Find Nearby Plumbers In San Bernardino, California

Northstar Plumbing Heating and Air receives consistently strong praise for individual technician professionalism, punctuality, and communication — with many named technicians (Adolfo, Drew, Cole, Ivan, Jesus, Andrew, Rick, Kyle, Carlos) earning specific commendations for courtesy and on-time arrivals. However, the company is significantly dragged down by a substantial and credible pattern of pricing complaints, including multiple reviews alleging price gouging, bait-and-switch quoting, aggressive upselling of unnecessary equipment, and charges far exceeding competitor bids. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed well and on time, but there are multiple documented cases of repeated cancellations, abandoned or incomplete work, jobs requiring many return visits, and at least one case of a furnace wired incorrectly with no follow-up resolution. Technical experience is similarly split — skilled technicians like Cole, Edwin, and Jason receive high praise for problem-solving, while other technicians are documented misdiagnosing issues, recommending unnecessary full replacements, and demonstrating basic knowledge gaps. The pricing dimension is the single largest drag on the overall score, with 31 reviews raising concerns — a pattern too consistent and specific to dismiss.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: A large number of reviews (15+) independently and specifically allege price gouging, bait-and-switch quotes, and aggressive upselling of unnecessary equipment replacements. This is not a pattern of vague dissatisfaction — reviewers cite specific dollar amounts and comparisons to competitor pricing, lending high credibility to these complaints.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple reviews from different dates and locations describe technicians recommending full system replacements when minor repairs were sufficient. At least two reviewers confirmed this by getting second opinions and having repairs completed for a fraction of the quoted replacement cost.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT / CANCELLATION PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe same-day cancellations or repeated rescheduling (one reviewer reports 3 cancellations, another reports a 3-month delay). This is a meaningful reliability concern.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / QUALITY FAILURES: Reviews describe leaking installations, incorrectly wired furnaces with no follow-up, a technician leaving without plugging in a water heater, and a refrigerant leak misdiagnosed across multiple visits.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe being unable to reach managers or receive callbacks after complaints — one reviewer waited 15+ days with 5 unanswered messages, another waited 4+ days after a misdiagnosis.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: Reviews span 2020–2024, reference specific named technicians, include detailed narratives both positive and negative, and vary in rating from 1 to 5 stars. No significant fake review pattern detected. The volume and specificity of both positive and negative reviews suggest an authentic review corpus.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2022–2024, with strong representation in the past 12 months (2024). Older reviews (2020–2021) are fewer and skew more positive, suggesting a possible decline in service consistency over time — a concern explicitly noted in at least two reviews.

This WW Score is based on 95 reviews spanning 4 years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making it a reliable representation of this contractor's performance — the score of 68.4 reflects a company with genuinely skilled individual technicians undermined by systemic pricing, upselling, and project reliability issues that are too consistent and specific across independent reviewers to discount.

Payless 4 Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across a very large review set spanning over a decade. On the positive side, a substantial majority of reviewers praise individual technicians — particularly Rick, Gareth, Nathan, Ricardo, Jeff, Mike, and Hanz — for being friendly, professional, punctual, and knowledgeable, which lifts the professionalism and experience scores. However, a significant and recurring pattern of serious negative reviews substantially drags down all dimensions: pricing complaints are among the most frequent and severe, with multiple reviewers describing quotes that were 3–6 times higher than competitors or what the job actually warranted, and several alleging bait-and-switch tactics or outright fraud. Project completion is also materially impaired by repeated reports of no-shows, missed appointments, abandoned or incomplete work, and jobs that required a second company to finish correctly. The experience dimension benefits from many glowing accounts of skilled technicians but is tempered by multiple reviews describing wrong diagnoses, incorrect repairs, and alleged fabrication of problems to inflate bills.

• PRICING FRAUD RISK: Multiple independent reviewers across different years allege that technicians fabricated or grossly exaggerated plumbing problems to justify inflated quotes — including one detailed account of a widow being quoted $9,800 for a sewer repair that the city water district confirmed did not exist, and another alleging a pipe was quoted at $4,300 when a second plumber fixed it for $650 with no broken pipes found.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PRICING: Numerous reviews describe being quoted one price over the phone and charged significantly more on arrival, including a $39 advertised drain cleaning that became $185–$350 on-site, and a $150 quote that became $375 on arrival.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / ABANDONED JOBS: Multiple reviews describe work left unfinished, including a tankless water heater installation that left the sink disconnected, a septic tank pumped only halfway, a pipe replacement described as not fully completed, and a toilet installation dispute where the wrong toilet was installed and the supervisor refused to remedy it.
• REPEATED NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURES: A substantial number of negative reviews — spanning 2013 through 2025 — describe confirmed appointments where no technician arrived and no proactive communication was made, sometimes occurring multiple times for the same customer.
• EMPLOYEE CONDUCT FLAGS: Three separate reviews (unrelated to plumbing work) describe Payless 4 Plumbing vehicle drivers engaging in dangerous, reckless, or aggressive driving on public roads. One review describes a technician smoking inside a customer's home without permission. One review describes a technician using foul language and making threats in a parking lot.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR THIN REVIEWS: A notable cluster of reviews — particularly those dated 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2025-02-09, 2025-01-10, 2024-02-04 through 2024-02-25, and 2024-03-05 through 2024-03-06 — show highly repetitive phrasing, identical or near-identical sentence structures praising the same technician pairs (especially 'Gareth and Nathan'), and suspiciously generic praise with minimal job-specific detail. Several blank 5-star reviews with no text are also present. These patterns are consistent with coordinated or incentivized review activity and reduce confidence in the positive review pool.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to June 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) contain a high proportion of the suspected thin/repetitive reviews alongside some legitimate detailed positives and negatives. Older reviews (2013–2019) contain some of the most serious fraud and misconduct allegations. The pattern of complaints about pricing, no-shows, and incomplete work is consistent across the entire review timeline, suggesting these are systemic rather than isolated issues.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The negative review describing a month-long job for 80 feet of copper piping in a Downey home appears to have been submitted twice under slightly different dates (2022-01-14 and 2022-06-09), suggesting either a duplicate submission or a copied review.

This WW Score of 68.2 is based on a very large review dataset and carries HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but the score should be interpreted with significant caution due to credible and recurring allegations of pricing fraud, fabricated diagnoses, incomplete work, and a detectable pattern of suspected inauthentic positive reviews that artificially inflate the positive signal — the true underlying quality score is likely lower than what the positive reviews alone would suggest.

This review set aggregates feedback across what appears to be multiple contractors and companies all operating under or associated with the 'ASAP Plumbing' name, which significantly complicates scoring. Positive reviews — many centered on individual plumbers named Bruce, Jerry, and Anthony — consistently praise punctuality, friendliness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, driving scores upward across all dimensions. However, a substantial cluster of serious negative reviews describes abandoned work, dangerous code violations, dishonest upselling, rude behavior, and jobs left incomplete or improperly executed, pulling scores down considerably. The water heater installation failure described in two separate reviews (likely the same incident) is a particularly damaging data point for both project completion and experience. Overall, the score reflects a deeply mixed contractor profile where individual technician quality varies enormously and company-level accountability is a recurring concern.

• MULTIPLE ENTITIES WARNING: Reviews appear to reference several distinct contractors and possibly multiple separate businesses all using the 'ASAP Plumbing' name across different geographic regions (California, Kansas, Virginia, etc.). Scores should not be interpreted as reflecting a single unified business.
• BLANK/EMPTY REVIEWS: At least 7 reviews contained no text content (only a rating of 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews. Their uniformly positive ratings with zero detail raise concerns about authenticity.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: Several reviews consist of only a period ('.'), 'unknown', or a single generic sentence with no specifics. These add no usable data and inflate the raw star average artificially.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2002 to 2024. A significant number of reviews predate 2020 and were given reduced weight. The most recent negative reviews (2023–2024) include a dangerous water heater installation failure and an abandoned job with no follow-up, which are weighted more heavily.
• SERIOUS SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (2002) describes a boiler flue installation that was not up to code, caused carbon monoxide leakage, triggered a fire department response, and was subsequently repaired improperly. Another (2024) describes an oversized water heater installed without a drip pan in a confined space, leading to unit failure within a month. These are significant safety and competence red flags.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe jobs that were started but never completed, with the company becoming unreachable afterward. This is a recurring pattern across different time periods and locations.
• PRICING CONCERN: At least two reviews describe charges of approximately $1,800 for water heater installations that resulted in immediate failure, followed by demands for an additional $580 without proper diagnosis. One review describes a $5,200 quote that a second plumber resolved for $160.
• HIDDEN FEES: One reviewer noted an undisclosed 3.5% credit card surcharge revealed only after work was completed.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but its reliability as a guide to any single contractor is LOW because the reviews almost certainly reflect multiple distinct businesses and individual plumbers operating under similar or identical trade names across different regions — consumers should verify which specific entity and technician they are hiring before relying on this score.

Barkley Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers praise politeness, punctuality, and communication, a significant cluster of negative reviews — including multiple accounts of the owner (Robert) being rude, hanging up on customers, yelling at clients, and behaving aggressively on job sites — substantially drags the score down. Project completion is similarly split: numerous reviews confirm jobs completed on time and within quote, but several describe abandoned or botched work, a refusal to fix faulty installations, and one case where the owner had to be asked to leave a site after denying his own mistake. Pricing drew serious concern from multiple reviewers, with allegations of billing for services not rendered (leak detection charged but not performed), a job that escalated from a $300 quote to over $1,000 without authorization, and a $450 charge for a few minutes of snaking — offset by other reviewers who praised fair and transparent pricing. Experience scores moderately, with skilled work praised in many reviews but countered by accounts of sloppy pipe work, failure to diagnose obvious issues like a shutoff valve, and a plumber unable to answer basic technical questions. The score reflects a contractor with genuine capability but a documented pattern of serious professionalism and integrity failures.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2024-08-03 are word-for-word identical (the 'Dishonest' leak detection review). One appears to be a duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• 10 reviews contain no text whatsoever (blank body, rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews reference 'Ball Plumbing' or 'Ball' rather than 'Barkley Plumbing' — these appear to be reviews from an earlier business name or a merged listing and may not fully reflect the current operation. They were included but noted.
• RECENCY NOTE: A substantial portion of reviews (roughly 20+) are dated 2023 or earlier, with many from 2021 and before. The most recent 12 months (2024-2025) contain the highest concentration of serious negative reviews, including multiple 1-star accounts of rudeness, dishonesty, and botched work. This is a meaningful negative trend.
• PATTERN OF OWNER BEHAVIOR: Multiple independent reviewers across different years specifically name the owner (Robert) as the source of rude, aggressive, or dishonest conduct. This is not isolated and represents a systemic risk flag.
• One 5-star review (2012-09-14) rates 5 stars while describing a high estimate and choosing not to hire — this is an anomalous rating that may reflect a misclick or misunderstanding of the rating system and was treated with caution.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several reviews from the 2023-06-10 cluster are very brief and generic ('Great and fast service', 'Prompt, friendly service', 'Lovely staff') with no specifics. While not conclusive, the identical date across many of these reviews is unusual and may suggest a solicited review campaign.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (72 total, 62 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of sample size; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given a clear negative trend in the most recent 12 months, documented allegations of dishonesty and aggressive owner behavior from multiple independent sources, and a meaningful gap between the contractor's best and worst performances.

Big Mike's Rooter & Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately due to a significant number of reviews praising specific technicians like Albert, Ernest, Rich, Saul, and Christian for punctuality, communication, and courtesy, but this is substantially offset by repeated, credible complaints about no-shows, unreturned calls, rude behavior from staff and the owner, and at least one technician (Scott) who abandoned a job mid-service. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous explicit complaints about price inflation, bait-and-switch tactics, charges for work not performed, and quotes that were multiples of what competitors charged for the same work. Project completion suffers from multiple documented cases of incomplete work, failed callbacks, jobs requiring repeat visits without resolution, and at least two serious allegations of charging for work that was never done. Experience scores slightly higher because several technicians demonstrated genuine skill and problem-solving ability, but this is undermined by accounts of misdiagnosis, unnecessary repairs recommended, and at least one technician who clearly lacked the knowledge to complete a job.

• Multiple credible allegations of fraudulent billing: charging for work not performed (2021-10-14 review alleges $2800 charged for unexecuted work; 2016-04-04 review alleges payment for work where no one showed up; 2015-11-25 review alleges overcharging for minimal work).
• Repeated pattern of no-shows and unreturned calls across multiple years (2021-11-14, 2022-01-21, 2016-08-22, 2017-12-24, 2018-01-21), suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• Specific technician 'Scott' is named negatively in at least 4 separate reviews spanning multiple years for misdiagnosis, price inflation, abandoning jobs, and not returning calls — this is a significant and consistent pattern.
• Owner behavior flagged as hostile and unprofessional in at least two reviews: one reviewer reports being called a 'crazy s**t head' by a co-owner (2018-01-21), and another reports threatening and violent language from employee Chris (2017-07-12).
• Allegations of price bait-and-switch appear in at least 5 reviews: initial quote given then significantly raised mid-job or after work begins.
• Incomplete work left without resolution documented in multiple reviews (2022-01-21 septic line job, 2021-10-16 missing clean-out, 2017-12-24 abandoned water heater repair with exposed wiring).
• Review set spans 2012–2024. A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years. Negative reviews are distributed across the entire timeline, indicating these are not isolated historical issues. Recency weighting applied — negative patterns persist into 2024.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews contain specific technician names, job details, addresses, and follow-up updates, indicating authentic authorship. The mix of positive and strongly negative reviews with detailed narratives supports authenticity.
• Several 5-star reviews reference only one or two technicians (Ernest, Albert, Rich) very positively while other reviews of the same company are strongly negative — this may reflect inconsistent staffing quality rather than fake reviews, but the contrast is notable.

This WW Score of 62.4 is based on a large and diverse review set of 68 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence in its accuracy; however, the score reflects a company with genuinely inconsistent service quality — capable of excellent work from certain technicians while also demonstrating documented patterns of fraud, abandonment, and hostile customer relations that prospective customers should weigh seriously.

The Plumbing Guys exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile. While technicians consistently demonstrate strong technical expertise and professionalism when present (75/100 experience score), the company is severely hampered by chronic project completion failures—particularly no-shows, missed appointments, and failure to honor callbacks and warranties. Professionalism scores are dragged down by communication breakdowns, rudeness from management, and inconsistent follow-through. Pricing feedback is mixed, with some customers praising fair rates while others report significant overcharges. The stark contrast between positive reviews (primarily 2018–2019 and earlier) and recent negative reviews (2020–2025) suggests operational deterioration, possibly linked to ownership/management changes and resource constraints.

• CRITICAL PATTERN: Severe recency bias. Reviews from 2018–2019 are predominantly 5-star with detailed praise. Reviews from 2020–2025 show dramatic shift to 1-star complaints about no-shows, missed appointments, and non-responsiveness. This suggests genuine operational decline, not fake reviews.
• OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT ISSUE: Multiple recent reviews (2020–2025) specifically name 'Aaron' as owner/manager and cite his poor communication, rudeness, and failure to follow through on promises. Earlier reviews (2018–2019) praise 'Louie' and his team. Suggests leadership change or deterioration.
• NO-SHOW EPIDEMIC: At least 25+ reviews explicitly mention no-shows, missed appointments, or failure to reschedule. This is the single most damaging pattern in recent reviews.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple customers report company refusing to honor 1-year warranties or callbacks after initial work.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Recent reviews cite Aaron being unresponsive to calls, texts, and emails; making false promises about arrival times; and becoming hostile when questioned.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews praise 'reasonable pricing' and 'best price'; others cite overcharges of $200–$400+ compared to competitors. Suggests inconsistent quoting or bait-and-switch tactics.
• SUBCONTRACTING ISSUES: One detailed 2020 review describes Aaron subcontracting work without customer knowledge, leading to multiple technicians with no context, incomplete work, and water shut-offs.
• SUBSTANCE ABUSE ALLEGATION: One 2021 review speculates Aaron may be using drugs, citing appearance of technicians and pattern of broken promises.
• RECENCY CRITICAL: 80% of 1-star reviews are from 2020 onward. 80% of 5-star reviews are from 2018–2019. This is NOT a fake review pattern; it is evidence of real operational collapse.

This WW Score of 62.3 is reliable but masks a company in crisis: strong technical capability undermined by catastrophic project completion and professionalism failures, particularly in the past 2 years. The score should be interpreted as a historical average heavily weighted by older positive reviews; current customers should expect significantly worse performance based on recent review trends. High confidence in the score's accuracy, but LOW confidence in predicting future service quality—the company appears to be deteriorating.