Find Nearby Plumbers In Temecula, California

Shipwreck Plumbing (formerly Top Tier Plumbing) demonstrates exceptional performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is consistently praised with 16 mentions highlighting punctuality, communication via Brooke and Steven, respectful demeanor, and thorough explanations. Project completion is strong with 15 mentions documenting prompt service, emergency responsiveness, complete job resolution, and meticulous cleanup. Experience is well-documented across 12 mentions emphasizing technical skill, problem-solving ability, honest diagnostics, and quality workmanship. Pricing receives 9 mentions with customers consistently describing fair, transparent, and competitive rates with no hidden fees. All 17 reviews are 5-star ratings from the past 12 months, indicating sustained excellence and recent positive performance.

• All 17 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback—this is statistically unusual and warrants caution. While the reviews contain specific details (names, job types, dates, technical descriptions) that suggest authenticity, the complete absence of any critical feedback or lower ratings is atypical for a service business.
• Repetitive positive phrasing appears across multiple reviews (e.g., 'highly recommend,' 'professional,' 'fair prices,' 'Steven/Stephen'), though each review includes distinct job details and circumstances that support legitimacy rather than template copying.
• The company name change from 'Top Tier Plumbing' to 'Shipwreck Plumbing' is noted across reviews spanning 2023–2024; this appears to be a legitimate rebranding rather than a red flag, but context is limited.

This WW Score of 92.3 is highly reliable based on 17 recent reviews (all within 12 months) with consistent, specific, and detailed feedback across all four dimensions. However, the absence of any critical feedback or ratings below 5 stars introduces a minor caveat—scores this uniformly high should be interpreted as representing the company's best-case performance and may not fully capture occasional service variations that typically appear in larger review sets.

Scott Miller and RSM Tile receive overwhelmingly positive feedback across nearly all dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute — reviewers repeatedly cite punctuality, clear daily communication, courteous demeanor, and meticulous job-site cleanliness. Project completion scores are very strong, with multiple reviewers confirming jobs were finished on time, within the quoted timeframe, and to a high standard with no abandoned work. Experience and workmanship are praised extensively, with customers describing perfection in tile cutting, grout lines, custom installations, and even ancillary plumbing work. Pricing is mentioned positively in five reviews, with customers describing estimates as accurate, fair, and competitive — though this dimension has fewer explicit mentions than the others. One 1-star review raises a concern about technical knowledge regarding flooring control joints and a disputed bidding practice, which introduces a minor flag but is countered strongly by the reviewer directly below it and the broader body of evidence.

• One 1-star review (2019-06-04) alleges technical incompetence regarding flooring control joints and claims Scott bid a job without a site visit. This is the only negative review and is directly disputed by a subsequent reviewer. It cannot be dismissed but is an outlier against 14 positive reviews.
• Several reviews mention the same crew members by name (Scott and Augie) and share similar praise language (meticulous, punctual, clean, communicative). While this could suggest coached or templated reviews, the level of specific project detail across most reviews (shower dimensions, tile types, sq footage, timelines) suggests genuine customer experiences rather than fabricated ones.
• Review recency concern: Only 2 of 15 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). The majority of reviews are from 2018–2022, with two dating back to 2014. The most recent reviews (2024) are positive but brief and lack specific detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight.
• The 2014 reviews are over 10 years old and are given reduced weight in scoring due to age. Business practices and quality may have changed since then.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews spanning 10 years, with strong multi-dimensional evidence and HIGH confidence across all scored dimensions; the score is considered reliable but should be interpreted with awareness that recent detailed reviews are limited and one credible negative review exists.

Chris demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions with consistent positive feedback. Professionalism is a standout strength, with 8 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, communication, attitude, and responsiveness. Project completion is solid with 7 mentions of finished work and follow-through on callbacks. Experience is well-supported by 6 mentions of technical knowledge, problem-solving, and quality workmanship. Pricing receives moderate support with 4 mentions of fair and reasonable rates. All reviews are 5-star ratings with specific examples of work performed.

• All 9 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or critical comments — this is atypical and warrants caution
• Reviews are heavily dated (most from 2019-2020, only 2 from 2020 or later) — limited recent performance data available
• No reviews mention any problems, delays, or dissatisfaction — absence of balanced feedback is a minor red flag for authenticity
• Generic praise patterns present in some reviews (e.g., 'highly recommend,' 'very professional,' 'great experience') but each review includes specific project details, reducing fake review concern

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to the age of reviews (most 4+ years old) and the absence of any critical feedback, which limits the ability to assess how Chris handles challenges or customer concerns. The HIGH confidence is supported by consistent mentions across dimensions, but the uniformly positive ratings suggest this may not represent a complete picture of performance.

Crouse Plumbing has an exceptionally strong review profile across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently praised attribute — reviewers consistently highlight punctuality, communication, friendliness, and responsiveness including after-hours availability. Pricing is repeatedly described as fair, competitive, and transparent, with multiple reviewers noting that quoted prices matched final charges. Project completion scores are high, with numerous accounts of jobs finished thoroughly, callbacks honored, and extra work addressed without additional charge. Experience and workmanship are well-documented across a wide variety of jobs including water heaters, tankless installs, shower remodels, pressure pumps, and emergency leak repairs, with one detailed review highlighting exceptional problem-solving under difficult conditions. One 1-star review raises concerns about a disputed service interaction involving alleged misrepresentation and an unresolved complaint, which tempers scores slightly but does not significantly undermine the overall pattern given the volume of positive, specific, and credible reviews.

• One 1-star review (dated 2021-05-24) describes a negative experience involving alleged deception, a disputed 'report,' failure to resolve a post-install issue, and an accusation that the contractor's original response was removed for being abusive. This review is detailed and specific, lending it credibility. It was factored into scoring.
• One blank review (5-star, dated 2022-06-10) and one very generic review ('awesome work', 5-star, dated 2025-05-10) contain no usable content and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• A small number of reviews use similar enthusiastic language and reference the same team members (Steve, Jill, Amy), which is consistent with a real small business but warrants mild scrutiny. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews was detected — most reviews include specific job details.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with only 3 reviews dated within the past 12 months (2024-2025). Recency data is limited; the most recent substantive reviews are from 2024 and remain positive.
• The contractor appears to operate under different team compositions across reviews (Steve & Jill, Steve & Amy), which may reflect staff changes over time. This is noted but does not affect scoring.

This WW Score is based on 34 reviews with usable content, spanning approximately 9 years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions — the score is considered highly reliable, though the limited number of recent reviews (2024–2025) and one credible negative review introduce a small degree of uncertainty.

M&B Landscaping demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism (88.5) driven by consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous communication. Pricing scores well (82.0) with numerous mentions of fair, competitive, and transparent quotes without upselling. Project completion (81.5) is solid but slightly lower due to two notable negative reviews documenting incomplete follow-through and system failures. Experience (85.0) reflects strong technical knowledge and problem-solving ability. The WW Score of 84.2 reflects a reliable, professional contractor with minor concerns about consistency in complex project execution.

• Two significant negative reviews (1-star and 2-star) document serious project failures: one describes a $2K irrigation system redesign that created worse problems than it solved, with poor drainage design and incomplete follow-up; another describes post-installation lawn fungus issues with delayed callbacks and eventual service refusal. These are material quality and follow-through failures that substantially impact confidence.
• The 1-star review (2021-05-13) alleges payment was collected before work completion, incomplete rework, and lack of response to emergency pipe burst. The 2-star review (2017-08-05) documents unresolved sprinkler coverage issues and cancellation of promised service.
• Recency concern: Most reviews are from 2016-2020 (older than 12 months). Only 8 reviews are from 2024, 4 from 2023, and 2 from 2022. Recent review volume is low, limiting confidence in current service quality.
• No pattern of fake reviews detected. Reviews show genuine variation in detail, specific problem descriptions, and authentic customer voices. The two negative reviews provide detailed, credible criticism that contrasts with generic praise in some positive reviews.

This WW Score of 84.2 should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence for routine sprinkler repairs and small jobs, but with CAUTION for large, complex landscaping projects involving system redesign. The contractor excels at emergency response and simple fixes but has documented failures on complex installations. Recent review volume is limited; current service quality cannot be fully assessed from available data.

Ted (also referred to as Felipe and The Home Healer) demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness across 32 reviews. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished on time and to specification, though a few scheduling failures and one significant overbilling incident (6.5 hours for GFCI installation) create concerns. Experience and workmanship are highly regarded with clients praising skill, problem-solving, and quality across diverse projects. Pricing is generally described as reasonable, but several reviews note it is not the cheapest option, and one major billing dispute significantly impacts the pricing dimension. The WW Score of 84.2 reflects a reliable, skilled contractor with minor vulnerabilities in cost transparency and occasional scheduling reliability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 28 of 43 reviews (65%) are from 2006-2011, over 13 years old. Only 3 reviews from 2024 and 2020. Recent data is sparse and may not reflect current service quality.
• BILLING DISPUTE: Review dated 2010-09-07 (rating 2.0) documents significant overbilling—6.5 hours charged for GFCI outlet installation that electrician estimated at 1-2 hours. Customer explicitly states Ted had opportunity to amend bill and did not. This is a material integrity concern.
• SCHEDULING FAILURES: Two reviews (2009-12-22 rating 1.0 and 2010-08-11 rating 1.0) indicate no-shows or poor first impressions. The 2009-12-22 review describes a missed appointment on agreed date with customer taking half-day off work.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Review dated 2008-09-30 (rating 3.0) describes cutting doors incorrectly, leaving holes, and attempting to leave without disclosing the error. While corrected, this suggests occasional quality control lapses.
• NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference 'Ted,' 'Felipe,' and 'The Home Healer'—unclear if same person or different contractors. Assumes same provider throughout analysis.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('very nice guy,' 'reasonably priced,' 'on time') but this appears authentic given specificity in other reviews and presence of critical reviews balancing the dataset.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for historical performance but LOW confidence for current service quality due to age of data (65% of reviews over 13 years old). The presence of serious billing and scheduling failures in the dataset prevents a higher overall score despite strong professionalism ratings. Recent clients should seek current references before engaging.