Find Nearby Plumbers In Placentia, California

Anaheim Hills Plumbing has a generally positive track record across multiple reviews, with customers praising punctuality, polite staff, and willingness to follow up on issues. However, one serious incident — a broken pipe that flooded a home and caused significant property damage — substantially drags down the Project Completion and Experience scores, as this represents a significant workmanship failure. Pricing feedback is sparse but positive, with one reviewer specifically noting honest, transparent quoting practices. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (most from 2016–2019), which limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance. Overall, the contractor shows a pattern of solid work but carries meaningful risk given the documented flood incident.

• RECENCY WARNING: All 6 reviews are from 2016–2021. None are within the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date). Scores may not reflect current performance.
• SERIOUS INCIDENT FLAG: One review (2021-07-28) describes a broken pipe causing home flooding, destroyed flooring, and drywall damage. This is a significant workmanship failure and has been weighted heavily against Project Completion and Experience scores.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 6 reviews total. With such a small dataset, a single negative incident has outsized impact and scores should be treated with caution.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in detail, tone, and specificity. No repetitive phrasing or suspicious uniformity observed.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review sample (6 reviews), all of which are over 3 years old, and the presence of one serious property-damage incident that may not be fully representative but cannot be ignored.

All Out Plumbing has a deeply polarized review history. A large cluster of positive reviews — many from 2014 to 2019 — praise responsiveness, professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, particularly around a technician named David. However, a significant and credible set of negative reviews from 2019 to 2024 describe serious misconduct including price-switching after arrival, abandoned jobs with drywall holes left open, fraudulent credit card charges, leaking work requiring third-party remediation, and complete ghosting of customers. The negative reviews are specific, detailed, and corroborated across multiple reviewers naming the same individuals (Christian, Andrew, David), which substantially reduces confidence in the positive record. Multiple reviewers and even a 1-star reviewer explicitly flag the 5-star reviews as fake or duplicated across other company profiles, which is a serious credibility concern. Scores across all dimensions are penalized to reflect this documented pattern of misconduct and the credible fake-review allegations.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — HIGH: Multiple independent negative reviewers explicitly state that 5-star reviews appear duplicated across other Yelp company profiles (Knight Plumbing, All Out Plumbing Whittier). One reviewer states the same reviews appear word-for-word on other company pages. Several 5-star reviews from 2018-2019 use nearly identical phrasing ('knowledgeable and professional', 'will definitely be using them for future issues') with no specific job details.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers (2020-2024) describe a technician named Christian abandoning jobs mid-work, leaving drywall holes open, and turning off his phone. One reviewer reports finding the same individual listed under a separate company (Knight Plumbing) with similar scam complaints.
• FRAUDULENT BILLING ALLEGATIONS: At least two reviewers report unauthorized or disputed credit card charges. One reviewer states authorities were notified. Another describes being charged $2,000+ upfront with a promised refund that never materialized over 11+ days.
• PRICE SWITCHING: One reviewer (2024) reports being quoted $2,000 then told $4,000 upon arrival when the contractor knew the customer was in a desperate situation. This is a predatory pricing pattern.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: Multiple negative reviewers describe leaking post-repair work requiring a second plumber, incorrect installation of a tankless water heater, cracked filter housing on a whole-house filtration system, and faulty valves on a washer/dryer relocation.
• NO-SHOW / GHOSTING PATTERN: At least two reviewers describe being given appointment times and then never hearing back, with no call and no show.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2014-2019 and are more than 5 years old. All reviews from 2020 onward are predominantly 1-star with serious allegations. The most recent reviews (2023-2024) continue the negative trend, suggesting a significant deterioration in service quality or a change in personnel/ownership.
• IDENTITY CONFUSION: Multiple negative reviewers reference different named technicians (David, Christian, Andrew, Jesse, Ron, Larry, Matt, Jay, Jason, Steve) suggesting either high staff turnover, multiple operators under one brand, or possible brand name misuse by bad actors.
• TWO REVIEWS CONTAINED NO USABLE TEXT ('unknown') AND WERE EXCLUDED FROM DIMENSION SCORING.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust — the review set contains credible and specific allegations of fraud, fake reviews, abandoned work, and billing misconduct that materially undermine the large volume of older positive reviews, and the most recent reviews consistently reflect serious service failures.

O'Gilvy Construction receives genuinely positive feedback in several reviews for punctuality, communication, and responsiveness, but these are significantly tempered by one detailed 1-star review describing defective, substandard work that cost the customer $95,000 to remediate and resulted in arbitration with findings from bonding and state authorities. Project completion is mixed: two reviews praise on-time or ahead-of-schedule delivery, one review notes a connection oversight requiring a callback, and the arbitration review describes serious incomplete or defective work. Pricing transparency is a relative strength, with multiple reviewers noting fair, itemized quotes and no hidden charges, though the arbitration outcome implies the true cost of the work was far higher than contracted. Workmanship quality is similarly split between inspector-praised structural and electrical work on one hand and state-documented substandard work on the other, pulling the experience score down considerably.

• One review (1-star, Kim Gray, dated 2014-06-07) describes a serious outcome: arbitration was pursued, defective work was confirmed by bonding company and State of California reports, and the customer incurred approximately $95,000 in remediation costs. This is a significant red flag that heavily influences all dimension scores.
• All reviews are dated between 2014 and 2018 — the most recent review is from December 2018, meaning all data is more than 5 years old. No recent reviews are available, making it impossible to assess current performance. Scores should be treated with caution for this reason.
• The two 5-star reviews from July 2014 share the same date (2014-07-10), which is a minor flag worth noting, though their content is sufficiently distinct and specific to not strongly suggest fabrication.
• The total review count of 5 is very low. While the WW Score has been calculated, it carries limited reliability due to the small sample size and the age of all available data.

This WW Score should be treated with low-to-moderate confidence: the sample size is very small (5 reviews), all reviews are over 5 years old with no recent data, and one review documents serious, state-verified workmanship failures that materially drag down the score across multiple dimensions.

Avis Home Solutions presents a deeply polarized review profile. On the positive side, many individual technicians — Edgar, Dean, Ivan, Broc, Luke, Enrique, Chris, and others — are repeatedly praised for being professional, knowledgeable, courteous, and thorough, which lifts the professionalism and experience scores meaningfully. However, the company is weighed down by a substantial and consistent pattern of serious negative reviews spanning over a decade, with dozens of customers alleging predatory pricing tactics, false diagnoses, pressure sales targeting elderly and vulnerable customers, failure to follow through on callbacks, incomplete work, and in several cases outright fraud (e.g., fabricated freon readings, misrepresented duct conditions, a manager attempting to buy a 5-star review). Pricing is the most damaged dimension, with numerous reviewers reporting quotes 5x to 20x higher than what competing companies charged for the same work. Project completion also suffers significantly, with multiple accounts of work that failed to fix the underlying problem, abandoned jobs, and warranty disputes requiring state contractor board intervention. The gap between individual technician quality and company-level business practices is the defining characteristic of this review set.

• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Across multiple decades and dozens of reviews, customers consistently report being quoted prices 5x to 20x higher than competitors for identical work. Examples include $10,700 for duct work later quoted at $1,200-$1,500 by others, $6,000 for a coil repaired by another company for $89, and $10,000 for a split unit installation that should cost under $1,000.
• ELDERLY TARGETING: Multiple independent reviewers explicitly allege that Avis systematically targets elderly and senior customers with false diagnoses, scare tactics (e.g., showing pictures of burned units), and high-pressure same-day sales tactics. Several cases resulted in California Contractors Board complaints and partial refunds.
• FALSE DIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviewers report being told their systems needed expensive repairs or full replacement, only to have a second-opinion company find no issue or fix the problem for a fraction of the cost. This pattern appears across reviews from 2012 through 2025.
• REVIEW BUYING ATTEMPT: One reviewer (2023) explicitly states that a manager named Leo offered to waive a $79 fee in exchange for a 5-star review, which constitutes attempted review manipulation. This undermines confidence in the authenticity of some generic 5-star reviews.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR SOLICITED REVIEWS: The cluster of 15+ reviews all dated exactly 2025-05-10 and 2024-08-13 with no specific dates/times is suspicious. Several of these reviews are extremely generic ('Very friendly and knowledgeable', 'Dean was great!!!', blank text with 5 stars) and lack any verifiable detail. This pattern is consistent with bulk-solicited or incentivized reviews.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The long detailed review about a two-unit installation (Christian, Norman, Luke, Bill, Oscar, Jose) appears twice with nearly identical text — once dated 2024-08-13 and once dated 2024-07-29. This inflates positive review counts artificially.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contain no text whatsoever but carry 5-star ratings. These provide no usable data and may represent solicited ratings without genuine customer input.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024-2025) show a mixed but somewhat improved picture for individual technician conduct, while the most severe fraud and incompetence allegations are concentrated in the 2018-2023 period. However, negative reviews continue into 2025, including a 1-star review from March 2025 about persistent junk mail harassment and a 1-star from May 2025 about a $15,000 upsell for a system another company fixed for $375.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews cite specific managers (Leo, Mike Tovar, Craig Smith) as rude, confrontational, or complicit in predatory practices. The owner-level response pattern of dismissing negative reviews as fake is noted in at least one review thread.

This WW Score of 58.7 is based on a large review set (125 reviews) with HIGH data confidence across all dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of solicited/fake positive reviews, a documented review-buying attempt, duplicate reviews, and a persistent multi-year pattern of predatory business practices that significantly undermines the positive signals from individual technician performance.

Murphy and Sons Plumbing scores very poorly across all four dimensions, driven primarily by a high volume of serious, specific complaints. Professionalism is the most heavily cited issue, with repeated no-shows, failure to call back, and rude or threatening behavior documented across multiple reviews spanning several years. Project completion is severely undermined by accounts of abandoned work, unresolved leaks, ignored warranty claims, and a pattern of scheduling appointments that are never honored. Pricing concerns are notable, with multiple reviewers warning about billing insurance for inflated amounts, lack of written quotes, and advice to shop competitors before hiring. Experience scores marginally higher due to a handful of positive reviews praising efficient repairs, but these are outweighed by accounts of misdiagnosed leaks and poor workmanship requiring costly re-dos.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('0 stars would be more accurate...') were submitted on the same date (2024-04-11) within minutes of each other. This is likely the same reviewer submitting twice. Only one instance was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting.
• SUSPECTED REVIEW CLUSTERING: Three 5-star reviews were posted on the same date (2022-01-16) within minutes of each other, all using similarly enthusiastic and generic language with no verifiable job-specific details. These may be solicited or inauthentic reviews and have been treated with reduced confidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are all 1-star and describe serious ongoing issues including no-shows, ignored warranty claims, and unresolved leaks. The positive reviews are predominantly from 2019–2022, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• PATTERN OF SYSTEMIC ISSUES: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same failure modes — no-shows without notice, failure to return calls, and unresolved leaks — indicating these are not isolated incidents but likely operational problems.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews with strong mention coverage across all four dimensions and is considered reasonably reliable, though the presence of suspected fake 5-star reviews and one duplicate 1-star review introduces a moderate degree of distortion that slightly inflates the score above what the authentic negative feedback alone would produce.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. Both reviews are uniformly 5-star with highly generic praise and identical structural patterns (superlatives, exclamation marks, no specific problem details). Review dates are from January 2023, over 1 year old. While dimensions show strong scores, the limited mention counts (1–2 per dimension) and suspicious review homogeneity prevent confident scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Both reviews are 5-star with identical structural patterns (excessive exclamation marks, generic superlatives like 'THE BEST', 'Excellent', no specific problem details or challenges mentioned). Repetitive phrasing suggests possible review manipulation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews dated January 2023 (over 1 year old). No recent customer feedback available.
• NO NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: Complete absence of any critical comments or areas for improvement is atypical and raises authenticity concerns.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and suspected review authenticity issues. Do not rely on this assessment for contractor selection decisions.