Find Nearby Plumbers In Perris, California

Perez Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base, with many customers praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship across a wide range of jobs including water heater replacements, leak repairs, and pipe work. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 20-25% of substantive reviews — raise serious concerns including incomplete work left undiscovered for extended periods, alleged overcharging, rude office staff, no-show appointments, and at least one claim of $45,000 in uninsured damage. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by recurring complaints about the front-office/scheduling staff being rude or dismissive, and by multiple no-show or late-arrival incidents. Pricing scores are mixed: while many customers praise fair and competitive rates, several credible negative reviews describe charges that appear excessive or inconsistent with the work performed. Project completion is generally strong but is meaningfully penalized by the disconnected kitchen drain incident, the incomplete pipe replacement allegation, and the irrigation meter job that left the lawn torn up for weeks.

• Approximately 25 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews (mostly 5-star) cannot be scored and inflate the apparent rating without providing usable evidence.
• Several reviews appear to reference entirely different companies or locations (e.g., HVAC furnace work, A/C capacitor repair, tire change assistance, construction across the street) suggesting this review pool may aggregate reviews for multiple businesses sharing the 'Perez Plumbing' name or that some reviews were misdirected. These were excluded from scoring where clearly irrelevant.
• A pattern of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Love their service!', 'Very good', 'Good', 'All went well', 'unknown') raises moderate fake review concern. These were treated as low-weight evidence.
• One 1-star review references a 'Marcos' and 'Damon' as owner — names not mentioned in other reviews — suggesting possible review bleed from a different Perez Plumbing entity.
• One review references dangerous driving behavior and another references road conduct — these are not plumbing service reviews and were excluded from scoring.
• A review dated 2005 describes workers with poor English proficiency and a 3-hour delay returning with an invoice — this and other pre-2015 reviews were given minimal weight due to age.
• The 1-star review alleging a disconnected kitchen drain left draining into a crawl space for an extended period is a serious workmanship and integrity flag that was weighted heavily in project completion scoring.
• At least two credible reviews allege billing for work not performed or for excessive amounts relative to time on site, which is a significant pricing integrity concern.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2024-2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, negative reviews are also well-represented in this recent window.

This WW Score is based on a large review volume with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given the serious nature of several negative reviews, the presence of numerous blank reviews inflating star averages, and evidence suggesting this pool may include reviews for more than one business operating under the Perez Plumbing name.

Madera Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable service delivery, with multiple reviews praising skill level and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism is inconsistent: while most reviews highlight punctuality and communication, one detailed negative review explicitly documents lateness (30 minutes), inappropriate attire, and poor customer service. Pricing presents a significant concern, with one review reporting being charged double the quoted amount and accusations of unnecessary upselling, though other reviews mention fair pricing. The company's 24/7 availability and follow-through on most jobs are strengths, but the single critical review raises red flags about consistency and transparency.

• Potential fake review pattern detected: Four of six reviews are 5-star with generic praise ('awesome,' 'great,' 'legit') and minimal specific detail. Review from 2024-06-21 uses vague language ('A+ service') with no concrete examples.
• One detailed 1-star review (2022-03-12) provides specific, credible complaints: late arrival, inappropriate attire, failure to complete job, double-charging. This contrasts sharply with generic 5-star reviews and suggests real service quality issues.
• Pricing inconsistency: One review explicitly states being charged double the quote; others praise fair pricing. This is a material discrepancy requiring caution.
• All reviews are older than 12 months except one from June 2024. Most data is from 2021-2023, limiting recency.
• Confidence in professionalism score is tempered by the credible negative review documenting unprofessional behavior (lateness, inappropriate dress, rudeness).

This score should be treated with caution. While technical expertise appears solid, the presence of one detailed, credible negative review documenting professionalism failures and pricing overcharges, combined with suspiciously generic 5-star reviews, suggests the company's service quality is inconsistent. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects this mixed picture, but potential customers should weigh the specific complaints in the 1-star review heavily.

J&J Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and competitive pricing, with multiple reviews praising fair costs and skilled workmanship. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by severe communication failures, unresponsiveness, and one incident of vulgar employee conduct. The company excels at problem-solving and honest assessments but struggles with follow-through on callbacks and manager availability. Recent reviews (2024) reveal critical customer service breakdowns that contradict earlier positive feedback, suggesting potential operational decline or inconsistency.

• CRITICAL: Most recent review (April 2024) documents severe communication failures, unresponsiveness to customer inquiries, and failure to follow through on warranty claims—directly contradicting the company's professionalism claims.
• BEHAVIORAL CONCERN: August 2023 review reports employee yelling vulgar obscenities from company van at other drivers and police—serious professionalism and brand reputation issue.
• RECENCY BIAS: Positive reviews cluster heavily in 2021-2022 and earlier (one from 2015, 2019). Only 2 recent reviews (2023-2024), and the most recent is highly negative, suggesting possible service quality decline.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews praising communication and responsiveness versus detailed 1-star account of communication breakdown and manager unavailability. This suggests either inconsistent service delivery or potential fake positive reviews.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Several 5-star reviews lack specificity (e.g., 'a good man' with no detail; generic praise without concrete examples), which may indicate inflated or unverified ratings.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant inconsistency between older positive reviews and recent negative feedback, combined with documented behavioral and communication issues. The WW Score reflects a company with genuine technical competence and fair pricing but serious and worsening professionalism and project completion reliability concerns that are not adequately captured by the overall number.

Perkins and Sons shows a strong pattern of positive customer interactions, with Roger and Kathy frequently praised for politeness, responsiveness, and reasonable pricing. However, two serious negative reviews significantly weigh down the Project Completion and Professionalism scores: one customer paid $200 for a door installation that was never completed and never refunded, and another experienced complete failure to receive a callback after multiple attempts. These are not minor complaints — they describe dishonesty and abandoned work, which are critical failures in a handyman service. The majority of positive reviews are genuine and specific, lending credibility, but the unresolved financial dispute and communication failures cannot be ignored. The score reflects a business that performs well in most cases but has demonstrated meaningful reliability failures.

• SERIOUS FLAG: One reviewer (2019-09-28) reports paying $200 for a door measurement with a promise it would apply toward installation, then waiting 4+ months with no installation completed, no refund issued despite being promised one, and repeated unanswered calls. This describes potential fraud or serious business failure and heavily penalizes Project Completion.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: One reviewer (2020-09-19) reports being promised a callback within one hour, receiving none, leaving a follow-up voicemail, and waiting a full week with no response. This is a direct contradiction of the responsiveness praised in positive reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most serious negative reviews are from 2019 and 2020. The most recent positive reviews are from 2020 and 2021. The bulk of positive reviews are from 2016–2019, meaning the overall positive picture may be dated.
• GENERIC REVIEW FLAG: Two reviews ('These guys are incredible! Super flexible and did a great job!' and 'Reallly great company for small and medium jobs. I was extremely pleased with the work.') are very short, lack specific detail, and provide no verifiable information. These were given reduced weight in scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are older than 3 years as of a 2024 evaluation date. Only 3 reviews are from 2020 or later. The score should be treated with caution given the lack of recent data.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the high mention counts across all dimensions provide statistical grounding, but the presence of two credible and serious negative reviews (one involving an unresolved financial dispute), combined with the age of most reviews and two suspiciously generic 5-star entries, means this score should not be taken as a full endorsement without seeking more recent references.

This contractor shows strong technical expertise and professionalism in customer interactions, with three reviews praising quick response, diagnostic ability, and courteous service. However, a critical 1-star review from June 2024 raises serious concerns about project completion and warranty follow-through: pipes failed 6-9 months after a $20k whole-house repipe, and the owner refused to address the issue. Pricing feedback is mixed, with one review citing reasonable rates but another describing the $20k repipe as 'not worth the money.' The recent negative review and documented business instability (partner departure cited) significantly undermine overall trustworthiness despite positive technical feedback.

• CRITICAL: Most recent review (June 2024) is a severe 1-star with specific allegations of defective work and warranty denial on major project ($20k repipe). Pipes failed within 9 months.
• Business stability concern: Review explicitly states co-owner Anthony left due to owner Robert being 'a bad businessman,' suggesting internal operational issues.
• Subcontracting quality control issue: Reviewer reports drywall subcontractors performed unprofessional work, indicating potential quality oversight problems.
• Three positive reviews (April 2024, Nov 2023, March 2023) lack specificity on pricing details and contain somewhat generic praise language, though they do cite specific technician names and scenarios.
• Recency weighted heavily: The June 2024 negative review is most recent and directly contradicts earlier positive feedback on quality.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical skill appears genuine based on multiple mentions of diagnostic ability, the recent critical failure on a major project combined with alleged warranty denial and business instability issues significantly undermine confidence in overall reliability. The small sample size (4 reviews) and recency of the damaging review suggest waiting for additional recent feedback before making a decision.

JD Plumbing Services shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with strong positive feedback on routine jobs contrasted by severe failures on complex projects. Professionalism is undermined by licensing concerns, unpredictable arrival times, and poor communication during problem jobs. Pricing appears fair on smaller jobs but becomes problematic when scope expands and multiple trips occur. Project completion is the weakest dimension—three reviews document incomplete or failed work requiring professional remediation. Experience level appears adequate for standard plumbing but insufficient for complex jobs like slab leaks and gas line installations.

• LICENSING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2022-05-21, 2022-03-06) explicitly state Jason is not a licensed plumber despite claims otherwise. One review cites California B&P Code 7031. This is a critical legal and safety issue.
• PATTERN OF MAJOR FAILURES: Three 1-star reviews (2023-05-21, 2022-08-10, 2022-03-06) describe catastrophic project failures on complex jobs (gas line, slab leak, main water line) with multiple failed attempts, borrowed tools, and lack of professional documentation.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Negative reviews consistently mention poor communication, unavailability after job completion, failure to provide invoices/receipts, and refusal to provide licensing credentials.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews (simple jobs: valve repair, emergency gas work, small kitchen project) and 1-star reviews (complex jobs: slab leak, main water line, gas line installation). Suggests competency limited to routine work.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: Unpredictable arrival times, arriving late at night without notice, requiring homeowner assistance at 11pm, personal life bleeding into job site, comments making family uncomfortable.
• DOCUMENTATION ISSUES: 2022-03-06 review notes no receipt or invoice provided despite $6,000 payment—only text messages. This raises concerns about legitimacy and insurance compliance.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are from 2022-2023; most recent reviews (2023-12-17, 2023-07-28, 2023-05-28) are positive but involve simple jobs. Pattern suggests learning curve did not occur.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 68.2 reflects mixed data, the underlying pattern reveals a contractor suitable only for routine plumbing tasks but unsuitable for complex projects. The licensing violations and documentation failures are serious red flags that override the positive reviews. Recommend verification of current licensing status and insurance before engagement, and restrict to jobs under $500 or routine maintenance only.