Find Nearby Plumbers In San Bernardino, California

This contractor's reviews paint an overwhelmingly negative picture across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of no-shows, missed appointments without notification, staff hanging up on customers, and unresponsive communication — with only 3 reviews offering any positive note about friendly staff. Pricing is a major red flag, with multiple reviewers explicitly alleging fraudulent charges for work not performed, hidden fees, inflated labor charges, and deceptive upselling tactics including a BBB complaint from a U.S. veteran. Project completion is critically low, with multiple reviews describing jobs left incomplete, tanks not actually pumped despite being charged, holes left open overnight, and work abandoned — only 2–3 reviews describe a job being finished satisfactorily. Experience scores marginally higher than the others only because a handful of reviews describe competent pumping work, but this is heavily offset by accounts of deliberate damage to septic lids, false system failure diagnoses to upsell replacements, and technicians performing cursory or dishonest assessments.

• SUSPECTED FRAUDULENT BILLING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers allege being charged full price for services not rendered, including one BBB complaint filed by a U.S. Navy veteran. This is a serious consumer protection concern.
• DECEPTIVE UPSELLING PATTERN: At least two reviewers describe technicians falsely diagnosing working septic systems as critically failing in order to sell expensive replacement services. One reviewer had the system independently certified as functional by a competitor immediately after.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW LANGUAGE DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2023-04-06 share nearly identical phrasing ('Avoid this company at all costs, there are so many septic companies in the nearby area who are much cheaper'). These may be from the same person or coordinated, but the underlying complaints are substantively different and both are included as they describe distinct incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The three positive reviews (ratings 4–5 stars) are all dated 2017–2019, while the most recent reviews (2023–2024) are uniformly 1-star with serious allegations. This suggests a significant decline in service quality over time. Recent reviews should be weighted more heavily.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ARE SPARSE AND DATED: Only 3 reviews are positive (ratings 3–5), and all are from 2015–2019. No positive reviews exist in the past four years, which strongly undermines any favorable scoring from older data.

This WW Score is based on 16 reviews with strong mention coverage across all dimensions and should be considered highly reliable as a negative signal — the pattern of complaints is consistent, specific, and corroborated across multiple independent reviewers spanning several years, with the most recent reviews being the most damaging.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 4 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable calculation. While the reviews present are uniformly positive (all 5-star ratings), the sample size is too small to produce a trustworthy composite score. Additionally, all reviews are older than 12 months (ranging from 2019–2021), raising recency concerns. The data suggests strong performance in professionalism and project completion, but confidence remains limited across all dimensions due to low mention counts.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed; minimum 5+ reviews recommended for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are 3+ years old (2019–2021); no recent data from past 12 months available.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise and minimal specific detail. Phrases like 'amazing job,' 'great work,' and 'very satisfied' appear across multiple reviews with limited substantive information about actual work performed.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 1 review mentions pricing; insufficient to establish fair pricing assessment.
• EXPERIENCE MENTIONS LOW: Only 2 reviews explicitly reference skill/workmanship; limited evidence base.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (4 reviews vs. 5+ required), extreme age of all reviews (3+ years old with no recent data), and a suspicious pattern of uniformly positive 5-star ratings with generic language that may indicate fake or incentivized reviews. Any score derived from this data should be treated with very low confidence.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, all from January 2022 (over 2 years old). While reviews mention professionalism (politeness, flexibility with scheduling), project completion (timely resolution, work finished), and pricing (affordable), each dimension is supported by only 1–2 mentions. No explicit discussion of technical skill, workmanship quality, or experience level. All reviews are 5-star with generic praise and no specific technical details, raising concerns about review authenticity.

• All 3 reviews are from January 2022 — extremely dated (2+ years old); no recent feedback available
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with generic, non-specific praise; no detailed descriptions of work quality or technical challenges
• Suspiciously uniform positive tone across all reviews with minimal concrete detail; pattern consistent with potential fake or incentivized reviews
• No mention of technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability in any review
• Sample size of 3 reviews is below minimum threshold for reliable scoring

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3), extreme age of all reviews (2+ years), and suspicious uniformity suggesting potential review manipulation. Any scoring would be highly speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews praise Dominic's professionalism, friendliness, punctuality, and technical knowledge. However, project completion shows mixed signals: one review mentions a temporary fix with intent to call back for full installation, and the other indicates a faucet replacement is still pending. No pricing information is mentioned in either review. With only 2 reviews, confidence in any dimension is limited, and a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Both reviews are recent (August 2024) and highly positive (5.0 stars), but lack specificity on pricing and final project outcomes
• Project completion dimension shows incomplete work in both cases (pending installations/replacements) — scores reflect this uncertainty
• No pricing data available across any review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews). Individual dimension scores are based on only 2 mentions each and should be treated with caution. Collect additional reviews before making contractor decisions based on this data.

Both reviews are recent (within the past 12 months) and speak positively to professionalism, with one reviewer explicitly calling the plumber friendly, professional, and prompt, and the other describing the business as fast, reliable, and honest. Project completion is supported by both reviews — one notes same-day resolution and the other implies a satisfactory outcome. Pricing receives limited signal from a single mention of an accurate estimate provided from photographs, suggesting transparency in quoting but no commentary on affordability or value. Experience is entirely unaddressed in either review, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. With only two reviews total, no WW Score can be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All reviews are 5-star with limited specificity; while not conclusively fake, the small sample size and uniformly positive tone warrant caution.
• Experience dimension has zero mentions — this is a significant data gap for a plumbing contractor assessment.
• Pricing confidence is extremely low with only 1 indirect mention; the pricing score should be treated as speculative.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — significantly more review data is needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn about this contractor.

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. The first review (2024) is strongly positive, praising professionalism, customer service, and a skilled modification of a window opening to fit a new A/C unit. The second review (2023) is strongly negative, describing an improperly connected water line that caused a washing machine to leak, followed by the contractor denying responsibility rather than correcting the error. These two reviews present directly conflicting pictures of the contractor's reliability and accountability, making any aggregate score highly uncertain. Professionalism and project completion scores are pulled down significantly by the denial of fault in the negative review.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The negative review raises a serious accountability concern: the contractor allegedly denied responsibility for an improperly connected water line, forcing the customer to hire someone else to fix the error. This is a significant red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• The two reviews are from different years (2023 and 2024) and cover different types of jobs, limiting direct comparability.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews contain specific, credible details consistent with genuine customer experiences.

This score profile should be treated with very low confidence due to the minimal review count of only 2 reviews, the directly conflicting nature of those reviews, and the serious accountability issue raised in the negative review.