Find Nearby Plumbers In Upland, California

P&P Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and reveals a split picture: many reviewers praise punctuality, politeness, and responsiveness, but serious complaints exist around no-shows, hanging up on customers, leaving messes, and workers loitering. Pricing drew notable criticism in two reviews — one involving a bill that significantly exceeded the quoted range without prior authorization, and another where $500 was charged for work that was never completed — dragging the pricing score down considerably despite a few reviewers finding the rates fair or even lower than expected. Project completion is a significant concern: one reviewer was never served after three weeks of promises, another paid for an unclog that was never performed, and a third experienced repeated callbacks for a toilet that still was not fully fixed. Experience scores moderately, with several reviewers noting quick and skilled repairs, but offset by a general contractor reportedly having to redo some of P&P's work and a toilet left in imperfect condition after multiple visits.

• Several reviews are extremely old (2004–2011) and carry very limited relevance to current business practices; the majority of reviews with usable detail are more than 5 years old.
• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2014-10-31) contains only the word 'unknown' and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2011-05-04) contains only 'It went Great overall.' — too vague to score any dimension and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• The 2007-06-18 review is suspicious: the reviewer gives a 5-star rating while explicitly stating the contractor had to redo work and still had outstanding fixes — this rating-text mismatch may indicate an error or manipulation and was treated with caution.
• Two of the most detailed negative reviews (2022 and 2021) describe serious ethical concerns: unauthorized work billed without consent, refusal to return to complete paid work, and demanding additional payment for incomplete jobs. These are strong red flags for business integrity.
• No reviews are dated within the past 12 months (relative to the most recent review date of 2022-02-17), and the bulk of positive reviews are from 2007–2014, making the positive sentiment potentially outdated.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while the mention counts are sufficient to calculate scores, the review pool spans nearly 20 years with most positive reviews being very old, the two most recent detailed reviews are strongly negative, and at least one review contains a clear rating-text mismatch — consumers should weight the 2021–2022 reviews most heavily when making a hiring decision.

This contractor shows strong technical skill and experience across multiple plumbing disciplines (repiping, water heaters, toilets, installations), evidenced by 4 mentions of quality workmanship. However, professionalism is severely undermined by one damaging 2021 review documenting poor material choices, incorrect installation, refusal to warranty work, and avoidance of customer communication—issues that directly caused property damage. Two older positive reviews (2013–2018) praise reliability and fair pricing, but the recent negative experience raises serious concerns about accountability and follow-through. The contractor's willingness to charge for repairs on defective work suggests a pattern of poor customer support.

• CRITICAL: One detailed 2021 review documents serious quality failures (wrong couplings, improper installation under pressure, driveway damage) and complete lack of warranty/support. This is not generic complaint but specific technical failure with property damage consequences.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are 6–11 years old (2013–2018). The most recent review (2021) is highly negative, suggesting possible service quality decline or inconsistency.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The two 5-star reviews (2014, 2018) use similar generic praise language ('trustworthy,' 'reliable,' 'excellent job,' 'recommend') with minimal specific detail about actual work performed. However, the 2021 negative review is extremely detailed and specific, which increases its credibility.
• COMMUNICATION RED FLAG: 2021 review explicitly states contractor 'avoids calls and texts' and 'blew off' customer after defective work—direct evidence of poor professionalism and responsiveness.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (4 total) and significant recency bias (3 reviews over 6+ years old). The 2021 negative review is detailed and credible, but older positive reviews lack specificity. The contractor demonstrates technical competence but has documented accountability issues; recommend requesting recent references and written warranties before engaging.

DanRu Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with 7 five-star reviews praising specific technicians (Mark, Jack, Gio, Chad, Josh, Mike Garcia) and 8 one-star reviews alleging aggressive upselling, bait-and-switch pricing tactics, missed appointments, and incomplete work. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple reports of no-shows, late arrivals, and poor communication despite some positive individual interactions. Pricing is the most critical weakness, with at least 5 reviews explicitly documenting dramatic price escalations from advertised specials ($66) to thousands of dollars, suggesting either systematic overcharging or severe incompetence in initial diagnostics. Project completion is compromised by abandoned work, failed solutions requiring re-hiring competitors, and unresolved refund issues. Technical skill appears variable—some technicians demonstrate solid knowledge, but others appear to misdiagnose problems or recommend unnecessary work.

• SEVERE PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2019-2020) document identical bait-and-switch behavior: $66 advertised special escalates to $285-$8,000+ through aggressive upselling and false urgency claims tied to COVID-19. This pattern suggests systemic company practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: The 5-star reviews, while more specific than typical fake reviews, cluster around individual technician names (Mark, Gio, Chad, Josh) with enthusiastic but brief praise. However, they contain enough specific detail (drain types, weather conditions, cleanup) to appear genuine. The 1-star reviews are highly detailed with specific dollar amounts and timeline inconsistencies that suggest authenticity.
• REFUND/ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: At least 2 reviews mention unresolved refunds or delayed reimbursements. One review notes a promised $2,500 reimbursement within 10 business days was never received and calls went unanswered.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: 3 reviews explicitly document missed appointments, late arrivals (1-2 hours), or failure to show up despite confirmed scheduling and multiple reminder calls.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2018-2020 (4+ years old). Only 1 review is from 2020 or later. Current company practices may differ, but historical pattern is concerning.
• ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS NAME: One review mentions the company also operates under the name 'General Drainworks,' which may indicate rebranding to escape negative reputation.

This WW Score of 52.3 should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted as a RED FLAG for potential customers. The score reflects genuine high-mention data across all dimensions, but the extreme polarization (7 five-stars vs. 8 one-stars with no middle ground) and documented pattern of pricing escalation suggest significant operational or ethical issues. The company appears capable of quality work through select technicians but demonstrates systemic problems with pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and customer accountability. Prospective customers should obtain written quotes, verify all pricing in advance, and consider the documented pattern of bait-and-switch tactics before engaging this company.

This contractor shows severe deficiencies across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. Three reviews explicitly cite poor communication, chronic lateness, broken commitments, and excuses. Pricing concerns appear in three reviews, including allegations of unauthorized charges and inflated estimates for unnecessary work. Project completion is consistently problematic: incomplete work, loose fittings causing leaks, and unfinished drywall patching. The sole positive review (2010) praises technical skill with custom fixtures and problem-solving, but this is heavily outweighed by four years of documented failures. The WW Score of 42.3 reflects a contractor with serious operational and ethical issues.

• CRITICAL: Three of four reviews are 1-star with detailed complaints of deception, poor service, and financial misconduct. Only one 5-star review exists, dated 2010 (14 years old).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are from 2010–2014. Only one review from 2018. Limited recent data to assess current performance.
• PRICING RED FLAGS: Multiple allegations of unauthorized charges, inflated estimates, and charging beyond agreed amounts without customer consent.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Documented instances of incomplete work (loose fittings causing leaks), unfinished drywall patching, and customer having to hire competitors to fix their work.
• PROFESSIONALISM COLLAPSE: Chronic lateness (9PM arrival for 3PM appointment), repeated broken promises, poor communication (calls not returned), and excuses cited repeatedly.
• CONTRADICTION: One positive review acknowledges the company has 'a reputation for doing good work' but this is contradicted by the overwhelming negative evidence in other reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews) and age of data, but the consistency and specificity of complaints across three independent 1-star reviews, combined with documented financial and service failures, suggests genuine systemic problems rather than isolated incidents. The WW Score of 42.3 is conservative and reliable as a warning indicator.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 4 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for scoring. While professionalism is mentioned across all reviews with consistent praise for reliability and professional conduct, project completion is not explicitly addressed in any review. Pricing is mentioned in only 2 reviews as fair or good value. The review set is heavily skewed toward 5-star ratings with minimal specificity about actual work performed.

• CRITICAL: Only 4 total reviews — below recommended minimum for reliable scoring
• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise language ('great service', 'professional', 'would recommend')
• No reviews mention specific project details, timelines, or measurable outcomes
• Review dates range from 2018–2021; 3 of 4 reviews are older than 3 years (limited recency)
• Potential fake review pattern: repetitive phrasing ('professional', 'great service', 'would recommend') across multiple reviews with no substantive detail
• Project completion dimension has zero explicit mentions — cannot assess on-time delivery, follow-through, or callbacks
• Long-term customer loyalty mentioned in one review (10 years) but not corroborated by other reviews

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (4 reviews) and lack of explicit mention of project completion. The high concentration of generic 5-star reviews with minimal specificity raises concerns about review authenticity. Any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a statistically meaningful WW Score. Both reviews are recent (2024) and highly positive, mentioning strong communication, professionalism, and project completion. However, pricing is not addressed in either review, and the sample size is too small to establish reliable confidence in any dimension.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for WW Score calculation.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or specificity about pricing, which limits ability to assess value proposition.
• No pricing data available from any review.
• Sample size too small to detect patterns or validate consistency of service quality.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). Collect at least 3 additional reviews before calculating a meaningful overall score.