 'prompt, professional, and reasonable' and 'fast professional service' appear repetitively. Multiple reviews with only 1-3 words ('Quick and efficient repairs', 'Thank you!', blank review with 5 stars) suggest potential review manipulation.
• RECENCY BIAS: 40+ reviews from past 12 months (2025-2024) are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail. Pre-2020 reviews (2019-2006) show much higher variance and detail, with 15+ one-star reviews documenting serious issues. Recent positive reviews may not reflect historical service quality.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews document price gouging ($700 for simple faucet repair, $1,006 for water heater install customer completed in 60 min, $451 overcharge attempt), incomplete work (one bolt not replaced, air gap vent flooded after install), and regulatory violations (4 CSLB citations mentioned). One review references company operating from UPS Store address.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Documented pattern of unanswered calls, no-shows, missed callbacks, and rude office staff (specifically named 'Shannon') across multiple independent reviews from 2019-2018.
• WORK QUALITY ISSUES: Reviews document flooded water heaters, gas leaks left unfixed (PG&E had to repair), improper installations requiring multiple callbacks, sloppy work (tar substance left on fixtures, cigarette butts in street), and incomplete diagnostics.
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Named technicians (Tony, Brian, Jeremy, Keith, Andy, Shawn, Caleb) receive individual praise in recent reviews, but same company receives scathing criticism for other technicians in older reviews, suggesting highly variable service delivery.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. The apparent merger or rebranding of two distinct companies (Wallner vs. Half Price Plumbing) conflates incompatible datasets. Recent reviews (2025-2017) show suspicious clustering and low specificity suggesting potential manipulation, while pre-2020 reviews document serious, detailed complaints about pricing, work quality, and communication. The 68.2 score reflects a company in transition, but the historical record of price gouging, incomplete work, and regulatory violations cannot be ignored. Recommend verifying current licensing status and requesting references from recent clients before engaging.

Fernando's company shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2017–2024. While early positive reviews (2017–2021) praise quick response times, competitive pricing, and quality work, a detailed 2017 negative review documents serious failures in project completion (leaking toilet, clogged drain not properly fixed), poor communication after initial contact, and apparent avoidance of warranty callbacks. Professionalism scores are dragged down by reports of dismissive attitude, gender-based treatment concerns, and failure to honor commitments. The most recent 2024 review is positive, but the pattern of older reviews suggests systemic issues with follow-through and accountability that have not been adequately addressed.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 4–7 years old (2017–2021). Only 2 reviews from 2024 and 2020. Historical performance may not reflect current operations.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: The 2021 review is suspiciously detailed and repetitive in naming 'Fernando' and the company, and the 2020 review ('Very good! It was really great!') is generic with no specifics. These may be self-posted.
• CRITICAL PATTERN: The detailed 2017 negative review explicitly flags warranty avoidance, no-shows after initial contact, and poor workmanship (wax ring failure, incomplete drain cleaning). Reviewer independently verified failures and fixed them. This is not a one-off complaint but a documented pattern.
• RESPONSIVENESS PARADOX: Multiple reviews note 'immediate response' initially, but the 2017 review documents that responsiveness ended once callbacks were needed. This suggests a sales-focused operation with poor service follow-through.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While the WW Score of 68.2 reflects mixed data, the weight of evidence is skewed by age (most reviews pre-2022) and potential fake reviews. The detailed 2017 negative review is credible and specific, documenting systemic failures in project completion and professionalism. Recent reviews are too few (n=2) to confirm whether issues have been resolved. Recommend requesting recent references and clarifying warranty/callback policies before hiring.