Find Nearby Plumbers In Simi Valley, California

AG Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. A substantial portion of positive reviews praise punctuality, friendliness, and competent workmanship — with specific technicians like Joe, Alberto, Tony, and Rob frequently called out by name for professional and skilled service. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns across every dimension: multiple reviewers report non-existent callbacks, abandoned jobs, poor attitude, and technicians walking off the job. Pricing integrity is a notable weak point, with several reviewers alleging overcharging, false line-item charges, and a $2,000 deposit dispute that was never resolved. Project completion is also compromised by repeated reports of work left unfinished or root causes ignored, requiring customers to hire a second plumber. The score reflects this genuine split rather than defaulting to either extreme.

• RECENCY CONCERN: A large number of positive reviews are clustered around 2020–2022 and several are dated 2024-06-09 with identical dates, which may indicate batch submission or review solicitation. These should be weighted with caution.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR SOLICITED REVIEWS: At least 6 reviews share the exact date of 2024-06-09 with uniformly positive ratings and no critical detail. This pattern is consistent with bulk review submission and reduces confidence in those specific entries.
• TWO REVIEWS CONTAIN NO TEXT (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• ONE REVIEW (2025-04-10) mentions only 'Unsafe driving' with no plumbing service detail — scored as a professionalism flag but not usable for most dimensions.
• EXTREME OUTLIER DATES: Two reviews are dated 2004, which are over 20 years old. These were included for completeness but carry near-zero weight in scoring due to age.
• CONDUCT CONCERN: At least two separate reviews describe technicians refusing to wear masks and arguing with or dismissing vulnerable customers, including a terminally ill patient. One technician is described as laughing while walking off the job.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer alleges AG Plumbing withheld a $1,350 deposit and explicitly threatened to keep the money in retaliation for a negative review. A BBB complaint was filed. This is a serious flag.
• PATTERN OF UNRESPONSIVENESS: At least 7 reviews independently describe failure to return calls, sometimes for multiple days, suggesting a systemic communication problem rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the sharp polarization between detailed positive and detailed negative experiences, credible allegations of financial misconduct, and suspicious clustering of same-date positive reviews that may inflate the positive signal.

This review set covers two distinct business entities: a modern HVAC/plumbing company (Dutton, reviews from 2025) and Acrown Plumbing Construction (reviews from 2018–2024). The Dutton reviews are overwhelmingly positive, praising named technicians for punctuality, communication, thoroughness, and job completion. However, the Acrown reviews — which make up the majority of the dataset — reveal a deeply divided picture: while individual field technicians (Robert, Derek, Angel, Charles) frequently receive high praise for skill and professionalism, the company's office staff and ownership are repeatedly cited for rudeness, dishonest reporting to home warranty companies, abandoned jobs, and discriminatory behavior toward non-English speakers. Multiple 1-star reviews allege that Acrown deliberately misreported diagnoses to home warranty companies to deny coverage or extract additional charges, which is a serious integrity flag. Pricing concerns are significant, with several reviewers citing unexpected upcharges and inflated code-compliance costs. Project completion scores are dragged down by multiple credible accounts of abandoned work, failed callbacks, and unresolved issues across multiple visits.

• MIXED ENTITY WARNING: Reviews appear to cover at least two distinct businesses — 'Dutton' (HVAC/plumbing, 2025 reviews) and 'Acrown Plumbing Construction' (plumbing, 2017–2024 reviews). Scores reflect the combined dataset but the two entities have very different performance profiles. Dutton reviews skew highly positive; Acrown reviews are deeply polarized.
• DISHONESTY PATTERN — ACROWN: Multiple independent reviewers (at least 6) allege that Acrown deliberately submitted false or altered diagnoses to home warranty companies (AHS, Fidelity, American Home Shield) to deny coverage or add unauthorized charges. This is a serious and recurring integrity concern, not an isolated complaint.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE MISCONDUCT — ACROWN: At least 4 reviews cite the office receptionist or owner as being verbally abusive, dismissive, or making discriminatory remarks toward non-English-speaking customers. One reviewer was called 'stupid'; another was told 'we are in America, speak English.' These are not minor service complaints.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN — ACROWN: At least 3 reviews describe technicians disassembling fixtures and leaving without completing the job, with no return visit and no resolution offered.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — DUTTON (MINOR): Several Dutton reviews from June 2025 are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Amazing work, amazing person', 'Victor is the best!!!!', 'victor was great'). While not conclusive, the clustering of short, undetailed 5-star reviews on the same dates warrants mild caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are exclusively for Dutton and are positive. The Acrown reviews span 2017–2024 and contain the majority of negative feedback. If this score is intended for Dutton only, the WW Score would be substantially higher. If for Acrown only, it would be substantially lower.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS with only a star rating were excluded from dimensional scoring as they contain no usable data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a single-entity score is MODERATE at best — the dataset almost certainly blends two separate businesses with very different performance records, and the Acrown subset contains credible, repeated allegations of dishonest business practices that materially suppress trust in that entity.

Fisher Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship (82/100), with technicians consistently praised for knowledge and problem-solving ability. Professionalism is moderate (72/100), with many positive notes on courtesy and timeliness, but significant recurring complaints about missed appointments, poor communication, and lack of follow-up. The most critical weakness is pricing (52/100), with numerous reviews explicitly citing excessive charges, overpricing relative to market rates, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion scores (71/100) reflect mixed reliability—while work quality is generally good, scheduling failures and appointment cancellations are persistent issues. The company's transition from Fisher Plumbing to Adeedo ownership appears to have degraded service standards significantly.

• OWNERSHIP CHANGE IMPACT: Multiple reviews explicitly note deterioration after acquisition by Adeedo/Reliance Home Services. Early reviews (2016-2019) are predominantly 5-star; recent reviews (2021-2023) are predominantly 1-star, suggesting systemic decline post-acquisition.
• PRICING PATTERN: Consistent complaints across 32+ reviews about excessive pricing, preset 'book' pricing, pressure sales tactics, and quotes 2-4x higher than competitors. This is the single most damaging dimension.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY: At least 15 reviews document no-shows, cancellations, rescheduling failures, and poor communication about delays. This contradicts earlier claims of reliability.
• SUBCONTRACTING DISCLOSURE: Multiple reviews note unmarked vans, subcontractors (Reliance Home Services, Adeedo), and lack of transparency about who is actually performing work.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Approximately 20 reviews dated 2020-06-09 with identical timestamps, minimal detail, and 5-star ratings appear potentially fabricated or auto-generated. These inflate the score artificially.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Several reviews note owner Paul Fisher unavailable ('on vacation,' 'kind of retiring'), and service managers dismissive of complaints.
• LEGAL CONCERN: One review alleges illegal recording of customer phone call without consent (California two-party consent law violation).

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with caution due to suspected fake reviews inflating the dataset, but the overall assessment is reliable because negative patterns are corroborated across many independent, detailed reviews with specific examples. The company's decline post-acquisition is well-documented and consistent. Customers should prioritize the pricing and appointment reliability concerns, which are extensively evidenced, over the artificially high experience scores.

New Millennium Plumbing presents a deeply divided review profile. Positive reviews — predominantly from 2016 through 2019 — consistently praise Oscar's technical knowledge, reasonable pricing, and quality workmanship. However, a significant and recurring pattern of negative reviews spanning 2017 through 2024 documents repeated no-shows, ghosting after payment, failure to honor warranties, and incomplete or incorrectly performed work. Professionalism and project completion scores are substantially dragged down by at least 15 reviews explicitly describing broken appointments, unanswered calls, and abandoned jobs. Pricing scores remain relatively higher as even dissatisfied customers often acknowledged fair initial quotes. The most recent reviews (2024) continue to show both extremes, indicating the problems have not been resolved over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The review base spans 2016–2024. Negative reviews are distributed across the entire timeline including 2024, indicating persistent operational issues rather than an isolated period of poor performance.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: At least 10 reviews explicitly describe Oscar accepting a job or payment and then going completely silent — not returning calls, texts, or honoring follow-up appointments. This is a serious and repeated pattern.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews (2024, 2021, 2019) describe Oscar refusing to honor stated warranties or failing to return to fix defective work he performed.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several 5-star reviews from 2019 use very similar phrasing ('knowledgeable,' 'reasonable price,' 'will recommend') with minimal job-specific detail, clustered closely in date. These may be inflated or solicited reviews and have been weighted conservatively.
• FIRST REVIEW FLAG: The first review (2024-08-09) explicitly defends Oscar against bad reviews without describing specific work details, which is a common pattern in reputation-management reviews. Treated with reduced weight.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: The 2022 detailed review includes photographic evidence of incorrect pipe installation, saw damage to an adjacent wall, and a second plumber confirming and redoing Oscar's work at half the price — representing a serious workmanship failure.
• SCORE SUPPRESSION APPLIED: Due to the volume and specificity of negative reviews documenting abandonment, no-shows, and defective work, scores for professionalism and project completion have been conservatively suppressed despite a large number of positive reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (70 reviews) with HIGH data confidence across all dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously — the contractor has a well-documented and persistent pattern of no-shows, ghosting, and warranty non-compliance that represents a material risk to any prospective customer.

Simi4Plumbing shows a stark divide in customer experience. Five reviews from 2022 consistently praise punctuality, fair pricing, and technical competence across various plumbing tasks. However, a detailed 2023 complaint alleges incomplete work, property damage, financial misconduct, and deliberate deception (fabricated deportation story to avoid contact). The professionalism score is significantly depressed by the serious allegations in the recent review, which describe unethical behavior and breach of trust. Project completion is particularly weak due to explicit claims of abandoned work and unfinished remodeling. Pricing appears fair based on multiple positive mentions, but the 2023 review suggests budget overruns due to damage.

• CRITICAL: Severe contradiction between 2022 reviews (all 5-star, generic praise) and 2023 review (1-star, detailed allegations). The 2022 reviews show repetitive phrasing ('on time,' 'reasonable price,' 'would definitely use again') suggesting possible pattern, but the 2023 review is highly specific with serious allegations including theft, property damage, and deliberate deception.
• The 2023 review is recent (October 2023) and contains specific, detailed complaints about incomplete work, damaged walls/flooring, and alleged dishonesty. This carries significant weight despite being a single review.
• Potential fake review pattern in 2022 cluster: five reviews within 4 days (May 26 - June 8, 2022) with similar structure and generic positive language. However, the 2023 negative review's specificity and severity cannot be dismissed as fake.
• Most positive reviews are 1-2 years old; most recent review is highly negative. Recency suggests deterioration in service quality or business practices.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the 2022 reviews suggest competent plumbing work at fair prices, the detailed 2023 complaint alleging theft, property damage, and deliberate deception represents a serious credibility issue that cannot be ignored. The WW Score reflects this conflict conservatively, but potential customers should heavily weight the recent negative review and seek additional references before engaging this contractor.

The review set is heavily polarized: five positive reviews praise responsiveness, professionalism, and fair pricing, but the most recent and detailed negative review (2024) describes a serious pattern of predatory upselling targeting a vulnerable elderly customer, which significantly drags down all dimension scores. The pricing dimension is particularly impacted — the $3,000 contract obtained under misleading pretenses directly contradicts the affordability claims in other reviews. Project completion is also penalized because the negative reviewer describes work that was arguably unnecessary, raising questions about the integrity of the completed scope. The positive reviews, while numerous, are largely older (2019–2021) and several lack specific detail, reducing their evidentiary weight against the highly specific and credible 2024 complaint.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: The 2024 review describes a pattern consistent with predatory upselling — convincing a 72-year-old widow to sign a $3,000 contract for work that may not have been necessary, with the toilet functioning again immediately after signing. This is a significant ethical and reputational red flag.
• RECENCY BIAS: The most recent negative review (August 2024) is the most detailed and credible. Three of the five positive reviews are from 2019–2021, making them over 3 years old and less representative of current business practices.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews use generic, non-specific praise ('Great customer service!!', 'The only plumber I will ever call') with little operational detail. The 2021 review uses unusually effusive and repetitive language ('God Sent, yes, God Sent!!!') which may indicate an inauthentic or incentivized review.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 total reviews severely limits statistical reliability. A single negative review has outsized impact on the score, and a single fake positive review would similarly distort results.
• UPSELL PRESSURE NOTED: The 2024 reviewer explicitly states that after refusing additional upsell services, the technicians became 'suddenly less friendly,' suggesting a transactional and potentially manipulative service culture.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution — the small review pool, the presence of a highly credible and detailed recent complaint describing predatory practices, and the age of most positive reviews combine to make this score an unreliable indicator of current service quality.