Find Nearby Plumbers In Upland, California

Kenneth Vaughan demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on three substantive reviews. Professionalism is evidenced by punctuality, reliability, honesty, and responsiveness across multiple service calls. Pricing is consistently praised as fair and transparent, with explicit mention of lower-than-expected costs and preference for repairs over unnecessary replacements. Project completion is confirmed through timely service and efficient problem-solving. Experience is the standout dimension, with reviewers highlighting decades of plumbing knowledge, superior diagnostic ability, and technical problem-solving that saved customers thousands of dollars compared to competitors. The WW Score of 88.2 reflects solid, trustworthy contractor performance.

• Only 3 usable reviews analyzed; fourth review contains no substantive content (single period). Score reliability is limited by small sample size.
• Reviews span 2014–2023 with significant gaps; most recent substantive reviews are from 2022–2023, which is acceptable recency.
• No negative reviews present; while not necessarily indicative of fake reviews, the absence of any critical feedback limits ability to assess weaknesses or validate claims through contradiction.
• All three substantive reviews are 5-star ratings; combined with uniformly positive language, this warrants caution but is not conclusive evidence of fabrication given the specific, detailed nature of claims (e.g., concrete cleanup, stucco discovery, parts inventory).

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution due to the small sample size (3 usable reviews) and absence of critical feedback, though the detailed, specific nature of the reviews and recent dates (2022–2023) provide some validation of authenticity.

This business (appears to be both a plumbing supply store and plumbing service provider) demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise across multiple reviews spanning 2012–2025. Staff and owner Mike London are consistently praised for punctuality, politeness, knowledge, and clean workmanship. However, pricing is a significant weakness: multiple customers report being charged 2–3× competitor prices for identical parts, with some feeling deliberately gouged. Several negative reviews cite unprofessional conduct (missed appointments, payment demands before work, dismissive communication), and a few describe misdiagnosis or unnecessary upselling. The high volume of positive reviews (particularly from 2015–2023) suggests strong historical performance, but recent reviews (2025) include serious complaints about scheduling and pricing transparency.

• PRICING CONCERN: At least 4 reviews explicitly state prices are 2–3× higher than Home Depot, Lowe's, or online retailers for identical items. One customer reported a $380 bill that should have been ~$150. Another paid $38.55 for an item available online for $28. This pattern suggests systematic overpricing or lack of price competitiveness.
• MIXED PROFESSIONALISM: While most reviews praise Mike London's professionalism, several negative reviews describe unprofessional behavior: no-show with rescheduling (May 2025), sudden price increase after injury (Feb 2024), demanding payment before job start (Jan 2016), dismissive attitude toward pregnant customer (June 2013), and no-show with muddy floors (Feb 2012).
• POTENTIAL MISDIAGNOSIS: One detailed 2013 review describes a plumber (possibly Mike London) who recommended unnecessary $1,200 in cleanout installations when the actual clog was under the house and covered by warranty. Customer questioned whether this was genuine misdiagnosis or deliberate upselling.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most highly positive reviews are from 2015–2023. Recent reviews (2025, 2024) include serious complaints about scheduling, pricing, and professionalism. This suggests possible service degradation or inconsistency.
• SUPPLY STORE VS. SERVICE PROVIDER CONFUSION: Reviews mix feedback about Thompson Plumbing Supply (retail store) and London Plumbing (service provider, owner Mike London). Some reviews may conflate the two businesses.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 13 reviews contain no text, only 5-star ratings (all from 2019–2022). This is unusual and may indicate fake or placeholder reviews, though it does not substantially alter the overall score given the large volume of detailed reviews.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable at HIGH confidence due to 73 reviews with substantial detail across all four dimensions. However, the score masks significant internal conflict: professionalism and experience are genuinely strong (82–85), but pricing is a consistent and serious weakness (68), and recent reviews suggest deteriorating reliability. Customers should expect good technical work and professional demeanor but should negotiate pricing aggressively or compare quotes with competitors before committing.

Stanley Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, knowledge, and workmanship. However, the score is tempered by multiple documented instances of poor follow-up and responsiveness—including customers unable to reach the company for callbacks and at least one no-show appointment. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive. Project completion is solid overall, though some reviews hint at delayed callbacks and extended timelines for complex jobs. The company's reliability appears inconsistent, with excellent service in some cases contrasted against communication failures in others.

• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 50% of reviews lack dates or have dates from 2014-2022. Recent undated reviews (likely 2024-2025) show consistently high ratings with minimal detail, which may inflate current perception. Dated reviews from 2020-2022 show more balanced feedback.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Multiple explicit complaints about lack of callbacks and non-responsiveness (2020, 2016, and one undated review). This is a recurring weakness despite overall positive ratings.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: One undated review explicitly states confirmed appointment was missed with no callback. This is a serious professionalism failure.
• GENERIC PRAISE IN UNDATED REVIEWS: Several undated 5-star reviews contain minimal detail ('Great work', empty review text, 'It was great experience'). These lack specificity and may be less reliable.
• REPUTATIONAL ISSUE: One 2014 review documents dishonesty regarding an insurance claim for a vehicle accident. While not directly work-related, it raises character concerns.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIER: One 2020 review (rating 2.0) explicitly states customer had to chase contractor for weeks despite good technical work, suggesting systemic follow-up issues.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in execution, multiple documented failures in responsiveness and follow-up suggest the score may overstate reliability. Recent undated reviews lack sufficient detail to verify quality. The WW Score of 78.2 is conservative and appropriate given the responsiveness red flags, but potential customers should specifically inquire about callback protocols and appointment confirmation procedures before engaging.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise professionalism, punctuality, and courteous technicians, driving a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. Pricing is generally described as fair and reasonable, with multiple reviewers noting the company beat competitor quotes significantly; however, a handful of reviews cite overcharging, unclear billing, and one instance of a $2,800 charge for a job far simpler than estimated. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: several reviews document incomplete work, return visits required due to errors, a cracked toilet base left unaddressed, a disposal quoted but not fixed, and a toilet that leaked again the next day after service — with one reviewer noting the company stopped responding to follow-up emails. Experience scores moderately well given strong praise for skilled technicians like Fabian, Eddie, and Brian, but is tempered by documented cases of undersized equipment used, wrong parts installed, and a technician who made problems worse. The co-owner Mary is cited by name in multiple negative reviews for rude, aggressive, and unprofessional behavior, which significantly weighs down the professionalism dimension despite the many positive technician-level interactions.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review by 'Emery was great and easy my concern...' (2023-11-28) appears twice with identical text and date. The review praising Luis for gas line installation (2021-06-10) appears twice with near-identical text. The review about selling a home and hydrostatic test (2021-01-30 and 2020-12-08) appears twice with nearly identical text. These duplicates have been counted only once each in mention tallies.
• MULTIPLE COMPANIES IN REVIEW SET: Several reviews reference 'Jet Drain' or 'Jet Drain Plumbing' as a distinct business entity, not A&M Plumbing. These appear to be reviews for a different company mixed into this dataset. They were analyzed for scoring purposes but flagged as potentially belonging to a separate contractor.
• REVIEW FOR 'JAIRO' (2025-06-06): This review does not mention A&M Plumbing or any of its known staff by name and may belong to a different contractor entirely.
• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: Co-owner 'Mary' is cited by name in at least 4 separate negative reviews (2013, 2013, 2021, 2023) for rude behavior, use of foul language, failure to return calls, and dismissive responses to legitimate complaints. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not an isolated incident.
• PERMIT VIOLATION FLAGGED: One reviewer (2023-06-10, 1-star) explicitly states A&M chose not to obtain a city permit prior to plumbing work, which caused the customer financial harm. This is a serious compliance concern.
• LARGE VOLUME OF BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating (all 5-star). These provide no usable data and inflate the apparent positivity of the review set. They were excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of detailed reviews date from 2013–2018. While there are recent reviews (2024–2025), the bulk of substantive feedback is older than 5 years. Scores should be interpreted with this in mind, as service quality may have changed.
• BILLING DISPUTE PATTERN: At least 3 separate reviews describe being charged for work that was not completed, not completed correctly, or for a service call where nothing was fixed. This is a recurring theme that meaningfully impacts the project completion score.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (175 total) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, giving it statistical weight; however, reliability is moderately reduced by the presence of duplicate reviews, blank no-text reviews, mixed-company reviews (Jet Drain), a consistent pattern of owner misconduct complaints, and documented billing and workmanship failures that suggest the positive aggregate score masks meaningful service inconsistency.

Hirsch Pipe & Supply demonstrates strong technical expertise and product knowledge (82.0), with extensive inventory and knowledgeable staff frequently praised by contractors and experienced customers. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by consistent complaints about poor customer service, long wait times, dismissive treatment of non-contractor customers (particularly women and DIY homeowners), and unresponsive staff. Pricing is generally fair to competitive (76.0), though some customers report markups and restrictive return policies. Project completion data is limited but shows occasional delivery and fulfillment issues. The business clearly prioritizes contractor relationships over retail customers, creating a two-tiered service experience.

• SIGNIFICANT BIAS AGAINST NON-CONTRACTOR CUSTOMERS: Multiple reviews (at least 8-10) explicitly report discriminatory treatment toward homeowners, DIY customers, and women. Staff allegedly deprioritize or refuse service to non-contractors despite stated willingness to serve the public.
• CHRONIC STAFFING/SERVICE ISSUES: Recurring complaints across 15+ reviews about insufficient counter staff, 20-30+ minute wait times, employees ignoring customers, and slow order fulfillment. This is a systemic operational problem, not isolated incidents.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing reviews from contractor accounts (praising specific named staff like Tony, Ernie, Dave, Felipe) and negative reviews from walk-in customers. Suggests service quality is highly dependent on customer type and individual staff member.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Review dated 2024-06-12 (Trevor Mordecai review) contains highly unusual, rambling language with nonsensical phrases ('hunge like a parakeet,' 'pinwheel hat,' 'snailsman') and appears to be either satirical, deliberately obfuscated, or fabricated. This review is difficult to score and may indicate review manipulation.
• GENDER DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS: At least 3 reviews explicitly mention poor treatment of women customers, with one stating staff made her 'feel stupid' and another noting general preference for male contractors.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While recent reviews (2024) are positive, many negative reviews are older (2015-2020). However, negative patterns persist in recent reviews as well, suggesting ongoing issues.
• PREDATORY PRICING REPORTED: Multiple customers report significantly higher prices for walk-in customers vs. contractors, with one example citing $24.44 vs. $16.00 retail for same part, and another noting $22 markup on water heater enclosure with 15% restocking fee.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable for understanding Hirsch's performance with contractor/professional customers (where experience and pricing are strong), but significantly overstates satisfaction for retail/homeowner customers. The HIGH overall confidence reflects substantial review volume, but masks a deeply bifurcated customer experience. Homeowners and DIY customers should expect notably lower service quality than the aggregate score suggests. The professionalism dimension is particularly dragged down by systemic service failures that appear structural rather than anecdotal.

Q&A Plumbing receives strong praise across all four dimensions from the majority of reviewers, with Patrick frequently cited for punctuality, responsiveness, honest communication, and quality workmanship. Multiple reviewers highlight his willingness to return promptly to address post-job issues and his thoroughness in not leaving until work is verified complete. Pricing is generally described as reasonable and competitive, though one reviewer raises a serious concern about being charged for unnecessary work and a duplicate charge applied to both owner and tenant for the same repair. That single 1-star review introduces meaningful doubt about pricing transparency and ethical conduct, preventing higher scores across the board. The review base is small and predominantly older than 12 months, which limits the reliability of these findings.

• One reviewer (1-star, 2015-11-17) explicitly alleges unnecessary work was performed, installation of unneeded commercial components on a residential property, and a duplicate charge applied to both the property owner and tenant for the same repair — this is a serious ethical and pricing integrity concern.
• Six of seven reviews are 5-star ratings. While most contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the pattern warrants mild caution.
• All reviews are dated between 2014 and 2017 — none are within the past 12 months. Recency is poor and current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• Review volume is low (7 total). Scores are directionally useful but should not be treated as statistically robust.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small, entirely outdated review set (all reviews 7+ years old), a serious misconduct allegation in the lone negative review, and an overall sample size too small to confidently represent current contractor performance.