Find Nearby Plumbers In Oxnard, California

Every single review analyzed is negative, with ratings of 1 or 2 stars, painting a deeply alarming picture of this contractor across all four dimensions. Professionalism is catastrophically low — reviewers consistently describe extreme lateness or no-shows, verbally abusive behavior, threatening conduct toward renters, unsolicited late-night phone calls, and an inability to provide a valid contractor's license number. Pricing is flagged as deceptive and predatory, with multiple reviewers describing bait-and-switch tactics, unapproved charges, and pressure to pay for work not agreed upon. Project completion is nearly nonexistent — jobs were abandoned, rescheduled repeatedly, left in worse condition than found, and in several cases the plumber gave up entirely without resolving the issue. Workmanship quality is described as shoddy, incompetent, and actively damaging, with one reviewer's regular plumber expressing shock at the poor work left behind.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviewers explicitly state this contractor operates WITHOUT a valid California contractor's license, which also means no insurance coverage for work performed.
• CRITICAL: The business appears to operate under multiple deceptive names including 'American One Plumbing', 'Day & Night Rooter Man', 'Dr. Dream', 'Day & Night Plumbing', and 'AR Construction' — a strong indicator of fraudulent or evasive business practices.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews describe predatory and potentially illegal conduct — refusing to leave without payment, intimidating renters, charging for unapproved workers, and demanding payment for incomplete or damaging work.
• WARNING: One review explicitly states the owner (Al Solano) has been accused of taking thousands of dollars from elderly people.
• WARNING: All 7 reviews are dated between 2013 and 2015. No recent reviews are available. The score reflects historical data only and current business status is unknown — however, the severity and consistency of complaints across all reviewers warrants extreme caution.
• NOTE: No fake review patterns detected. Reviews are highly specific, varied in detail, and independently corroborate one another, lending strong credibility to the negative findings.

This WW Score of 8.1 is based on 7 reviews that are unanimous in their negative assessment and highly consistent in the specific problems described, giving the score strong internal reliability — however, all reviews are from 2013–2015, so current operational status cannot be confirmed.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 4 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. While individual dimensions show strong performance (pricing: 88.0, project completion: 92.5, experience: 90.0), the professionalism dimension contains zero explicit mentions and cannot be scored. The dataset is too small and lacks sufficient dimension coverage to produce a trustworthy composite score.

• Total review count (4) is below recommended minimum for reliable scoring
• Professionalism dimension has zero explicit mentions despite positive sentiment — cannot score this critical 30% weighted dimension
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; however, specificity and detail vary, reducing concern about fake reviews
• Review dates span 2016–2021 (3–8 years old); no recent reviews from past 12 months available
• Small sample size makes confidence intervals wide and unreliable for business decision-making

This analysis cannot produce a valid WW Score due to insufficient review volume (4 reviews) and missing data for the professionalism dimension. Any composite score derived from this dataset would be unreliable and should not be used for contractor evaluation.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews praise professionalism (responsiveness, customer service, hard work) and one mentions reasonable pricing. However, neither review provides explicit detail about project completion, workmanship quality, or technical expertise. The reviews are recent (within past 12 months) but too few in number to calculate a reliable WW Score.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 threshold
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise language ('very professional,' 'highly recommend') and lack specific project details
• No data on project completion, timeliness, or technical experience — two critical dimensions entirely absent
• Pricing mentioned in only 1 review with minimal detail ('reasonable price')

This analysis cannot be trusted as a comprehensive score — only 2 reviews provide insufficient evidence across dimensions to generate a valid WW Score. Minimum 3 reviews required; recommend collecting at least 10+ reviews with specific project details before drawing conclusions.

Both reviews are highly positive and mention all four dimensions explicitly. Professionalism is evidenced by friendly communication, step-by-step updates, and thorough troubleshooting. Pricing is described as fair and reasonable for work involved. Project completion is demonstrated through successful resolution of a complex toilet issue and commitment to follow-through. Experience is reflected in skilled problem-solving and technical knowledge. However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score per Step 4 guidelines.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for WW Score calculation.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback mentioned. While not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical detail or minor complaints is atypical and should be noted.
• All scores are based on LIMITED confidence due to mention count of 2 (below the 3-4 threshold for MODERATE confidence).

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 2 reviews were provided. Individual dimension scores reflect positive feedback but carry LIMITED confidence and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews are positive and recent (mid-to-late 2024), praising Hugo's professionalism, knowledge, and responsiveness — including a Sunday emergency call handled promptly. Project completion is implied in both reviews with phrases like 'got the job done quickly' and 'fixed the issue in no time,' though neither review goes into granular detail about scope or follow-through. Experience is noted explicitly in both reviews via terms like 'knowledgeable,' lending some credibility to technical skill. Pricing is entirely absent from both reviews, so no assessment can be made on value or cost transparency. With only two reviews total, no dimension reaches even moderate confidence, and a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive but somewhat generic language; limited specificity about the actual work performed reduces confidence in all dimension scores.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — this dimension cannot be evaluated at all.
• Small sample size means a single negative experience in the future could dramatically shift scores.

This score report should be treated as highly preliminary and not relied upon for decision-making, as only 2 reviews were available — well below the minimum needed for a statistically meaningful assessment.

Both reviews explicitly praise professionalism (timely, efficient, friendly, precision work) and project completion (jobs finished within stated timeframes, work done correctly). Technical skill is evident in both reviews (precise countertop cutting, correct measurements, perfect installation). However, the sample size is critically small (only 2 reviews), and pricing is not mentioned in either review. The WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Insufficient review volume: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• No pricing data available: dimension cannot be evaluated.
• Review recency concern: one review is from 2021 (nearly 3 years old); only one review from past 12 months.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generic positive language; however, sample size too small to flag as suspicious pattern.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews). Individual dimension scores are based on only 2 mentions each, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all dimensions. At least 3–5 additional reviews are needed to establish trustworthy scoring.