Find Nearby Plumbers In San Diego, California

Plumbing Plus demonstrates strong professionalism and technical experience across the majority of reviews, with technicians frequently praised for being courteous, punctual, knowledgeable, and thorough in diagnosing problems and presenting options. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished on time and as promised, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe abandoned work, no-shows, unresolved issues, and at least one case of property damage that was disputed. The most significant drag on the overall score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the review set — numerous customers across multiple years describe quotes and final bills as excessive, non-transparent, or far above market rate for comparable work, with several explicitly stating they would not return due to cost. Negative reviews also include billing disputes, double-charges, and upselling tactics that eroded trust, preventing a higher overall score despite the company's clear technical competence.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the 'Jake water leak investigation' review and the 'David A and Nick garbage disposal' review each appear twice within days of each other in May/June 2025). This pattern suggests possible review manipulation or platform import errors. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is slightly reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 12 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (all 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their presence inflates the raw star average without contributing evidence.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPAN THE FULL DATE RANGE: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they appear consistently from 2011 through 2025 across multiple technicians and locations, suggesting a company-wide pricing model issue rather than individual bad actors.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to resolve the stated problem, charging for incomplete or ineffective work, and in some cases refusing to return or going silent after the job. One review describes a flood caused by installed plumbing with the company refusing to cover damages.
• NO-SHOW AND COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews across multiple years describe missed appointments without notice, failure to follow up with quotes, and unresponsive customer service after complaints — indicating recurring operational issues.
• UPSELLING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers describe feeling pressured into unnecessary work or being presented with inflated multi-option quotes designed to anchor high. One reviewer explicitly used the term 'bait and switch.' This pattern is noted across different technicians and years.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive and may reflect genuine improvement, but the duplicate pattern in that cluster warrants caution. Reviews from 2016–2024 show a more mixed picture that is likely more representative of the company's baseline performance.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given systemic pricing complaints, recurring no-show and completion failures, suspected duplicate reviews in the most recent cluster, and a pattern of upselling that multiple independent reviewers flagged — the true customer experience is likely more variable than the high volume of positive reviews alone would suggest.

This review set spans multiple companies operating under similar names (All Pro Plumbing NW, AA Plumbing, A&A Plumbing) across different regions and time periods, which significantly complicates scoring reliability. Professionalism scores well on average due to a large volume of positive mentions of courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians, but is meaningfully dragged down by a notable cluster of serious complaints including a technician arriving smelling of alcohol, aggressive behavior toward customers, no-shows, and failure to return calls after incomplete work. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing overcharging, hidden fees, non-refundable deposits not disclosed upfront, and quotes dramatically above market rate, though a comparable number praised fair and reasonable pricing. Project completion is moderately strong, with many reviews confirming jobs were finished same-day or within promised timeframes, but offset by credible accounts of abandoned work, warranty failures within a year, sloppy workmanship requiring correction, and a mechanics lien dispute. Experience scores similarly mixed, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnostics and quality craftsmanship, while others documented incorrect diagnoses, reversed pipe connections, uninsulated lines that later froze, and work left worse than found.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span at least three distinct business entities (All Pro Plumbing NW LLC, AA Plumbing in Ohio/Texas, and A&A Plumbing in California). These are likely different companies whose reviews have been aggregated together. Scores should be interpreted with extreme caution as they do not reflect a single contractor.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The cluster of reviews all dated 2023-06-10 and 2024-06-09 with no review text (blank entries rated 5 stars) and several extremely generic one-line 5-star reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Excellent work!', 'Very Responsive', 'Cincinnati's best roofing contractor') are highly suspicious. One review explicitly references Cincinnati roofing, which is unrelated to plumbing and suggests review padding or cross-contamination.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews predate 2022 and reflect potentially different ownership, staff, and operational standards. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are weighted more heavily but still show mixed signals.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: Multiple credible 1-star reviews describe technicians arriving smelling of alcohol (two separate reviewers), a technician abandoning a job mid-visit and never returning, a $900 non-refundable deposit not disclosed upfront, warranty work failing within one year with no coverage offered, a mechanics lien placed on a customer's home, and a whole-house replumb leaving extensive damage and mess.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 15 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Pricing sentiment is sharply polarized. Roughly half of pricing-mentioning reviews praise affordability and fairness while the other half describe significant overcharging, undisclosed fees, and quotes far above market rate. This suggests inconsistent pricing practices across technicians or entities.

This WW Score carries LOW-TO-MODERATE reliability due to the strong likelihood that reviews from multiple distinct business entities have been aggregated together, the presence of suspected fake or padded reviews, a wide date range spanning 16 years, and sharply polarized sentiment across all four dimensions that suggests inconsistent service quality rather than a coherent contractor profile.

CPL receives overwhelmingly positive feedback on professionalism, with dozens of reviewers praising technicians by name for punctuality, friendliness, clear communication, and courteous behavior. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious failures in leak detection accuracy, with several customers reporting that CPL marked incorrect leak locations, leading to unnecessary and costly plumber work. Pricing drew mixed reactions: while some reviewers praised fair or below-quote billing, others found the hourly rates high, felt charged for incomplete or failed work, and one customer reported being billed fraudulently after canceling. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as a notable number of reviews describe technicians failing to locate leaks, requiring repeat visits, or providing inaccurate diagnoses that caused downstream damage — and in some cases the company charged full price for unsuccessful visits. Experience scores moderately well overall given the many reviews praising skilled, efficient leak detection, but is tempered by recurring accounts of inexperienced technicians being dispatched and senior techs being needed to correct their work.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 6 reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on different dates within days of each other (e.g., 'Nate was prompt, efficient...' on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; 'Great! Reliable!' on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; 'Ruben was amazing...' on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05; 'I want to leave a 5 start review to.cupper...' on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05; 'Hunter was awesome...' on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05; 'Schedule appointment was 8-10 am window...' on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05). These duplicates have been counted only once each for scoring purposes but are a strong indicator of review manipulation or a platform ingestion error.
• 30 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These blank reviews provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from dimensional scoring. Their prevalence (roughly 16% of total reviews) is unusual and may indicate padding of review counts.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — INACCURATE LEAK DETECTION: At least 8 substantive negative reviews (1-star) describe CPL marking incorrect leak locations, resulting in unnecessary jackhammering, plumber overtime, and significant additional costs to customers. This is a recurring and serious quality concern that materially impacts the project completion and experience scores.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple negative reviews describe being charged full price for failed or incomplete work, being charged for a second visit to correct a first visit's errors, and in one case receiving repeated fraudulent bills after canceling service. This materially impacts the pricing score.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT FLAG: Two separate negative reviews specifically name a manager ('Joey Hernandez' / 'Joey') as rude, dismissive of legitimate complaints, and unwilling to accept responsibility for technician errors. This is a reputational risk beyond individual technician performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2025 and 2024, making the dataset reasonably current. A smaller number of reviews date back to 2019-2021 and were given slightly reduced weight, though the patterns they describe (both positive and negative) are consistent with more recent reviews.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCTION APPLIED TO PRICING: Despite HIGH mention count, the pricing score was held conservative at 58 due to the combination of explicit complaints about high rates, charges for failed work, and a fraudulent billing allegation, which offset the positive pricing mentions.

This WW Score of 74.2 is based on a large and diverse review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but should be interpreted cautiously: the score reflects a genuinely split customer experience where excellent technicians and accurate detections coexist with a documented pattern of inaccurate diagnoses, disputed billing practices, and management accountability failures that have caused real financial harm to a meaningful minority of customers.

Bill Howe Plumbing receives strong marks for individual technician professionalism and technical experience, with dozens of reviews praising named technicians for being courteous, knowledgeable, punctual, and thorough. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern — multiple reviewers explicitly describe feeling overcharged, encountering hidden fees, receiving inconsistent quotes, or being surprised by charges not communicated upfront, which substantially drags down the pricing dimension. Project completion is generally solid but is undermined by a notable cluster of negative reviews describing incomplete work, repeat visits needed to resolve issues, abandoned jobs, and at least one multi-year restoration disaster. The high volume of reviews provides strong statistical confidence across all dimensions, but the persistent pricing and completion complaints prevent a higher overall score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 5 reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the 'Great service everytime. Joshua Duran' review appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; the 'Andrew was thorough' review appears on both dates; the Rob high-rise review appears on both dates; the 'Avoid they won't Snake out a clog' review appears on both dates; the Carlos shower remodel review appears on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or system duplication. Confidence in the overall review corpus is slightly reduced.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods explicitly describe being overcharged, receiving inconsistent quotes, encountering undisclosed fees, or experiencing bait-and-switch pricing tactics. This is not isolated and represents a genuine pattern.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES NOTED: Several reviews describe jobs left incomplete, requiring multiple return visits, or resulting in ongoing damage (e.g., the 2024 restoration review describing crumbling grout and leaking tiles over a year later, the kitchen reroute leaving exposed walls, the mold remediation causing a new leak, and the hydroblasting job that left the sink still clogged after two visits).
• MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe rude or unprofessional behavior from managers or employees, including a manager who intentionally blocked a customer's vehicle for days, employees accused of driving recklessly, a technician who made inappropriate comments about fatherless homes, and a manager who allegedly yelled at a customer and stalked out of their home.
• RECENCY NOTE: The vast majority of reviews are from within the past 12 months (2024-2025), which is favorable for recency weighting. A small number of reviews date to 2022-2023 and were given slightly less weight.
• GENERIC REVIEWS WITH NO DETAIL: Approximately 12-15 reviews consist of only a star rating with no text, or extremely brief text such as 'Excellent job' or 'Awesome as usual' with no specifics. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data per scoring rules.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews suggesting possible manipulation, a systemic pattern of pricing complaints, and several serious project completion failures that indicate inconsistent quality control across technicians and departments.

Access Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising professionalism, punctuality, and friendly technicians across many years of service. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including an abandoned job with live electrical wires left exposed, a technician who left black sludge water and loose connections, a customer hung up on by office staff, a suspected fraudulent water heater installation with a blacked-out serial number, broken pipes and a technician fleeing the scene, and a faucet bait-and-switch with subsequent refusal to return calls — significantly tempers the overall score. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, but several reviewers noted feeling overcharged or surprised by additional fees after the initial quote. Project completion is a notable concern, with multiple reviews describing incomplete work, return visits required, or jobs left in worse condition than found. The experience dimension shows genuine skill in complex jobs like slab leaks and re-piping, but is undermined by incidents of clear technical incompetence.

• Multiple reviews with no text content beyond 'unknown' (3 reviews dated 2015) provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Several very short generic reviews ('they were wonderful', 'these guys were just perfect', 'good advice', 'Went well!', 'Fantastic job!', 'Great folks to work with!') contain no specific detail and contribute minimal signal; they were counted toward overall sentiment but not toward specific dimension scores.
• The review corpus spans approximately 11 years (2013–2024). A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years. The most recent negative reviews (October 2024, October 2023) suggest quality and customer service issues may be ongoing or worsening, not historical anomalies.
• At least 6 clearly negative reviews describe serious failures: abandoned work with safety hazards (live wire, uncapped water line), office staff hanging up on a customer, a suspected fraudulent or stolen water heater with a blacked-out serial number, a technician who broke pipes and fled, a faucet bait-and-switch with no follow-up, and a sewer job that required a second charge to complete what should have been included.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, though the volume of short, undetailed 5-star reviews is notable. These are not scored as fake but are treated as low-information data points.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (107 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in volume terms, but the presence of serious, specific, and recent negative incidents — including safety failures, billing disputes, and poor customer service — means the score should be interpreted cautiously; the contractor performs well in routine jobs but has documented patterns of failure in more complex or disputed situations.

Perry Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians by name and describing thorough, skilled work on complex cast iron and sewer lining projects. Project completion scores well overall, with most jobs described as finished on time and to satisfaction, but is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern of no-shows and last-minute cancellations — at least four separate reviewers described confirmed appointments being abandoned without proactive notification, causing significant inconvenience. Pricing is the weakest dimension by a wide margin: multiple reviewers explicitly called out charges they considered 2x to 5x higher than competitors, surprise after-hours fees, and at least one credible allegation of a technician recommending an unnecessary $900+ replacement for a fixable unit. The WW Score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and personable field staff but systemic issues in scheduling reliability, pricing transparency, and after-hours fee communication that meaningfully undercut an otherwise strong service reputation.

• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY CONCERN: At least 4 reviews (Oct 2024, Aug 2024, Nov 2023, Oct 2022) describe confirmed appointments being cancelled or missed with no proactive notification from Perry Plumbing, forcing customers to call in and discover the no-show themselves. This is a recurring operational failure, not an isolated incident.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviewers (Sep 2024, Jul 2024, Sep 2023, Sep 2022, Jun 2022) explicitly describe charges they considered significantly above market rate — ranging from 2x to 5x competitor quotes for comparable work. One reviewer was quoted $1,675 for 18 inches of PVC repair; another paid $1,100 for just over one hour of work.
• UPSELL ALLEGATION: One detailed 1-star review (Jun 2024) credibly alleges a technician recommended a $900+ garbage disposal replacement for a unit that was subsequently fixed without replacement by the customer themselves. The reviewer states the owner acknowledged potential pricing book errors but never followed up.
• AFTER-HOURS FEE TRANSPARENCY: At least two reviews describe surprise or disputed after-hours fees ($350 and $475) that were not clearly communicated in advance or contradicted what dispatchers had told customers, leading to confrontational interactions.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN (ISOLATED): One reviewer (Jun 2022, 1-star) reports a pipe repair failed and began leaking again within 3 weeks, requiring a second company to fix it at less than a third of the original cost.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The volume of reviews is high and most contain specific technician names, project details, and varied language. No significant fake review pattern detected. However, several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service & 3 wonderful men') and contribute limited signal.
• RECENCY NOTE: All 80 reviews fall between June 2020 and November 2024. The majority (approximately 60+) are from 2022 onward, with strong representation in 2023 and 2024, giving the score good recency relevance. The scheduling and pricing complaints are distributed across the full date range, indicating these are not resolved legacy issues.

This WW Score is based on 80 reviews spanning four years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given the documented pattern of appointment no-shows and above-market pricing complaints, which represent genuine and recurring service risks rather than outlier incidents.