Find Nearby Plumbers In San Bernardino, California

E&J Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with particular strengths in experience and project completion. The majority of reviews (9 of 11) praise professionalism, punctuality, and courteous behavior. However, two significant negative reviews from 2008 and 2011 document serious issues: repeated cancellations and failure to follow through on commitments, and unprofessional telephone behavior including hanging up on a prospective customer. These incidents substantially lower the professionalism and project completion scores despite overwhelming positive feedback. Pricing is generally described as fair and competitive, though one recent review (2024) noted a desire for upfront cost estimates.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 7 of 11 reviews are older than 8 years (2006-2016). Only 2 reviews from past 12 months. Recent reviews are positive, but historical pattern of serious service failures (2008, 2011) cannot be ignored.
• CRITICAL INCIDENT: 2011 review documents unprofessional phone behavior (hanging up, threatening police call). 2008 review documents repeated cancellations and apparent dishonesty about availability. These are not minor complaints.
• PATTERN INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between overwhelmingly positive reviews and two serious negative incidents suggests either significant service variability or potential changes in business practices over time.
• ONE REVIEW UNUSABLE: Review dated 2015-02-04 contains only 'unknown' as text and cannot be analyzed for content.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Review dated 2017-04-28 from 'Danny, Pool Builder' uses identical phrasing ('prompt, professional, easy to work with') as 2020 review and contains excessive punctuation ('!!!!') suggesting possible self-review or template-based submission.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While recent reviews (2024, 2014) are uniformly positive and detailed, the two serious documented failures in 2008 and 2011 involving cancellations and unprofessional conduct represent material concerns that cannot be dismissed. The age of most reviews limits ability to assess current service quality. Recommend requesting recent client references and clarifying current cancellation and emergency service policies before engaging.

Kevin at Mountain Plumbing receives broadly positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and workmanship, with many reviewers praising punctuality, transparent pricing, and quality installations. However, scores are meaningfully dragged down by serious, credible negative reviews: one customer reported Kevin refusing to provide an invoice after a $2,000 job and going silent on calls, another reported a no-show with no response to reschedule requests, and a third reported daily price changes and failure to show up with a deadline looming. These are not minor complaints — they describe a pattern of communication breakdown and unreliability that directly contradicts the positive reviews. The duplication of nearly every review (same text, same date, same rating appearing twice) is a significant data quality concern that reduces overall confidence in the review pool.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The vast majority of reviews appear to be exact duplicates — same text, same rating, same date — submitted twice. This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a platform data export issue or review manipulation. Unique review count is approximately half the total analyzed.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: Several reviews are extremely generic with no specifics ('Great!', 'Did a great, fast job.', 'Excellent work and I would recommend them to anyone.', 'Quality Service and installation'). These provide no verifiable detail and may be padding.
• MIXED CONTRACTOR IDENTITY: At least one review references 'Peter' rather than 'Kevin', suggesting reviews from a different contractor or business may have been mixed into this dataset. The Peter review was treated as low-signal and not counted toward Kevin's scores.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN: Three distinct negative reviews (1-star no-show with no callback, 2-star invoice refusal with communication blackout, 1-star daily price changes and no-show) describe a consistent pattern of post-job or no-show communication failure. This is a meaningful red flag that suppresses professionalism and project completion scores.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews with dates are from 2020-2022. Several reviews have no date. No reviews are confirmed from the past 12 months, meaning current service quality cannot be verified.
• SCORE CONSERVATISM APPLIED: Due to duplicate inflation, generic reviews, mixed contractor identity, and credible negative reviews, scores have been held conservative rather than reflecting the raw positive-to-negative ratio.

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution — the review pool is heavily duplicated, contains generic filler reviews, includes at least one review for a different contractor, and features credible negative reviews describing serious reliability and communication failures that potential customers should weigh carefully.

Thrifty Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with particularly high marks for experienced technicians (especially Justin) who solve complex problems effectively. Professionalism is solid across most interactions, though several reviews document serious communication and scheduling failures. The most significant weakness is pricing: multiple customers report substantial overcharges, bait-and-switch tactics, and markups far exceeding industry standards. The company shows a stark pattern of inconsistency—exceptional service from certain technicians contrasts sharply with predatory pricing practices and poor follow-up on complaints. Recent reviews (2022) suggest ongoing issues with transparency and honesty.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviews (2022, 2021, 2020, 2017) document aggressive overcharging, bait-and-switch pricing, and refusal to honor promised refunds. Examples include: $450 for routine drain clearing (normal $100-175), $878 part quoted when actual cost $200, $3,000 for water line snaking, and $225 charged for work customer had already completed.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing reviews of 'Justin' and damaging reviews of other technicians (Andrew, unnamed plumber in 2022). This suggests quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned.
• UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS: Multiple customers report owner/management promised callbacks and refunds that never materialized (2021 May reviews, 2017 August review). Checks cashed without resolution.
• BUSINESS CONTINUITY ISSUE: 2022 review indicates Thrifty Plumbing may no longer be in business in Lake Arrowhead; business appears to have been taken over by Northstar Plumbing.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2015-2020. Recent reviews (2022, 2021) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality has deteriorated significantly.
• COMMISSION-BASED PRICING: One review explicitly states technicians work on commission, which incentivizes unnecessary upsells and inflated charges.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: While most reviews appear genuine with specific details, the overwhelming concentration of 5-star reviews from 2015-2020 praising 'Justin' by name, combined with recent 1-star reviews documenting fraud-like behavior, suggests possible review manipulation or significant business model changes.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 72.8 reflects genuine strengths in technical expertise and project completion, it masks a critical and worsening pricing integrity problem documented across multiple independent reviews spanning years. The company's recent business status is unclear (possible closure/takeover in 2022), and multiple customers report unresolved complaints and broken promises from management. The stark divergence between older positive reviews and recent negative reviews, combined with documented pricing fraud and non-responsiveness to disputes, suggests the score significantly overstates trustworthiness. Customers should prioritize obtaining detailed written estimates and seeking second opinions before engaging this company.

All four reviews speak positively about Victor and Ready Set Plumbing across multiple dimensions, with consistent praise for communication, responsiveness, cleanliness, and technical knowledge. Pricing is mentioned favorably in three reviews, with terms like 'reasonable' and 'good price' used explicitly. Project completion is supported by three reviews describing jobs that were seen through to resolution, including a more complex repiping job. Experience is highlighted across all four reviews, with references to expertise, problem-solving, and quality workmanship. However, the total review count is very low at just four reviews, which significantly limits the reliability of any score derived from this data.

• Only 4 reviews total — scores carry very low statistical reliability and should be treated with caution.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language. While each review contains some specific detail, the pattern of all-positive ratings with no criticism warrants mild caution.
• Two reviews share the exact same date (2023-08-29) — this could indicate reviews submitted in a coordinated manner, though the content differs enough to avoid a strong fake review flag.
• Two of the four reviews are older than 12 months (dated August and September 2023), meaning recency weighting slightly favors the two 2024 reviews.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be considered preliminary and low-confidence — a minimum of 10+ reviews would be needed to establish a meaningfully reliable score.

All five reviews speak positively to Rick's professionalism, highlighting quick response times, punctuality, friendliness, and a clean work manner — this dimension carries the strongest signal. Pricing is mentioned favorably in three reviews, with terms like 'fair price,' 'priced right,' and 'reasonably priced,' suggesting consistent value. Project completion is supported by four reviews referencing jobs being finished correctly and follow-through (including an annual backflow inspection service), though no review describes a complex multi-phase project. Experience is touched on in three reviews, with one reviewer noting Rick diagnosed and fixed a broken pipe successfully and offered preventative advice, indicating solid technical competence. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool and the age of most reviews, the majority of which are from 2016–2018.

• Only 5 reviews total — sample size is too small for high statistical confidence in any dimension.
• Three of the five reviews are from 2016–2018, making them 6–9 years old. Only two reviews are from 2022. Recency is a concern; business quality may have changed.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language. While not conclusively fake, the absence of any criticism or nuance across all reviews warrants mild caution.
• Reviews are brief and somewhat generic (e.g., 'Rick is awesome,' 'Rick is the man'). Limited specificity reduces confidence in scoring accuracy.

This WW Score is based on a very small and largely dated review set; it should be treated as a preliminary positive signal rather than a definitive assessment of current service quality.

All three reviews speak positively about professionalism, with technicians described as helpful, going the extra mile, and responding promptly. Project completion is generally supported — the farmhouse sink and garbage disposal install was completed successfully, the shower leak was resolved, and the lost earring retrieval showed creative problem-solving. Experience scores are driven by two reviews that highlight technical competence and resourcefulness, such as using a shop vacuum to recover a lost item and proactively reconnecting an ice maker line outside the original scope. Pricing is entirely unmentioned across all reviews, so no score can be assigned for that dimension. With only three reviews total — two of which are over five years old — the overall score carries limited reliability.

• Only 3 reviews total — the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation. Results should be treated as preliminary only.
• Two of the three reviews are dated 2018 and 2019, making them over 5 years old. Only one review (2024) reflects recent performance. Recency weighting significantly limits confidence.
• No pricing information is mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored and is excluded from the WW Score calculation.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings. While no overt fake review patterns (identical phrasing, generic language) are detected, the small sample size and uniformly perfect ratings warrant caution.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with 2 being significantly outdated, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.