All Purpose Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across a very large review base, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and technical competence. Professionalism scores well but is tempered by a meaningful cluster of negative reviews citing no-shows, rescheduling failures, poor follow-through on quotes, and at least one instance of a hung-up phone call. P...
Read more Score Narrative
All Purpose Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across a very large review base, with the majority of customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and technical competence. Professionalism scores well but is tempered by a meaningful cluster of negative reviews citing no-shows, rescheduling failures, poor follow-through on quotes, and at least one instance of a hung-up phone call. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers praise fair or reasonable rates, a notable number of negative reviews specifically call out excessive charges, price gouging, and flat-rate structures that felt deceptive — including charges of $262 to cut drywall, $575 for 1.5 hours of pipe work, and quotes of $8,500–$10,000 for jobs completed elsewhere for far less. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, but several serious failures exist including an abandoned job with a $2,100 charge, a misdiagnosed tankless water heater service that caused a leak and was not remedied, and a refusal to return to complete contracted work. Experience scores positively overall, with many reviewers highlighting knowledgeable technicians who solved complex problems, though a few reviews describe misdiagnosis, upselling without investigation, and work not performed to code.
Flags & Warnings
• LARGE CLUSTER OF UNDATED OR SAME-DATE REVIEWS: A significant number of reviews share identical dates (e.g., 2024-06-09, 2023-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10, 2019-06-11), which is a strong indicator of review migration, bulk import, or platform aggregation rather than organic posting. These should be treated with reduced confidence for recency purposes.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-ENTITY AGGREGATION: Reviews reference multiple distinct technicians (Erick, Eric, Chris, Will, John, Gene, Brian, Robert, Josh, Jacob, Daniel, Bob, Cleve, Curtis, Justin, Steve, Francisco, Brent, Chaz, Gary) and appear to span multiple geographic markets (Tacoma WA, North County San Diego CA, Tampa FL, Carlsbad CA). This strongly suggests these reviews may be aggregated from multiple business locations or franchises under one profile, which undermines the reliability of any single composite score.
• LICENSING CONCERN FLAGGED: One reviewer (1-star, 2024-06-09) explicitly states the contractor is not licensed, not bonded, and does not carry general liability insurance, and that the business address does not exist. This is a serious allegation that could not be verified from reviews alone but warrants caution.
• SAFETY CONCERN FLAGGED: One reviewer (1-star, 2017-08-28) describes a water heater installation that was not to code — horizontal vent instead of required 45-degree incline — creating a carbon monoxide risk. The technician allegedly acknowledged the installation but refused to stand behind the work.
• ABANDONED WORK / REFUND REFUSAL: Multiple reviews describe jobs left incomplete with no refund issued, including a $2,100 charge for a washer/dryer relocation where half the contracted work was not performed, and a $1,100 deposit kept after a misdiagnosed underground pipe job was abandoned after less than one hour.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Negative pricing feedback is not isolated — it appears across multiple years (2012 through 2024) and multiple technicians, suggesting a structural pricing issue rather than individual bad actors.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Eric was great!', 'Great service!', 'Hardest working plumber around!', 'Can't be trusted.' with 1 star and no detail). The clustering of many reviews on identical dates further raises suspicion. Confidence in the aggregate positive score is reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are mixed, including both strong positives and serious negatives. The score is not dominated by older reviews, but the same-date clustering makes precise recency weighting unreliable.
Reliability Statement
This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its real-world reliability is MODERATE at best, given strong evidence of multi-location review aggregation, a licensing allegation, systemic pricing complaints, multiple instances of abandoned or incomplete work, and a significant cluster of same-date reviews that suggest bulk import rather than organic customer feedback — consumers should independently verify licensing, insurance, and local reputation before hiring.
Read less