Find Nearby Plumbers In Simi Valley, California

Power Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base spanning many years, with the majority of customers praising individual technicians by name for being professional, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative. Professionalism scores are pulled down meaningfully by a recurring pattern of serious complaints: technicians arriving late or not at all, poor internal communication, unanswered callbacks, and at least one instance of inappropriate conduct by a technician. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible and detailed complaints about billing from the time a technician leaves a prior job rather than arrival on site, charges exceeding quoted amounts, parts marked up significantly, and in several cases customers feeling outright overcharged or scammed — including one allegation of a $10,000 unnecessary system replacement recommendation. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished correctly, but there are notable failures including incomplete work, jobs requiring emergency return visits due to new damage caused during service, and at least one instance of a toilet being left uncleaned and a tank lid left on the floor. Technical experience is a relative strength, with many reviewers specifically praising diagnostic skill and problem-solving, though offset by several reviews describing technicians who misdiagnosed problems or lacked necessary tools.

• Multiple reviews appear to be duplicates submitted on different dates with identical text (e.g., the Brian overcharge review appears twice, the 'SO WONDERFUL' Kevin review appears twice, the 'Avoid Power Plumbing' lien review appears twice, and the Saturday water heater Kevin review appears twice). This inflates review count and may indicate platform cross-posting or manipulation.
• Several reviews contain no text and only a star rating (approximately 30+ blank reviews), which cannot be scored and reduce the reliability of the overall rating distribution.
• Two reviews appear to be about the physical filming location of the TV show Sanford and Son and are entirely unrelated to plumbing services — these were excluded from scoring.
• One review states 'It's my dads work' suggesting a potential fake or biased review from a family member.
• Pricing complaints are numerous, specific, and credible: at least 8 distinct reviewers with detailed billing grievances including charges for drive time not disclosed upfront, final bills 3x the quoted amount, $1,100+ for simple pipe replacements, and a $10,000 upsell allegation. This pattern is too consistent to dismiss.
• A significant number of highly positive reviews reference the same individual technicians (Rameez, Alan, Johnny, Jorge, David) repeatedly, which is consistent with genuine repeat customers but also warrants noting as a concentration of praise around specific individuals rather than the company as a whole.
• Recency note: The review set spans from 2006 to June 2025. Reviews from 2024-2025 are the most relevant and show a mixed but generally positive recent trend, though pricing complaints and professionalism failures continue into 2025.
• One review explicitly alleges the company installed a used, soiled toilet and another alleges a technician attempted to pick up a customer in her home — both are serious conduct allegations that, if accurate, represent significant professionalism failures beyond what the score alone conveys.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted with caution due to confirmed duplicate reviews, a substantial number of blank reviews, serious and credible recurring pricing complaints, and several alarming conduct allegations that suggest meaningful inconsistency in service quality across different technicians and locations.

This review set covers two distinct entities — Robert's Plumbing (a small independent plumber with largely positive reviews spanning 2008–2025) and Chas Roberts HVAC (a larger contractor with predominantly negative reviews concentrated in 2023–2025). When analyzed together, professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by Chas Roberts' repeated failures: missed appointments, poor communication, and unresponsive customer service, though Robert's Plumbing earns strong marks for punctuality and friendliness. Pricing is a major concern, with multiple explicit complaints about Chas Roberts' opaque 'block pricing' model charging hundreds of dollars per hour effectively, and at least two negative pricing reviews for Robert's Plumbing as well, offsetting the many positive affordability mentions. Project completion is the weakest dimension overall, driven by Chas Roberts' pattern of recurring HVAC failures, abandoned repairs, no-shows, and work that required third-party correction — including dangerous wiring errors and improper installations. Experience scores are mixed: Robert's Plumbing technicians are frequently praised for skill and problem-solving, while Chas Roberts technicians are repeatedly cited for shoddy workmanship, incorrect wiring, poor-quality parts, and installations requiring remediation by other companies.

• MIXED ENTITY WARNING: Reviews appear to cover at least two distinct businesses — 'Robert's Plumbing' (independent plumber, primarily West Sacramento/Tucson area) and 'Chas Roberts' (large HVAC contractor, Arizona). Scores are blended across these entities, which significantly reduces the usefulness of a single composite score. Scores should ideally be calculated separately per entity.
• RECENCY BIAS — CHAS ROBERTS: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are overwhelmingly negative and relate almost exclusively to Chas Roberts HVAC. This pulls all dimension scores downward and reflects a current operational quality concern.
• SAFETY FLAGS — CHAS ROBERTS: Multiple reviews cite potentially dangerous workmanship including improper electrical wiring (fire hazard with burn marks), aluminum-to-copper line failures, and damper systems wired backwards. One review mentions an ROC license complaint filing.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT PATTERN — ROBERT'S PLUMBING: At least 5 reviews across different years describe Robert's Plumbing failing to show up for scheduled appointments, not returning calls, or abandoning incomplete jobs. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 15–20 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were counted in total_reviews_analyzed but excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — ROBERT'S PLUMBING (MODERATE): A large cluster of 5-star reviews for Robert's Plumbing share very similar structure: same-day service praise, mention of 'Robert' by name, short job descriptions, and near-identical sentiment. While many appear genuine and span years, the density and uniformity of positive reviews warrants moderate caution. No single review was definitively flagged as fake, but the pattern is noted.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS PRESENT: Several reviews appear entirely unrelated to plumbing or HVAC (e.g., a pest control business owner commentary, a review about a dangerous driver, a review about a spraying technician named Randy/Leah). These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states Robert is not a licensed plumber and operates as an unlicensed handyman, which is a significant professional and legal concern if accurate.

This WW Score carries HIGH data volume confidence due to the large number of reviews, but LOW entity reliability because the dataset blends at least two distinct businesses with very different performance profiles — the score should not be used to evaluate either entity in isolation without separating the review sets.

Plumb Masters has a strong base of positive reviews praising individual technicians — particularly Graham, Oliver, Joe, and others — for punctuality, communication, and technical skill. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews reveals serious recurring issues: work that failed within days of completion, warranty disputes, poor follow-through on estimates, and unresponsive management during crises (notably the February 2021 freeze). Pricing is a consistent pain point, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out costs as higher than expected or higher than competitors, and one reviewer noting a non-transparent flat-rate pricing model with built-in contingency charges. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as several reviews describe jobs that were not properly finished, required callbacks that were denied or charged again, or were abandoned entirely without follow-up. The overall score reflects a company with capable field technicians but systemic issues in quality assurance, warranty honoring, and customer service escalation.

• Several reviews describe work failing within days of completion (drain clog recurrence within 5 days, leak not properly fixed requiring a second plumber), with the company refusing to honor warranty or charging again for return visits — a significant project completion risk.
• Multiple reviews from 2019–2021 cite the company not standing behind its work, with phrases like 'no warranty' added to invoices after the fact without prior communication.
• The February 2021 freeze incident is documented in detail by a long-term Platinum member: the company was completely unreachable during an emergency and never followed up for over 6 months, suggesting systemic failure under high-demand conditions.
• Two reviews from 2014 are about erratic driving behavior by company vehicles and are not relevant to plumbing service quality — these were excluded from dimension scoring but noted as professionalism flags.
• One review (2021-05-17, 1-star) appears emotionally exaggerated and potentially non-genuine ('I will see you in hell') with no specific factual detail — treated with low evidentiary weight.
• One review (2011, Simi Valley) appears geographically inconsistent with an Austin-based company and may be a misattributed or fake review — excluded from scoring.
• The company operates under multiple brand names (Blue Dragon, Plumb Doctors, Plumb Masters) which caused customer confusion and was flagged in at least one review — this may affect accountability and review attribution.
• Pricing dimension scored conservatively at 58 due to a near-even split between reviewers calling pricing fair or reasonable and those calling it significantly higher than expected, non-transparent, or exploitative.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 2011–2023 with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given documented patterns of warranty denial, post-job pricing disputes, and emergency unresponsiveness that suggest the company's quality is highly technician-dependent and inconsistent at the organizational level.

American AC Heat and Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive feedback on individual technician professionalism and technical knowledge, with hundreds of reviews praising punctuality, courtesy, shoe covers, photo documentation, and clear explanations. However, the company is significantly dragged down by a substantial and recurring pattern of serious pricing complaints: multiple reviewers across many years describe being quoted $20,000–$40,000 for systems that competitors priced at $7,000–$14,000, unauthorized credit card charges for membership fees, and high-pressure sales tactics targeting elderly customers. Project completion also carries notable negatives, including permit and inspection follow-through failures, post-installation issues left unresolved for months, and at least one case where a system was not wired correctly for two years. The gap between excellent field technician performance and predatory or negligent sales and administrative practices is the defining tension in this review set.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'Five Star service from Jerrad' (5-star, no detail) appears on both 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06. The review 'Alex D was professional and above all honest...' appears verbatim on both 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-05. Two blank 5-star reviews also appear on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06. This is a strong indicator of fake or artificially duplicated reviews being submitted.
• ELDER TARGETING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers explicitly describe technicians or sales staff attempting to sell $20,000–$40,000 systems to elderly customers (78-year-old father, 88-year-old father, 91-year-old uncle, 91-year-old uncle) under false pretenses including fabricated carbon monoxide leaks and exaggerated system failures. This is a serious and recurring pattern.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers allege being charged 2x–4x market rate for parts and systems. Specific examples include: $30K for a $10K system, $12K condenser coil quote vs. actual rodent-hole repair costing a fraction, $689 for a dual capacitor, $1,477 for a condenser fan motor, and $19K–$20K HVAC quotes vs. $11K–$14K from competitors.
• UNAUTHORIZED CREDIT CARD CHARGES: At least two independent reviewers report being enrolled in the $19.95/month membership without consent, with charges continuing after cancellation requests. One reviewer had to send a formal email to receive a full refund with no explanation or apology.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN: Multiple reviewers describe paying for a tune-up special ($129) only to receive a sales pitch for a new system rather than actual service. One reviewer confirmed via a refund that no tune-up work was performed.
• REVIEW MANIPULATION ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly states the company changed its Google business profile to remove negative reviews and likely posted fake 5-star reviews. This is consistent with the duplicate review pattern observed in this dataset.
• PERMIT AND INSPECTION FAILURES: Multiple reviewers report that permits were pulled but city inspections were never scheduled or followed up on, sometimes for months, requiring customers to repeatedly call and escalate before action was taken.
• HIGH VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews in this dataset contain no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These provide no usable data and inflate the perceived review count without substantive content.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2005 to 2025. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) contain both strong positive technician reviews and several serious negative reviews including pricing fraud, duplicate reviews, and elder targeting. The negative patterns are not historical anomalies — they persist into the most recent review period.

This WW Score of 71.2 should be treated with caution: while field technician quality is genuinely strong and well-documented across hundreds of reviews, the score is substantially offset by a persistent, multi-year, and independently corroborated pattern of predatory pricing, unauthorized charges, elder targeting, and possible fake review inflation that materially undermines trust in the company as a whole.

Sierra Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, communication, and courteous staff. Technical competence and work quality are well-documented across residential and commercial projects. However, pricing presents a significant concern: while most reviews praise fair pricing, one detailed 2021 review alleges aggressive price-gouging on a septic system bid ($102K vs. $45-50K market range), with dismissive owner behavior. This pricing outlier substantially reduces confidence in the company's pricing fairness dimension. Project completion is solid with no reports of abandoned work or unfinished jobs.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews 1-5 and 7 (6 of 7 reviews) are uniformly 5-star with generic praise language ('best', 'great', 'professional', 'reliable'). Review 1 uses identical phrasing to Review 2 ('professional and fast' / 'super professional'). Two reviews explicitly mention being property managers with identical positive framing, which may indicate coordinated or incentivized reviews.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Review 6 (2021) provides specific, detailed allegations of price-gouging with concrete numbers ($102K bid vs. $45-50K market rate) and claims of dismissive owner behavior. This contrasts sharply with generic pricing praise in other reviews and suggests potential selective pricing practices based on perceived customer wealth.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews cluster in 2024 (3 reviews), with older reviews from 2019-2022. The single negative review is from 2021, predating the recent positive cluster. Recent reviews may reflect improved practices or reputation management.
• SAMPLE SIZE LIMITATION: Only 7 reviews total limits statistical reliability. The pricing dimension is based on only 3 mentions, with one being a strong negative outlier.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with caution. While professionalism and experience dimensions are reasonably supported, the pricing score is heavily influenced by one detailed negative review contradicting generic positive claims, and the overall review set shows patterns consistent with potential reputation management or fake reviews. The score reflects genuine strengths in service delivery but significant uncertainty regarding pricing fairness and authenticity of the review base.

Antonio Olvera receives consistently strong praise across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with multiple reviewers highlighting his responsiveness, willingness to explain work, and ability to handle diverse and urgent plumbing situations. His emergency availability — including showing up in the rain with a headlamp and arriving at 7pm for a temporary fix — reflects genuine commitment to customers. However, pricing is the most significant concern: one reviewer (2-star, 2019) explicitly describes a bait-and-switch experience where a $155 quote became a $600 charge on the day of service, which meaningfully drags down the pricing score despite other reviewers calling his prices fair. The majority of reviews are from 2019–2022, with none in the past 12 months, which limits confidence in how current this performance picture is. Overall, the WW Score reflects a capable and generally well-regarded plumber with a notable pricing transparency red flag that prospective customers should be aware of.

• PRICING RED FLAG: One reviewer (2-star, October 2019) explicitly describes a bait-and-switch scenario — a $155 estimate became a $600 charge on the day of service after the contractor re-evaluated the same job. This is a serious transparency concern and has been weighted accordingly.
• RECENCY WARNING: No reviews are dated within the past 12 months (most recent is January 2022, over 2 years ago). Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 7 reviews total. While all dimensions have usable data, the limited volume means a single negative review has outsized impact on scoring — which is appropriate given the severity of the pricing complaint.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating, and include one critical review, which increases authenticity confidence.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the review set is small (7 reviews), skews older (2019–2022), and contains one substantive negative experience that prospective customers should investigate directly before hiring.