Find Nearby Plumbers In Thousand Oaks, California

Robert/Bob Roberts Plumbing has a strong overall track record built on decades of repeat customers, responsive service, and technically skilled work across a wide range of plumbing tasks including hydro jetting, slab leaks, water heaters, and drain clearing. Project completion scores are high, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished thoroughly, on time, and with follow-through such as post-job check-in calls. Experience scores are similarly strong, with reviewers consistently praising his diagnostic ability, creative problem-solving, and quality of workmanship. However, pricing is a meaningful drag on the score: multiple reviewers across different years explicitly called out inflated prices, surprise charges for a second worker, Sunday surcharges without clear disclosure, and one instance where a warranty was not disclosed before quoting a costly diagnostic fee. Professionalism is generally strong but is tempered by a no-call no-show incident, one review describing an intimidating attitude, and a confirmed case of using an incorrect part and initially misleading the customer about the cause.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2018-07-29 appear to be near-identical accounts of the same toilet gasket incident — one may be a duplicate submission or copy-paste. Counted as one unique incident for scoring purposes.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One review (dated 2019-06-11) references 'Edgar from A+ Plumbing' and appears to be a review for a completely different company posted in error. This review was excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Five reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews (roughly 40%) predate 2020. While long-term loyalty is a positive signal, older reviews may not reflect current service quality, staffing, or pricing practices. More recent reviews (2023–2025) show continued strong performance but also include the warranty non-disclosure complaint (2023).
• PRICING CONCERN — PATTERN: At least 4 separate reviewers across different years (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016) explicitly flagged pricing as expensive, manipulative, or inflated. One 2023 review raised a concern about failure to disclose an active warranty before quoting a high diagnostic fee. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: One confirmed case (2018) where an incorrect universal gasket was used instead of the proper Kohler part, causing the toilet to malfunction after the job. Bob initially misled the customer about the cause before accepting responsibility when confronted.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: One reviewer (2019) reported a confirmed no-call no-show appointment, which directly contradicts the punctuality praised in many other reviews.
• EMPLOYEE CONDUCT: One reviewer (2018) reported that a hired worker was rude, physically intimidating, and attempted to block documentation filming. Bob himself was not implicated but the incident reflects on the business.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews. Most positive reviews include specific job details, named individuals, and varied language. Generic reviews exist but are in the minority.

This WW Score is based on 72 reviews with usable content spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence in its directional accuracy, though consumers should weigh the recurring pricing complaints and the isolated but confirmed workmanship and no-show incidents before hiring.

This score reflects a mixed but largely positive body of reviews drawn from two distinct service providers — Tankless Hot Water Solutions and Ninja Plumber — whose reviews appear to have been submitted together. Professionalism scores well overall, with dozens of reviews praising courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians by name (Adam, Jonathan, Edgar, Celso, Joseph, Armando, and others). However, the pricing dimension is significantly dragged down by a substantial and credible cluster of negative reviews explicitly citing overcharging, bait-and-switch tactics, inflated labor quotes, and lack of transparent billing — particularly among Ninja Plumber reviews. Project completion is generally strong, with most jobs described as finished thoroughly and on time, though several Ninja Plumber reviews describe incomplete work, abandoned jobs, or technicians lacking basic tools. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, but offset by a handful of reviews describing misdiagnoses, unskilled assessments, and technicians deferring work to inexperienced trainees.

• MIXED PROVIDER DATA: Reviews appear to combine two separate businesses — Tankless Hot Water Solutions and Ninja Plumber. These should ideally be scored separately, as their quality profiles differ materially. Tankless Hot Water Solutions reviews are overwhelmingly positive with no pricing complaints, while Ninja Plumber has a significant volume of credible negative reviews about overcharging and incomplete work.
• PRICING CONCERNS — NINJA PLUMBER: Multiple detailed, credible 1-star reviews describe systematic overcharging, including: $1,200 for valve replacement (part cost ~$294), $8,000–$12,000 pipe lining quote vs. industry standard $800–$2,500, $692 faucet installation for a $24.97 part, $450–$600 toilet unclogging quotes vs. $75–$80 market rate, and $1,275 tankless cleaning vs. $85 actual repair cost. These are not isolated complaints and represent a pattern.
• INCOMPLETE WORK — NINJA PLUMBER: At least two reviews describe jobs left unfinished, including one where sewage lines were never completed and drained under the house for 3 years, and another where a technician declared a job impossible and left without completing it.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — TANKLESS HOT WATER SOLUTIONS: Six reviews dated exactly 2025-05-09 are extremely brief or blank (no text), and several others from the same date cluster are generic with minimal specifics. Three reviews have no text at all. This pattern warrants reduced confidence in the Tankless Hot Water Solutions subset specifically.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 5 reviews contained no text whatsoever (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of Tankless Hot Water Solutions reviews are from 2024–2025 and are recent. The majority of Ninja Plumber reviews span 2021–2024, with the most critical pricing and completion complaints distributed across this entire range, suggesting persistent rather than isolated issues.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN — NINJA PLUMBER: Multiple reviews describe technicians incorrectly diagnosing problems (e.g., declaring a functioning water heater defective, misidentifying a cartridge issue as a diverter issue, failing to identify a simple stem replacement). This pattern reduces confidence in the experience score for that provider.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given the blending of two distinct businesses with materially different quality profiles — Tankless Hot Water Solutions appears to be a strong performer while Ninja Plumber has a documented and recurring pattern of pricing complaints, misdiagnoses, and occasional incomplete work that would score significantly lower if evaluated independently.

Simi Valley Plumbing earns strong praise from many customers for skilled workmanship, fair pricing, and responsive same-day service, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting prices well below competitor quotes. However, a significant and recurring pattern of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — documents serious failures in follow-through: technicians not returning, jobs left incomplete, calls and messages going unanswered, and the owner failing to respond to complaints. These are not isolated incidents but a consistent thread across at least 8 negative reviews, which materially drags down both the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing scores remain relatively strong because the positive mentions are specific and credible, but the completion score is notably penalized by multiple verified accounts of abandoned work and broken commitments.

• RECURRING PATTERN — ABANDONED WORK: At least 5 reviews explicitly describe technicians who started a job, promised to return, and never did (reviews from 2021-07-19, 2021-07-16, 2021-05-23, 2020-08-19, 2016-02-20). This is a systemic reliability concern, not an isolated incident.
• RECURRING PATTERN — OWNER/OFFICE NON-RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews across different years describe the owner (Bob/Robert) and office staff (Stella) failing to return calls, ignoring complaints, and in one case hanging up on a customer. This pattern spans 2015 through 2021.
• RECENCY CONCERN — NEGATIVE REVIEWS CLUSTER IN 2020-2021: The most recent reviews (2020–2024) include a disproportionate number of 1-star reviews relative to the older review base, suggesting possible decline in service quality in recent years. The most recent review (2024) is positive, but the 2020–2021 window is heavily mixed.
• RECENCY NOTE — MOST REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 2 YEARS: The majority of reviews predate 2022. Only 3 reviews are from 2022 or later, limiting confidence in current service quality. Scores are weighted toward the full dataset but this should be noted.
• ONE REVIEW (2016-01-29) alleges a technician may have taken advantage of an elderly customer and potentially misrepresented work performed. This is a serious allegation and while unverified, it is noted as a flag.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in detail, writing style, and sentiment — including multiple credible negative reviews. No evidence of coordinated fake positive reviews.

This WW Score is based on 42 reviews spanning 16 years with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable; however, the persistent pattern of incomplete jobs and non-responsiveness documented across multiple independent reviewers means the score should be interpreted cautiously — particularly for larger or multi-visit projects where follow-through is critical.

Jeff Gambino demonstrates strong technical competence and reliable project completion across multiple job types (water heaters, drain work, water main replacement), with customers reporting durable results spanning 13+ years. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable and fair with transparent service calls. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by one serious incident in 2013 where he walked off a job and refused to return after taking offense to a customer's casual joke about his surname, requiring the customer's spouse to communicate via voicemail days later. This interpersonal failure contrasts sharply with otherwise positive feedback about punctuality and work quality, creating a mixed profile.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are from 2013–2018 (6–11 years old). No recent reviews available to assess current service standards or whether professionalism issues have been addressed.
• CRITICAL INCIDENT: One 2-star review documents a serious professionalism failure (walking off job, refusing to return, poor communication) that directly contradicts the otherwise uniformly positive feedback. This is not a minor complaint and materially impacts the professionalism score.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total limits statistical confidence. The single negative review carries disproportionate weight in a small dataset.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: Four of five reviews are 5-star ratings from long-term customers, suggesting possible survivor bias (dissatisfied customers may not return or review).

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, age of reviews (all pre-2019), and a documented serious professionalism incident that creates genuine uncertainty about current service reliability and customer treatment standards.

TMC Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior across 9 reviews. Technical expertise is well-documented with 7 mentions highlighting diagnostic skill, problem-solving ability, and knowledge. Project completion is solid with 8 mentions confirming jobs finished thoroughly and on time. Pricing receives a more conservative score of 72 based on 6 mentions—while most reviews praise reasonable rates and cost-saving solutions, one detailed 2020 complaint alleges a significantly underquoted estimate ($3,880 vs. $9,000 actual), which substantially impacts confidence in pricing fairness. Most reviews are older than 12 months, limiting recency validation.

• One 1-star review from 2020 alleges deliberate underquoting and dishonesty regarding pricing estimates—this is a serious allegation that directly contradicts the overwhelmingly positive narrative and warrants caution
• Two reviews contain minimal or no substantive content ('unknown' and '.'), reducing usable data quality
• Majority of reviews (10 of 13) are older than 12 months (pre-2023), with only 1 review from 2024 and 1 from 2023; recent performance cannot be fully validated
• Possible name inconsistency: reviews reference both 'Michael Hernandez' and 'Tim/Timothy Corbett' as owners/primary technicians—unclear if same company or different entities

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution: while 11 of 12 usable reviews are highly positive and consistent, the single detailed pricing fraud allegation from 2020, combined with predominantly older reviews and limited recent validation, prevents HIGH confidence. The pricing dimension is particularly uncertain and may not reflect current practices.

Mark Odney Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in project completion (90.0) and pricing (88.0). Professionalism scores 78.0, reflecting mostly positive feedback on punctuality, responsiveness, and courtesy, but significantly impacted by one detailed negative review citing arrogant and demeaning behavior toward a female homeowner. Experience scores 82.0 based on consistent mentions of quality workmanship and technical competence. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects reliable service delivery tempered by a notable interpersonal concern that cannot be ignored.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 6 of 9 reviews are older than 5 years (2013-2015), with only 3 reviews from 2021 onward. Most recent review is from March 2023. Limited recent data may not reflect current service quality.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: One detailed 2-star review (2013-10-06) explicitly alleges arrogant, demeaning behavior toward female homeowner and discomfort with crew presence. This is a serious interpersonal concern that directly contradicts the overwhelmingly positive narrative in other reviews. This single review significantly reduces professionalism confidence despite being older.
• POTENTIAL BIAS: 8 of 9 reviews are 5-star ratings with highly positive language. The single 2-star review provides critical balance but the extreme skew warrants caution about selection bias or review filtering.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While the data shows strong technical performance and pricing fairness, the professionalism dimension is compromised by a credible negative review alleging serious interpersonal issues, and the heavy weighting toward older reviews (pre-2020) limits confidence in current service standards. Recent customers should verify current team composition and communication style before engaging.