Find Nearby Plumbers In Visalia, California

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across a small and largely outdated review set. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: two reviews explicitly cite poor communication, broken appointments, and dismissive staff behavior (including a customer reporting being laughed at), while three older reviews praise friendliness and responsiveness. Pricing is a significant concern — one reviewer paid $1,900 for a water heater that failed within 18 months and compared it unfavorably to a $600 retail unit, dragging the pricing score down considerably despite one positive mention of reasonable after-hours rates. Project completion scores moderately, with several reviews describing jobs finished quickly and thoroughly, but the failed water heater and the unresolved estimate appointment represent meaningful failures. Experience scores modestly positive based on a few reviews describing competent technical work, but the water heater failure undermines confidence in long-term workmanship quality.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 of 7 reviews is from the past 12 months (2023). Four of the seven reviews are from 2014–2018, making them 6–10 years old. The business may have changed significantly since then — in either direction.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: The 2015 review ('excellent business... call MENDES plumbing for all ur plumbing needs') reads as suspiciously promotional with no specific detail. The 2014 review is also very brief and generic. These may be inflating positive scores.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT FLAG: The 2023 review describes a $1,900 water heater that failed in 18 months, with the company refusing labor warranty coverage and a staff member laughing at the customer. This is a significant red flag for both pricing integrity and customer service.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 7 reviews total. This is insufficient to draw strong conclusions about consistent business behavior. All dimension scores should be treated with caution.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review sample (7 reviews), the heavy skew toward reviews that are 5–10 years old, at least one suspected promotional review, and a serious unresolved complaint from the most recent review on record.

Todd Companies exhibits severe and consistent professionalism failures across multiple dimensions. Four of six reviews document serious issues: reckless vehicle operation, unresponsiveness to damage claims, failure to follow up on service requests, and abandonment of work mid-project. Two older positive reviews (2018–2019) praise quick response and technical knowledge, but these are heavily outweighed by recent negative experiences (2023–2024) showing systemic communication and accountability problems. The company demonstrates poor follow-through on callbacks and claims handling, directly contradicting their stated service standards.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are from 2018–2019 (5–6 years old); four negative reviews span 2016–2024 with two from 2023–2024, suggesting deterioration in service quality over time.
• PATTERN ALERT: Multiple reviews document non-responsiveness and failure to return calls/messages—this is a recurring systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• SAFETY CONCERN: Review from 2024-10-11 documents reckless vehicle operation by company employee on public highway, raising liability and safety questions.
• DAMAGE AVOIDANCE: Review from 2023-08-25 documents company refusing to take responsibility for damage caused by their vehicle, despite clear liability.
• INCOMPLETE SERVICE: Review from 2017-11-16 documents work abandoned mid-project with customer unable to use bathroom for days and no follow-up despite multiple contact attempts.

This WW Score of 42.3 is reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning indicator. The score is based on consistent, specific, and corroborated evidence of professionalism failures across recent reviews, with only two older positive reviews insufficient to offset documented systemic issues with communication, accountability, and follow-through.

This contractor shows significant quality and reliability concerns based on available reviews. While one 2020 review praised technical problem-solving and completion, three more recent reviews (2021-2022) document serious issues: rude/unavailable management, poor communication, damaged customer property, aggressive driving behavior, and questionable workmanship (gas line routed over septic tank). Pricing complaints appear in multiple reviews. The single positive review is substantially outweighed by documented failures in professionalism, pricing transparency, and technical execution. The age of the positive review (2020) and recency of negative feedback (2021-2022) suggest declining service quality.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2021-2022; single positive review is from 2020. Pattern suggests deteriorating service quality over time.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews cite unavailable owner and rude receptionist, indicating systemic communication/customer service issues.
• TECHNICAL COMPETENCE QUESTIONED: Gas line routed over septic tank (safety/code violation), damaged customer-supplied parts, language barrier affecting job understanding.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Documented aggressive driving behavior by employee in company vehicle; rude staff interactions.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews limits statistical reliability, though consistency of negative themes is concerning.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), but the consistency of serious complaints across multiple dimensions and the recency of negative feedback suggest genuine service quality problems that warrant investigation before hiring.

These reviews are for Hawk Air, an HVAC/air conditioning service company, not a plumber or general contractor. The WW Score engine is designed to evaluate plumbers and contractors. Additionally, all five reviews are suspiciously identical in structure (all 5-star ratings with generic praise, no specific technical details, repetitive language patterns like 'professional,' 'friendly,' 'quick'), suggesting potential fake review patterns. No usable data can be reliably extracted for scoring purposes.

• CRITICAL: Reviews are for an HVAC company (Hawk Air), not a plumber or contractor. WW Score is not applicable to this business type.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings with nearly identical sentiment structure and generic praise language.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Repetitive phrasing ('professional,' 'friendly,' 'quick'), lack of specific technical details, no negative or balanced feedback, suspiciously uniform positive tone across all reviews.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Reviews span 2021-2024 with significant gaps; oldest review is from 2021 (3+ years old).
• NO SUBSTANTIVE DATA: Reviews lack specific details about pricing transparency, project timelines, workmanship quality, or completion issues that would allow reliable dimension scoring.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to business type mismatch (HVAC vs. plumbing/contracting), suspected fake review patterns, and insufficient substantive data for any dimension scoring.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 4 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews needed for a reliable WW Score calculation. While the reviews present are uniformly positive (all 5-star ratings from 2016-2020), the extremely small sample size, combined with the age of most reviews (3 of 4 are from 2016), prevents confident generalization about current performance. The reviews do consistently praise professionalism, expertise, and project completion, but the limited volume and recency concerns preclude a trustworthy overall score.

• CRITICAL: Only 4 total reviews — sample size is too small for reliable scoring (minimum 5+ reviews recommended)
• RECENCY CONCERN: 3 of 4 reviews are from 2016 (8+ years old); only 1 review from past 12 months. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or balanced feedback. No complaints, concerns, or constructive criticism mentioned in any review. This uniformity is atypical and raises credibility questions
• GENERIC PRAISE: While reviews mention specific details (crawlspace inspection, hot water pump, report speed), the overall tone is suspiciously glowing with no nuance or reservation

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (4 reviews) and severe recency bias (75% of reviews older than 8 years). Do not rely on this data for contractor evaluation decisions.

With only 3 reviews, this dataset is too small to produce a reliable WW Score. The reviews present a stark contradiction: two highly positive reviews (2018) praise the owner Greg Bardonnex for responsiveness, professionalism, technical skill, and fair pricing on an emergency service. However, one negative review (2017) alleges non-completion of work and failure to return communications. The recency gap (oldest review is 2017–2018) and extreme polarity suggest caution. The positive reviews contain specific details and context, while the negative review lacks specifics about the job nature or timeline.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews total — insufficient for reliable scoring. Minimum 5 reviews recommended.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are 5–7 years old (2017–2018). No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• EXTREME POLARITY: Two 5-star reviews vs. one 1-star review with no middle ground. This suggests either significant service variability or potential data quality issues.
• SPECIFICITY IMBALANCE: Positive reviews contain detailed narratives with names, phone numbers, and specific scenarios. Negative review is vague about job scope and timeline, reducing its diagnostic value.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: First review uses generic praise ('best and most reasonable'), repetitive exclamation marks, and lacks specific detail. However, second review is highly detailed and credible, so pattern is not conclusive.

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. The sample size is far too small, all data is 5+ years old, and the extreme polarity suggests either significant service inconsistency or incomplete information. Seek additional recent reviews before engaging this contractor.