Find Nearby Plumbers In Redlands, California

Green Valley Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship. Pricing is generally viewed favorably with multiple mentions of fair and reasonable rates. However, project completion shows notable weakness due to several documented failures: incomplete work requiring callbacks, misdiagnosis of problems, lack of follow-through on promised detailed reports, and one instance of work abandonment. The company's track record is heavily skewed by older reviews (many from 2006-2015) with recent reviews (2024) being uniformly positive, suggesting possible service improvements or selection bias in recent feedback.

• RECENCY BIAS: 18 of 56 reviews are from 2024 and all are 5-star with detailed positive narratives. Reviews from 2006-2015 show more critical feedback and lower ratings (1-2 stars), suggesting either significant service improvement or that dissatisfied recent customers are not leaving reviews.
• MULTIPLE CRITICAL FAILURES DOCUMENTED: Four 1-star reviews detail serious issues—misdiagnosed water leak resulting in unnecessary main line cut and billing for non-resolution (2017), unprofessional emergency response with inadequate documentation (2015), incomplete toilet seal installation causing repeated flooding (2012), and defective hot water heater installation with poor customer service response (2010). These are specific, detailed complaints with clear evidence of project completion failures.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Review from 2015 documents worker unable to complete job, taking 3+ weeks with extended breaks, requiring contractor to hire landscaper to finish work, then billing extra $225 plus $50 for incomplete jackhammer use.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Two reviews (2016) explicitly state company promised callbacks that never occurred—'We discussed it and they said they would talk to the tech and call me back. Never heard from them. This is the second time.'
• GENERIC/VAGUE REVIEWS: Multiple reviews contain only 'unknown' text or extremely brief statements ('They're the best. They are very good.') with no substantive detail, reducing data quality.
• CAPS-LOCK REVIEWS: Multiple reviews from 2006 are entirely in caps, suggesting possible automated or template-based submissions.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERN: One 1-star review (2012) documents owner throwing customers out of shop and threatening arrest when they complained about defective work.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While recent reviews (2024) are uniformly excellent and suggest current service quality is strong, the historical record (2006-2015) contains multiple documented failures in project completion, communication, and customer service recovery. The dramatic shift in review sentiment over time suggests either genuine improvement or that recent dissatisfied customers are not leaving reviews. The score reflects a company with strong technical skills and professionalism but a concerning history of incomplete work, misdiagnosis, and poor follow-through on commitments. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates and follow-up procedures before engaging.

Scotty's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and responsiveness, with high marks for experience and project completion. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—multiple reviews document unexpected charges, price gouging, and failure to honor initial quotes. Professionalism is mixed: many reviews praise punctuality and friendliness, but several document poor follow-up, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and occasional rudeness. The company excels at emergency response and workmanship quality but struggles with transparency and consistency in customer service.

• PRICING PATTERN: At least 12 reviews explicitly mention unexpected charges, price increases after initial quotes, or refusal to negotiate. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents. Examples include: $175 quote becoming $275, $3600-$4000 estimate billed at $4579, and claims of $500-$600/hour rates.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (at least 6) document failure to return calls, no-shows, or abandonment of callbacks. One reviewer called 'many, many times' with full voicemail; another waited weeks for promised service.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: While most reviews praise workmanship, at least 4 reviews document serious installation errors (incorrect faucet installation, missing washers causing leaks, improper pipe connections causing $3000+ in damage).
• COMMUNICATION ISSUES: Several reviews note lack of receipts, unclear billing, requests to make checks to third parties, and refusal to provide quotes ('I don't have time for that').
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2018-2024 (recent period), while many glowing reviews are from 2005-2017 (older). This suggests possible service quality decline over time.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A small number of reviews (approximately 5-6) contain extremely generic praise with minimal detail, all 5-star ratings, and vague language ('very satisfied', '.', 'unknown'). However, the majority of reviews contain specific details and mixed ratings, so overall fake review risk is LIMITED rather than HIGH.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH overall confidence. While the score reflects genuine strengths in technical skill and emergency responsiveness, it masks a critical weakness: systematic pricing problems that appear to be worsening in recent years. The company's willingness to charge significantly above quoted prices and poor callback responsiveness represent material risks that numeric scoring alone cannot fully capture. Customers should obtain detailed written quotes and expect potential disputes over final billing.

Performance Plumbing receives strong praise across pricing and technical skill, with many reviewers explicitly noting fair, affordable rates and knowledgeable problem-solving. Professionalism scores are tempered by two credible negative reviews — one describing repeated no-shows across four days without communication, and another describing a failure to install a paid-for cleanout and then denying a scheduled appointment. Project completion is the most penalized dimension because these same two reviews describe incomplete or abandoned work and a pattern of over-commitment, which directly undermines the otherwise positive majority. The bulk of positive reviews are older (2015–2019), with only a handful from 2022–2024, meaning recent performance data is limited and the older positives carry reduced recency weight.

• Two credible 1-star reviews (2016 and 2018) describe serious reliability failures: repeated no-shows without communication, failure to complete paid work, and dismissive responses when confronted. These are specific and detailed and are treated as high-weight negative signals.
• Several 5-star reviews use enthusiastic, somewhat generic language ('10 stars', 'AMAZING', 'phenomenal') but most include specific job details, so outright fake review patterns are not strongly indicated. However, the uniformity of 5-star ratings outside the two negative reviews warrants mild caution.
• Recency concern: The majority of reviews are from 2015–2019. Only 3 reviews are from 2022 or later. The WW Score is therefore more reflective of historical performance than current service quality.
• The 2018 negative review explicitly describes a pattern of over-commitment and poor communication across multiple days, which aligns with the 2016 negative review describing a missed appointment and incomplete work. This recurring theme across two independent reviews increases the reliability of these complaints.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to 15 reviews with usable dimension data, but should be interpreted cautiously given two detailed negative reviews describing systemic reliability and project completion failures, and the fact that most reviews are more than five years old.

Rick and AAA Plumbing receive strong praise across many reviews for responsiveness, punctuality, and a friendly, informative attitude — but these positives are meaningfully offset by a consistent pattern of serious complaints. Pricing is the most contested dimension: multiple negative reviews allege significant overcharging, inflated quotes, and charging for services not rendered, which substantially drags down the price-friendly score. Project completion is also mixed, with at least two reviews explicitly stating that work was left unfinished or ineffective after Rick departed. Experience scores moderately well given praise for technical knowledge and same-day problem-solving, but is undermined by one review describing a diagnostic approach that appeared fabricated and another where basic drain work failed. Professionalism scores above average overall due to the volume of positive mentions, but is pulled down by a rude phone interaction complaint and the alleged targeting of a vulnerable senior citizen.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of positive reviews are from 2015–2021, with only one review from the past 12 months (August 2023). The most recent negative review is from September 2020. Score confidence in current service quality is reduced.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers (2014, 2020, 2020) allege overcharging, inflated quotes, and charging for work not performed. This is a recurring pattern across different years and cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: At least one review (January 2015) explicitly states that two of the three issues paid for were not resolved after Rick left, and he resisted acknowledging the problem when contacted.
• ETHICAL CONCERN: One detailed review (May 2020) alleges that Rick quoted unnecessary work on an elderly woman's AC unit without inspecting the relevant area, and charged an $89 service fee despite performing no legitimate repair. A subsequent technician resolved the actual issue for less than that service charge.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW AUTHENTICITY NOTE: Several positive reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Rick is the best at what he does,' 'He gives great service. He is honest and truthful.'). While not conclusive, these low-detail reviews slightly reduce confidence in the positive score cluster.
• HVAC SCOPE NOTE: Several reviews reference HVAC and air conditioning work, not strictly plumbing. Scores reflect the full scope of services as reviewed.

This WW Score is based on 18 reviews spanning approximately 9 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the significant gap between glowing praise and serious misconduct allegations — particularly around pricing transparency and job completion — which suggest meaningfully inconsistent service quality.

Citrus Valley Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, technical skill, and fair pricing across most reviews. However, a detailed 1-star review from 2017 describing incomplete repairs, faulty parts, lack of follow-up, and no refund significantly impacts the project completion score. While most reviews praise reliability and workmanship, the documented failure to resolve two issues properly and the absence of accountability in that case creates material concern about consistency. The business shows integrity and problem-solving ability in most engagements, but the completion dimension is weakened by evidence of unresolved callbacks and customer dissatisfaction.

• One highly detailed negative review (2017-08-02) describes serious project completion failures: faulty part installation, incomplete repairs on two issues, lack of follow-up communication, and refusal to offer refund or apology. This review provides specific, verifiable details (videotaped evidence, second plumber confirmation) and stands in stark contrast to positive reviews, suggesting it reflects a genuine service failure rather than a one-off complaint.
• Recency concern: Most positive reviews are from 2014-2017 (7-10 years old). Only 2 reviews are from 2024 and 2021. The 2017 negative review is also dated. Limited recent data makes it difficult to assess current service quality.
• Two very old positive reviews (2014, 2015) use generic praise language but do include specific details, so not flagged as fake. However, the age of most data limits confidence in current operations.
• Communication responsiveness shows mixed signals: one 2021 review reports 17-day non-response to voicemail; other reviews praise Jill's communication. This suggests inconsistency in responsiveness.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 2 reviews from past 3 years) and a well-documented service failure that contradicts the predominantly positive narrative. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects the tension between strong professionalism/experience scores and a credible project completion failure that was not resolved satisfactorily.

Mark Etheredge Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism (82/100) with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous demeanor across multiple reviews. However, pricing is a significant concern (58/100), with one detailed complaint about severe overcharging ($700 for 45 minutes of work, $12,000 quote vs. $6,000 competitor) contrasting sharply with other reviews praising reasonable rates. Project completion scores solidly (75/100) with most jobs completed successfully, though one serious negative review alleges the plumber made a clogged drain problem worse and refused to stand behind the work. Technical experience is strong (80/100) based on descriptions of quality workmanship and problem-solving. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects reliable service undermined by pricing inconsistency and one major service failure.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Extreme variance in pricing feedback—one review alleges predatory overcharging ($700 for 45 min, $12k quote) while others praise 'reasonable' rates. This suggests either selective pricing based on perceived customer wealth or legitimate service variation not explained in reviews.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: One negative review (2018-06-01) explicitly alleges that an employee posted a positive review under a fake name ('Ramona E'). This claim, if true, undermines confidence in the positive reviews and suggests review manipulation.
• SERVICE FAILURE: One detailed negative review (2018-06-01) alleges the plumber worsened the problem (clogged one pipe, now all clogged) and refused warranty work. This is a serious project completion failure.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2020-2021 and earlier (6 of 9 positive reviews). The two most recent negative reviews (2023 and 2018) raise serious concerns. Only one positive review from 2022.
• REVIEW AGE: 7 of 10 reviews are older than 2 years. Limited recent data to assess current service quality.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported, the pricing dimension shows extreme inconsistency, and credible allegations of review manipulation and service failure significantly undermine overall trustworthiness. Recent reviews trend negative, and the oldest positive reviews may not reflect current operations.