Find Nearby Plumbers In San Bernardino, California

O'Brien Plumbing has a strong track record of responsiveness and emergency availability, with dozens of reviewers praising same-day or after-hours service and courteous technicians. However, the review pool contains a significant number of 1-star complaints covering rude office staff, missed callbacks, abandoned estimates, and at least two credible allegations of dishonest or incompetent diagnosis — including one case where a plumber admitted he did not know how to fix the problem and another where a quoted repair was found to be unnecessary. Pricing is mixed: many reviewers found costs fair or even generous (including instances of no-charge repairs), while others reported a $195 flat service call fee that shocked customers and one quote described as five times a competitor's price. Project completion is similarly split — many jobs were finished promptly and correctly, but multiple reviews describe no-shows, lost parts orders, broken promises to return, and at least one job abandoned mid-appointment. The score reflects a genuinely capable company with real service quality issues that have persisted across multiple years.

• Eight reviews contain no text at all (only a rating), labeled 'unknown' or blank — these were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews appear to be near-duplicate submissions describing the same experience with the snake/cleanout pipe issue (2016-06-15 and 2017-06-11) — possible duplicate review; only counted once per dimension.
• Several older reviews (2005–2013) reference 'Todd' as the primary plumber in a manner suggesting a sole-operator business, which may not reflect the current multi-technician company structure. These were included but weighted less due to age.
• The majority of reviews older than 5 years (pre-2019) skew positive; the more recent reviews (2019–2025) show a higher proportion of negative experiences, suggesting possible service quality decline over time.
• At least two reviews allege potential dishonesty or unethical upselling (2018-11-01 overquote; 2016-03-28 mold scare tactic referral kickback allegation) — these are credible specific complaints that meaningfully reduce the experience and project completion scores.
• One review (2017-05-08, 2-star) alleges inappropriate conduct by a helper toward a minor — flagged as a serious concern unrelated to plumbing quality but relevant to overall trustworthiness.
• Recency note: reviews from 2024–2025 are generally positive, suggesting possible recent improvement, but the sample size for this period is small (approximately 6 reviews).

This WW Score is based on a large review pool (90 reviews) spanning 20 years, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the dimensional scores, but users should note that service quality appears inconsistent across technicians and time periods, and several specific allegations of dishonesty and poor follow-through meaningfully limit how much trust should be placed in the higher end of the score range.

Paloma/Pinnacle Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendly technicians, and solid technical work across a wide range of jobs including re-pipes, gas lines, water heaters, and drain clearing. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious failures: abandoned projects, unresolved issues after large payments, no-show appointments, unanswered calls for weeks, billing surprises, and work that had to be redone by others. Pricing is generally viewed as competitive and fair by satisfied customers, but at least two reviewers explicitly flagged hidden charges, overbilling, or unauthorized credit card charges. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple reviewers reporting jobs left unfinished, follow-up quotes never delivered, and owners going silent after payment. The score reflects a contractor capable of excellent work but with documented and recurring reliability and accountability failures.

• Multiple reviews reference two distinct brand names — 'Paloma Plumbing' and 'Pinnacle Plumbing' — suggesting this profile may aggregate reviews for two separate companies or a rebranded entity. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect mixed business identities.
• Several reviews from 2014–2015 describe serious misconduct including unauthorized credit card charges, pipes installed without insulation that continued leaking, and a $3,000 unresolved job. While older, these are substantive and pattern-consistent with more recent complaints.
• At least 5 reviews explicitly describe the contractor failing to follow up on quotes or callbacks over periods of weeks to months — a recurring pattern across different years and reviewers, suggesting a systemic responsiveness problem.
• One review (2024-04-17) states a project was fully paid for and remained incomplete one year later with the owner ghosting the customer — a serious project completion failure.
• One review (2022-10-07) describes plumbers arriving with no pricing discussion, followed by a large surprise bill and a rude billing agent — indicating a transparency and billing process issue.
• One review (2020-01-16) describes a water heater replacement where the estimate was $1,000 but the bill was $2,400, the wrong size heater was installed, the problem was not resolved, and the owner failed to show for a follow-up appointment.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief or contain no specific detail (e.g., 'Excellent service', 'unknown', 'It was great', 'We do great work'). The 'We do great work' review appears to be self-posted by the business. These reviews were discounted in scoring.
• Review dated 2021-05-21 with text 'We do great work' and a 5-star rating is almost certainly a self-review by the business and was excluded from scoring.
• Reviews span from 2004 to 2025 — a 21-year window. Older reviews (pre-2018) were given reduced weight. The majority of negative reviews are distributed across multiple time periods, indicating the issues are not isolated to one era.
• No clear fake review cluster detected beyond the generic/brief reviews noted above, but the volume of suspiciously vague 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (85 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it statistical weight, but the score should be treated with meaningful caution due to recurring and credible negative reviews describing project abandonment, billing misconduct, and chronic non-responsiveness — patterns that suggest the contractor's performance is highly inconsistent depending on job size, technician assigned, and time period.

Mike's Home Improvement has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, honest communication, reasonable pricing, and quality workmanship across a wide variety of jobs including bathroom remodels, door installations, fencing, plumbing, and more. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — 6 out of 34 — raises legitimate concerns: multiple reviewers report no-shows or last-minute cancellations for appointments, a refusal to take on smaller jobs without clear communication, and one detailed complaint about serious quality and safety issues including loose spindles, uneven stair heights, and crooked siding. These negative signals meaningfully suppress the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing feedback is consistently positive among those who mention it, with multiple reviewers calling his rates reasonable or the best they found. The score reflects a contractor with genuine skill and many satisfied customers, but with a pattern of reliability and selectivity issues that prospective clients should weigh carefully.

• 6 out of 34 reviews are 1-star, representing approximately 18% of all reviews — a non-trivial negative rate that warrants attention.
• Multiple negative reviews specifically cite appointment no-shows or last-minute cancellations without adequate notice, suggesting a recurring reliability issue.
• Two separate reviewers note that Mike declines small jobs without clear upfront communication, which has frustrated customers who had larger follow-on work available.
• One detailed 1-star review (2018-04-05) alleges serious workmanship and building code safety failures including loose spindles, uneven stair heights, and improperly installed siding — this is the most severe quality complaint and was not rebutted.
• The majority of reviews (approximately 26 of 34) are older than 12 months, and most are from 2018–2021. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024), limiting recency confidence.
• No obvious fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific job details, varied language, and a realistic mix of positive and negative sentiment.

This WW Score is based on 34 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it reasonable statistical reliability, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given that most reviews are over two years old and a consistent pattern of no-show and job-refusal complaints meaningfully offsets the otherwise strong positive feedback.

Bear Valley Heating has a strong base of positive reviews praising technician skill, responsiveness, and problem-solving ability — particularly from Tony, Quentin, and Sean in earlier years. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by multiple credible negative reviews describing no-shows, abandoned jobs with units left disassembled, failure to return calls, and refusal to serve a past customer. Pricing is a mixed picture: several reviewers praised fair or low rates, while others explicitly called out overcharging or billing inconsistencies, including a disputed after-hours invoice and $288 to relight a pilot. Project completion scores moderately well overall, but the review describing a technician who disassembled a unit and never returned is a serious flag that prevents a higher score. The review base spans 2016–2024, with the most recent reviews (2022–2024) skewing negative, which is a meaningful concern about current service quality.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2022–2024) include three 1-star reviews describing serious failures — abandoned work, refusal to serve a past customer, and a suspected phone number acquisition by a different company. This suggests possible decline in service quality or a business ownership/identity change.
• BUSINESS IDENTITY CONCERN: One reviewer (2022-01-19) explicitly states the phone number was purchased by a different, non-local company. This means some reviews may reflect two entirely different businesses operating under the same number, which undermines the reliability of the aggregate score.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews flag billing issues — a disputed after-hours charge that changed from $90 to $180 before settling at $100, $288 to relight a pilot light, and a no-show reviewer who found a cheaper competitor. These are not isolated complaints.
• ABANDONED JOB FLAG: One reviewer (2022-01-19) describes a technician who disassembled their heating unit, said he needed to return the next day, and never came back or responded — a serious project completion failure.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating. Named technicians (Tony, Sean, Quentin, Shawn, Chuck, Michael) appear across multiple reviews with specific job details, suggesting authenticity. No artificial inflation pattern identified.
• OLDER REVIEW WEIGHT: Approximately 20 of 30 reviews predate 2022, meaning the high volume of positive reviews reflects a historical baseline that may not represent current operations.

This WW Score is based on a sufficient volume of reviews (30) with high mention counts across all dimensions, but its reliability is significantly tempered by credible evidence of a possible business identity change around 2022, a cluster of serious recent negative reviews, and billing inconsistencies — consumers should treat the score as a historical average and exercise caution given the current trajectory.

Osburn Plumbing presents a mixed but overall positive picture across its review history. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: while many customers praise Terry and Blaine for courtesy, responsiveness, and honest communication, three separate 1-star reviews describe dismissive or defensive phone interactions — including an unprompted rant about payment, a failure to deliver a promised quote, and an abrupt refusal to serve a renter — which meaningfully drag the professionalism score down. Pricing and project completion are consistently praised across multiple reviews, with customers frequently noting fair and reasonable fees, same-day or next-morning service, and jobs completed cleanly and efficiently. Experience and workmanship are well-regarded by those who had work performed, with specific mentions of correct diagnosis, quality repairs, and useful recommendations for future issues. The score is tempered primarily by the recurring customer service failures at the initial contact stage, which represent a real and documented pattern rather than isolated incidents.

• Three of the four 1-star reviews describe negative phone/pre-service interactions only — no work was ever performed in these cases. This means the negative professionalism signal is real but limited to intake/communication, not on-site conduct.
• The majority of positive reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2014–2019. Only two reviews fall within the past 12 months (2021 and 2023), both of which are negative. This recency pattern is a meaningful concern and suggests possible service quality decline or staffing changes.
• One 5-star review (2017-01-12) appears to have its full text duplicated within the same review body, suggesting a copy-paste artifact. This does not appear to be a fake review but is noted for transparency.
• No reviews appear to be fake or coordinated. Language, specificity, and detail vary sufficiently across positive reviews to suggest authentic authorship.
• The two most recent reviews (2021, 2023) are both 1-star complaints about customer service. This recency weighting is factored into the professionalism score and overall confidence narrative.

The WW Score of 72.1 is based on 18 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but users should note that the most recent reviews skew negative and the bulk of positive evidence is more than 4 years old, meaning current service quality may differ from the historical average reflected here.

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.