Find Nearby Plumbers In Oxnard, California

Roger's Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians — particularly Orlando, Jim, Marcus, Eddie, and Chris — who communicate clearly, arrive on time, and go above and beyond on the job. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a substantial and consistent pattern of negative reviews explicitly calls out charges that reviewers describe as 2–4x competitor rates, surprise fees, upselling of unnecessary work, and in one case an unauthorized membership charge. Project completion is generally solid but is meaningfully dragged down by multiple reviews citing no-shows, missed appointments without callbacks, and at least one case of work that had to be redone. The combination of excellent field technicians and a problematic pricing model creates a bifurcated reputation that is clearly reflected across hundreds of reviews spanning over a decade.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical reviews from the same reviewer (dated 2024-09-09 and 2024-08-22) describing the same rental property experience with the $53 drain special and hydro-jetting comparison. These appear to be the same person posting twice. Only counted once for scoring purposes.
• GENERIC/THIN REVIEWS: Approximately 18 reviews consist solely of a star rating with no text, and several others contain only 2–4 words (e.g., 'Professional. Detailed. Polite.' appearing twice on different dates with identical wording — possible duplicate or templated review). These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• IDENTICAL PHRASING FLAG: The review 'Professional. Detailed. Polite.' appears on both 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-02 with identical text and 5-star ratings. This is suspicious and may indicate a fake or duplicated review.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2024–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, a meaningful cluster of negative pricing reviews spans 2010–2024, suggesting the overpricing concern is a long-standing and persistent issue rather than an isolated incident.
• PRICING CONCERN IS SYSTEMIC: At least 15 distinct reviews across multiple years explicitly cite overcharging, price gouging, or quotes 2–4x competitor rates. This is not noise — it is a consistent pattern that materially suppresses the pricing score.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 5 reviews describe technicians who never arrived, did not call, or failed to reschedule appropriately. One review describes 7 return visits for the same unresolved dripping faucet issue, raising a project completion concern.
• OLDER REVIEWS (pre-2020): A significant number of reviews date back to 2010–2019. These were given reduced weight in scoring relative to 2023–2025 reviews, per recency rules.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 15+ years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; the score is considered reliable, and the pricing dimension in particular reflects a well-documented and persistent pattern that prospective customers should weigh carefully before engaging this contractor.

Apollo Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for professionalism and responsiveness — many reviewers praise on-time arrivals, friendly technicians, clear communication, and same-day scheduling — but a significant and recurring pattern of price gouging complaints substantially drags down the overall score. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far, with at least 12 reviews explicitly describing quotes as 'outrageous,' 'highway robbery,' or dramatically higher than competitors, sometimes by a factor of 3–5x. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, though a handful of reviews cite incomplete work, a no-show, or work done incorrectly requiring costly remediation. Experience scores moderately well, with several reviewers praising skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but offset by a few notable failures including a misdiagnosis, an incorrect pipe pitch, and a technician who appeared unfamiliar with the equipment. The WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine service strengths undermined by a persistent and well-documented pricing problem.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: At least 12 reviews independently and specifically describe Apollo's quotes as grossly inflated compared to competitors, with documented examples including $7,513 vs. ~$2,800 market rate, $2,200 to snake two drains vs. $475 from a competitor, $6,000 for a job the customer DIY'd for under $200, and $4,800 for a water heater replacement. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE FLAG: One review (2019-07-23) describes a drain line installed with incorrect pitch (sloping the wrong direction), which Apollo refused to remedy under warranty. Another review (2017-07-11) describes an amateur-looking tub/shower control install. These are serious quality failures.
• NO-SHOW / FOLLOW-THROUGH ISSUE: One review (2018-10-04) describes a scheduled plumber who was a no-show with no call. Another review (2017-05-03) describes a technician who never followed up with a promised estimate despite multiple calls to the office.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2006 to 2024. The oldest review (2006) and several reviews from 2017–2019 were included in scoring but given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to show both positive service experiences and pricing complaints, suggesting the pricing issue is ongoing and not historical.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: No strong evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews vary meaningfully in detail, tone, rating, and specificity. Both positive and negative reviews reference named technicians (Quinn, Diego, Trevor, Corey, Tyler, Mark, Danny, Zac, Steve), which adds credibility. One 2006 review written in all-caps with generic praise was noted but treated as low-weight due to age.
• ETHICAL CONCERN: One review (2018-05-07) alleges a technician refused to leave without payment of a travel fee and had to be 'kicked out.' Another review (2022-02-16) alleges a technician made statements in front of a tenant to pressure the homeowner into accepting an inflated quote. These behavioral patterns, if accurate, represent serious ethical concerns beyond mere pricing.

This WW Score is based on 97 reviews spanning nearly two decades and carries HIGH confidence due to the large volume of detailed, specific, and independently corroborating reviews — however, prospective customers should treat the pricing dimension score of 38 as a strong and well-evidenced warning, as the pattern of inflated quotes is one of the most consistent signals in the entire review set.

Rooter Time Plumbing has a large and long-standing review base that paints a genuinely mixed picture. The majority of customers praise responsiveness, friendliness, fair pricing, and solid technical work across a wide variety of jobs including sewer lines, water heaters, drain clearing, and leak repairs. However, a meaningful and recurring cluster of negative reviews — spanning from 2010 through 2024 — consistently cite the same specific failures: missed or severely delayed appointments with no communication, failure to provide receipts or invoices after payment, and at least two instances of workmanship defects (a gas line left hand-tight, a suspected used water heater, an unrepaired sprinkler pipe). Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by repeated no-show and communication failures documented across multiple independent reviewers over many years, suggesting these are systemic rather than isolated issues. Pricing scores are moderate-positive overall, with most customers finding rates fair or reasonable, but offset by two credible complaints of price inflation or dishonest quoting. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to documented abandoned callbacks, incomplete jobs, and at least one confirmed workmanship failure caught by the gas company.

• RECURRING SYSTEMIC ISSUE — No-show / missed appointment complaints appear independently across at least 6 reviews spanning 2010 to 2024, suggesting a persistent operational pattern rather than isolated incidents.
• RECURRING SYSTEMIC ISSUE — Failure to provide receipts or invoices after payment is documented in at least 4 independent reviews across multiple years (2013, 2019, 2020, 2024). This is a notable business practice concern.
• WORKMANSHIP DEFECT — One review (2024-02-01) documents a gas line left 'hand tight' after replacement, confirmed by the gas company. This is a safety-relevant quality failure.
• WORKMANSHIP DEFECT — One review (2014-11-13) documents a sprinkler pipe cut and not reconnected, then buried under dirt, causing ongoing water damage discovered later by the homeowner.
• CONDUCT FLAG — Two separate reviews (2013-03-01 and 2014-05-29) from different reviewers independently report aggressive and dangerous driving behavior by the operator in a branded company vehicle, including cutting off vehicles and making obscene gestures. One reviewer also reported a rude phone interaction when calling to report the behavior.
• CONDUCT FLAG — One review (2022-02-07) reports employees in a branded work truck harassing store employees over mask policy. Reviewer noted expired tags and trash-covered truck.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN — Two reviews posted on the same date (2018-10-31) with nearly identical phrasing ('fit me into their schedule,' 'quick, friendly, and clean') and both 5-star ratings warrant scrutiny. Similarly, two reviews on 2021-02-23 are both 5-star with generic praise and no job specifics.
• RECENCY NOTE — The review base spans 2009 to 2024. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) are older than 3 years. Recent reviews (2023–2024) include both strong positives and at least one notable negative (gas line workmanship failure), suggesting the mixed pattern has continued into the present.
• INVOICE/RECEIPT CONCERN — The pattern of not providing receipts, combined with at least one complaint of a price change after job completion without prior authorization, raises transparency concerns about billing practices.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (90 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given documented recurring patterns of missed appointments, invoice failures, and at least two confirmed workmanship defects — issues that are not fully captured by the numerical score alone.

Repipe1 has a large and mixed review base spanning roughly a decade. The majority of positive reviews praise fast, efficient crews, friendly office staff, and clean drywall patching, which drives scores upward across all dimensions. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — many with specific, credible detail — describe serious issues including incomplete work, rude staff, billing disputes, unreturned calls, no-shows, and workmanship failures such as improperly assembled shower valves, uncovered drywall holes, and uninspected permits. Professionalism scores are tempered by recurring complaints about office staff communication and responsiveness, despite many positive mentions of individual staff members. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as multiple reviewers describe jobs that ran significantly over schedule, required multiple return visits, or were never fully finished. Pricing is generally viewed favorably — Repipe1 is frequently cited as the lowest bidder — but a handful of reviews allege hidden charges, inflated invoices, and unauthorized card charges, which moderates the score.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A cluster of reviews dated exactly '2024-06-09' and '2023-06-10' with identical timestamps and generic praise (e.g., 'Quick & reliable! Super happy with the repipe!' with no detail) is suspicious. These may be solicited or fabricated reviews. Confidence in the aggregate positive score is reduced accordingly.
• THREE REVIEWS CONTAIN NO TEXT — only a star rating (1 star, 5 star, 2 star). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2025. Older reviews (2012–2018) include some of the most detailed negative accounts. More recent reviews (2023–2025) skew more positive but include the suspicious same-date cluster. Scores weight recent reviews more heavily but the older negative reviews are substantive and credible.
• BILLING MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2015) alleges that a manager reinstated a voided $1,800 charge in retaliation for a negative review. Another reviewer (2022) alleges a refund check bounced. These are serious red flags about business integrity.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe jobs left unfinished, permits not pulled, inspections failed multiple times, and work not matching what was quoted — suggesting a systemic rather than isolated issue.
• LANGUAGE BARRIER COMPLAINT: Two separate reviews mention crews being sent to English-speaking homes with no English-speaking supervisor, leading to communication failures and workmanship errors.
• ONE REVIEWER (2020) describes a $40,000+ bill after receiving a sub-$10,000 quote, a 7-month incomplete project, and a missing painting. This is an extreme outlier but is highly specific and credible in detail.

This WW Score of 72.1 is based on a large review set (85 reviews) with HIGH data confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously due to credible and detailed negative reviews, suspected fake review clusters, and serious allegations of billing misconduct and incomplete work that meaningfully offset the volume of positive feedback.

A-1 Plumbing has a large and genuinely mixed review record spanning nearly two decades. The majority of positive reviews praise punctuality, communication, and technical skill — particularly on complex sewer line replacements and pipe bursting jobs — and several detailed accounts describe exceptional problem-solving under difficult conditions. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describes serious professionalism failures including rudeness, use of profanity toward customers, billing disputes, unauthorized work, hidden charges, and at least one instance of alleged theft of parts. Pricing feedback is similarly split: many reviewers found costs fair or competitive, while others reported being significantly overcharged or billed for unauthorized work. Project completion is dragged down by multiple accounts of recurring problems after job completion, unresolved callbacks, and at least one case where a foreign object left in a sewer line caused repeated backups over four months. Experience scores are moderate-to-positive overall but tempered by documented cases of incorrect installations and missed diagnoses.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The lengthy sewer line / spinal surgery review (2019-10-18) appears to be a near-verbatim duplicate of the review dated 2020-08-16. Both describe the same story with nearly identical language. One may be fabricated or reposted. Confidence in these two reviews is reduced.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The negative review about lawn damage and the swingset (2018-06-11) appears to be an exact duplicate of the review dated 2018-01-31. These were counted as one unique incident.
• BLANK OR CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: Several reviews contain only a star rating with no text ('unknown' or empty). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 1 and Rule 2.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews predate 2020 and some go back to 2006-2009. Reviews older than 5 years were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2023-2024) are predominantly positive, but the sample size for recent reviews is small (approximately 7 reviews), limiting confidence in current performance.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS ON RECORD: Multiple reviews describe conduct that goes beyond poor service — including a technician using repeated profanity toward a customer's wife and then filing a false police report (2009), alleged theft of a part from a sealed package (2009), billing for unauthorized work (2013), and a repairman demanding payment made out personally rather than to the company for stated IRS avoidance purposes (2013). These are significant red flags.
• PRICING CONCERN: At least three reviews explicitly describe being charged for unauthorized work, overcharged relative to quote, or billed at rates far exceeding retail part costs (e.g., $185 for an $18 fill valve). This materially suppresses the pricing score.
• MULTI-LOCATION / MULTI-OWNER AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple named technicians and owners (Jay, Jason, Marty, Nathaniel, Gary, Matt, Kale, Wayne, Roger, Syd, Mike). It is unclear whether these all represent the same business entity or if reviews from different geographic markets have been aggregated. This reduces the reliability of treating all reviews as reflecting a single contractor's performance.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (80 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by confirmed duplicate reviews, a wide date range spanning 18 years, serious misconduct allegations, multi-technician ambiguity, and a pricing dimension with documented overcharging incidents — the score of 72.1 should be treated as a moderate-confidence estimate reflecting a contractor with genuine capability but an inconsistent and at times troubling service record.

All In Sanitation shows a genuinely mixed performance profile across its review history. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple reviews citing poor communication, no-shows, and failure to follow up with customers — including one reviewer who waited an entire day without a callback and another who was repeatedly ignored despite urgent need. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: at least three reviews explicitly describe incomplete work (tanks not fully emptied, solid waste left behind, a second tank missed entirely), which is a serious and recurring pattern. On the positive side, many reviewers praised individual technicians by name (Cameron, Cesar, Jose, Fernando, Shane) for being courteous, thorough, and skilled, which supports a moderate-to-good experience score. Pricing is polarizing — some reviewers found rates to be among the best available, while others noted prices were 50% higher than competitors, resulting in a middling price-friendly score.

• RECURRING COMPLETION FAILURES: At least 3 independent reviews (April 2021, March 2021, April 2021) explicitly describe incomplete service — tanks not fully pumped, solid waste left behind, or a second tank entirely missed. This is a significant and consistent pattern, not an isolated incident.
• COMMUNICATION AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews (June 2021, August 2020) describe drivers not showing up, no proactive callbacks, and customer service representatives being unresponsive or ignoring urgent messages. This suggests a systemic scheduling and communication problem.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most negative reviews are concentrated in 2020–2021, which are the most recent reviews in this dataset. The older reviews (2018–2019) are predominantly positive. This may indicate a decline in service quality over time. More weight has been given to the 2020–2021 reviews accordingly.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Reviews vary in tone, detail, length, and rating. Named technicians appear across multiple reviews organically. No significant fake review pattern detected.
• SCORE RANGE NOTE: The positive reviews are genuinely strong, but the negative reviews describe serious service failures. The WW Score reflects this tension rather than averaging them away.

This WW Score is based on 18 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence in its accuracy; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the clear decline in service quality visible in the most recent reviews and the recurring pattern of incomplete work.