Find Nearby Plumbers In Murrieta, California

Plumb Savings presents a deeply mixed picture across its review history. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praised Terry's reasonable pricing, technical competence, and willingness to respond on weekends and holidays, with one long-term customer noting 18 years of satisfactory service. However, two significant negative reviews — one from 2023 and one from 2017 — describe serious failures in professionalism and accountability: Terry ignored repeated attempts to resolve a $335 water bill caused by his own oversight, and in a separate incident refused to remedy an improperly installed faucet while becoming rude when questioned. These accountability failures substantially drag down the professionalism and project completion scores. The recency of the 2023 complaint is particularly concerning, as it suggests the pattern of poor follow-through has persisted over time.

• Two credible negative reviews describe a consistent pattern of Terry refusing to take responsibility for his own errors and becoming unresponsive or hostile when confronted — this is a significant reliability concern.
• The 2023 negative review is the most recent review in the dataset and involves a documented financial harm ($335 water bill) with no resolution, which is weighted heavily given recency rules.
• Several positive reviews lack specific detail (e.g., 'Honest, hard worker, does it right the first time') and are older (2017–2021), reducing their weight relative to the more recent negative review.
• Review dates span from 2016 to 2023 — three of the five positive reviews are more than 3 years old, and the most recent data point is a 1-star review, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the generic phrasing in some older 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on 7 reviews spanning 7 years and carries moderate overall reliability — the score meaningfully reflects a contractor with genuine technical skill but a documented and recurring pattern of poor accountability when problems arise.

Chad's reviews paint a mixed picture that is significantly shaped by recency. The most recent review (2023) describes a serious professionalism failure — a complete communication breakdown after a job was agreed upon, with no response to multiple calls, texts, and voicemails over more than a week. The older reviews (2018–2020) are largely positive, praising responsiveness, honesty, affordability, and quality of work. However, the stark contrast between the recent negative experience and the older glowing reviews raises concern that service quality or reliability may have declined over time. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable and affordable across multiple reviews, which is a genuine strength. The overall WW Score is pulled down substantially by the 2023 ghost-job incident, which directly contradicts the communication and follow-through praise seen in earlier reviews.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (April 2023) describes a serious failure in communication and job follow-through — Chad agreed to a job, confirmed a start date, and then went completely silent for over a week despite multiple contact attempts. This is the most recent data point and should be weighted heavily.
• TREND CONCERN: All positive reviews are from 2018–2020, which are 3–5+ years old as of the most recent review date. There is a meaningful gap in recent positive reviews, which may indicate a decline in service reliability.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The older 5-star reviews are somewhat generic in praise (e.g., 'awesome,' 'great service') with limited specific detail, though a few do include situational context. No definitive fake review pattern detected, but the lack of specificity in some reviews warrants mild caution.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 total reviews exist. A single negative review has an outsized impact on the score, and the positive reviews are too few and too old to fully offset it.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the small review volume (6 reviews), the age of the positive reviews (all 2018–2020), and the serious unresolved communication failure documented in the most recent 2023 review collectively limit confidence in this score as a reliable predictor of current service quality.

American Classic Plumbing presents a deeply divided review profile spanning over a decade. Positive reviews consistently praise individual technicians — particularly Alex, Derek, Omar, and Brian — for professionalism, punctuality, and technical skill, while a substantial volume of negative reviews describe chronic communication failures, no-shows, unanswered phones with full voicemails, and alleged fraudulent upselling through home warranty channels. Pricing is similarly split: several reviewers commend fair and reasonable rates, while others report aggressive overcharging and attempts to inflate warranty claims. Project completion is a major liability, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, unresolved leaks left for days or weeks, and technicians who could not diagnose problems. The experience dimension is the strongest performer, with many positive reviewers noting skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but this is offset by reviews describing incompetent technicians who could not identify leaks or work on specific equipment types. The overall score reflects a contractor with genuine capability in some instances but serious and recurring operational failures that represent real risk to customers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews (dated 2023-06-10 and 2022-08-05) are nearly word-for-word identical describing a pipe burst — one may be a duplicate submission or a fabricated review. Both were counted but flagged.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews (dated 2024-06-09 and 2024-03-08) are nearly word-for-word identical describing missed appointments through Home Warranty of America — likely a duplicate submission. Both were counted but flagged.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews (dated 2022-06-10 and 2021-07-13) are word-for-word identical describing Alex showing up same day for a pipe burst. One is likely fabricated or reposted.
• SUSPECTED FAKE/PADDED REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews from 2023 use generic praise with no specific job details ('These guys are absolutely amazing!', 'Love these peoples') and lack any verifiable specifics, suggesting possible padding of the review profile.
• PATTERN OF ALLEGED FRAUD: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2019, 2022, 2024, 2025) allege the company attempted to inflate warranty claims by overstating required work — this is a serious and recurring pattern that significantly impacts trustworthiness.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) include both strong positives and strong negatives, indicating the operational issues have not been resolved over time. The 1-star reviews from 2024–2025 describe the same communication and no-show problems documented as far back as 2014–2016.
• ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERN: Multiple reviewers report the owner (Alex) was unresponsive, had a perpetually full voicemail, and denied or dismissed complaints including one involving $5,000+ in property damage caused by a technician.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS (no text, only a rating of 4.0 and 5.0) were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (65 reviews) spanning 2009–2025 and carries HIGH data confidence, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the significant volume of serious negative reviews alleging fraud, chronic no-shows, and property damage — patterns that suggest systemic operational risk rather than isolated incidents.

Perfection Plumbing presents a deeply divided review record spanning over a decade. Positive reviews — primarily from 2014–2024 — praise specific technicians like Miguel, Isaac, and Joel for professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence. However, a substantial volume of negative reviews describe serious failures including a flooded home caused by technician error, abandoned jobs falsely marked as completed, dishonest upselling, hostile behavior from owner Hector, and poor communication. The project completion dimension is particularly damaged by multiple accounts of work left unfinished or made worse. Pricing concerns are significant, with multiple reviewers alleging inflated quotes and unnecessary charges, though a few positive reviewers noted fair or competitive pricing.

• Two reviews dated 2023-12-01 are near-identical in text — one appears to be a duplicate submission of the same review. Only one was counted for scoring purposes to avoid double-weighting.
• Several 5-star reviews are generic and lack specific detail (e.g., 'great prices very very pleased,' 'I've been a customer for a few years and always had great service'), which raises mild concern about authenticity. Confidence is not reduced significantly as most positive reviews do include named technicians and specific scenarios.
• A significant portion of reviews (approximately 11 of 28) are 1-star, representing roughly 39% of the review base — an unusually high negative rate for a service business.
• Multiple negative reviews cite owner Hector by name as being rude, hostile, and dismissive, suggesting a systemic leadership issue rather than isolated technician problems.
• Several reviews are older than 5 years (pre-2019). While included for pattern context, more recent reviews (2023–2024) were weighted more heavily. Recent reviews still show both positive and negative experiences, indicating the pattern has not clearly improved.
• At least two reviews allege deliberate dishonesty: one citing a false diagnosis reported to a home warranty company, another citing a grossly inflated quote for an $8 repair. These are serious integrity flags beyond mere incompetence.

This WW Score is based on 28 reviews with strong mention coverage across all four dimensions and is considered HIGH confidence overall, but the score reflects a genuinely troubled service record — prospective customers should treat the low score as a meaningful warning, not a data artifact.

Professionalism is the most frequently discussed dimension and paints a deeply divided picture: several reviews praise specific staff members (the tattooed employee, Frank, Harry, and an older gentleman) for being polite, patient, and helpful, while a near-equal number of reviews describe rude, dismissive, or unhelpful staff — particularly toward non-trade customers. Pricing is a significant concern, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out prices as far higher than competitors (one citing a 400% markup versus a nearby hardware store) and one review alleging daily price manipulation for extra profit. Project completion scores modestly, as a handful of positive reviews note that staff helped customers gather everything needed to finish their projects, but return/refund experiences were consistently poor and frustrating. Experience scores in the middle range: some staff demonstrated genuine trade knowledge and problem-solving ability, while others were described as clueless or unwilling to assist, suggesting inconsistency across the team.

• Several reviews are older than 1 year, with the majority dating from 2013–2020; only two reviews are within the past 12 months (2023), limiting recency reliability.
• The business appears to be a plumbing supply house/wholesaler rather than a contractor or plumber — some negative reviews stem from a policy of serving trade professionals only, which may skew ratings from general public reviewers unfairly.
• One review (1-star, 2020-01-18) alleges deliberate daily price manipulation and uses the word 'scammers' without specific detail, which may be an exaggerated or emotionally driven review rather than a factual account — treated with reduced weight.
• No patterns of fake reviews detected; reviews vary in tone, detail level, rating, and date, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: professionalism, pricing, and experience are each supported by 5+ mentions giving HIGH confidence in those dimensions, but the score is significantly dragged down by a consistent pattern of negative pricing and staff conduct complaints, and the recency of data is limited with only 2 reviews from the past 12 months.

Plumbing 4 Less presents a deeply mixed picture across its review history. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by multiple explicit accounts of no-shows without notice, ignored calls and texts, and an unprofessional phone greeting — serious failures that offset the warmth and courtesy praised in earlier positive reviews. Project completion similarly suffers: at least two reviews describe jobs that were promised but never performed, while the positive reviews do describe completed work done well. Pricing and experience scores are more favorable, with several reviewers explicitly calling out fair, reasonable, and transparent pricing and competent workmanship — but these positives are undermined by the volume of negative reliability incidents. The overall picture is of a contractor that may perform well when they show up, but has a documented pattern of failing to follow through on commitments.

• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are from 2016–2019. The most recent review (July 2019) reports the phone number may be out of service, raising serious concern that this business may no longer be operating. No reviews from the past 5+ years are present.
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS CLOSURE: One reviewer explicitly states the phone number is no longer in service as of March 2019. This should be treated as a critical flag before hiring.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Two separate reviews (July 2018 and July 2019) independently describe Erik or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without any call or explanation. This is a documented behavioral pattern, not an isolated incident.
• REVIEW POLARIZATION: Reviews are sharply split between 1-star and 5-star with no middle ground, which may indicate inconsistent service quality depending on the job or technician assigned.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The positive reviews contain some specific details (names, job types, pricing context) that reduce suspicion of fabrication, but the stark 1-star vs 5-star split warrants caution.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the small review sample (7 reviews), the age of all reviews (2016–2019 only), strong evidence the business may be closed, and a documented pattern of no-shows that materially impacts the professionalism and project completion dimensions.