Find Nearby Plumbers In Woodland, California

Across four reviews, this contractor demonstrates generally solid professionalism, with mentions of responsiveness, friendliness, and efficient short-notice service. Project completion is consistently positive, with work described as done correctly, properly installed, and creatively problem-solved in a challenging situation. However, pricing is a notable concern — one reviewer explicitly flagged a $300 price increase applied without prior notice, which is a transparency failure that meaningfully drags down the pricing dimension. Experience scores moderately well, with one detailed account of skilled on-the-spot engineering around an unexpected obstacle. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool and the pricing complaint.

• Very small review pool (4 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• One review explicitly reports a $300 price increase applied without customer notification, indicating a potential lack of pricing transparency.
• Two of the four reviews are older than 12 months (2022), and only one review is from the past 12 months (2024), limiting recency confidence.
• Two reviews are very brief and generic ('Short notice response and efficient.' and 'Jobs were done correctly and professional.') with no specific detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary value, though no clear fake review pattern is detected.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with limited detail in most dimensions and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary assessment until a larger and more recent review sample is available.

My Dad's Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile. Older reviews (2018–2020) are overwhelmingly positive, praising professionalism, honesty, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship — particularly from named technicians like Clyde, Joe, Andre, and JB. However, reviews from 2021 onward, and especially 2022–2024, reveal a significant and consistent pattern of serious complaints: repeated no-shows and last-minute cancellations without notice, aggressive upselling and price gouging on top of pre-paid Lowe's/Home Depot installation fees (with extra charges ranging from $300 to $2,800), poor workmanship including crooked toilet installs and post-installation leaks, and confrontational or rude responses from management when customers complained. Pricing scores are heavily penalized by multiple credible accounts of bait-and-switch pricing and cash-only discount offers to avoid taxes. Project completion scores are dragged down by numerous accounts of abandoned jobs, missed appointments, and work left incomplete or defective. The company appears to have undergone a significant decline in service quality and ethics over time, particularly in its Lowe's/Angi/Handy subcontracted work.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The review profile shows a clear and dramatic quality decline over time. Reviews from 2018–2020 are almost uniformly 5-star with specific, credible detail. Reviews from 2022–2024 are predominantly 1-star with serious, specific allegations. Scores are weighted to reflect the full dataset but the recent trend is alarming.
• SUSPECTED FAKE OR COORDINATED REVIEWS: A cluster of 5-star reviews posted on 2019-06-26 within a very short time window (09:55, 10:01, 10:03, 10:19) with generic praise and no job-specific detail is suspicious and may represent solicited or coordinated reviews. One reviewer from that same date cluster also left a 1-star review alleging the owner threatened and harassed them via Yelp messages after a negative review.
• OWNER RETALIATION PATTERN: Multiple reviewers (2019-06-26, 2021-05-06, 2022-05-17) explicitly allege that the owner Joe threatened them with legal action, sent harassing messages, or attempted to coerce removal of negative reviews. This is a significant ethical red flag.
• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: At least 6 independent reviews (2024-02-05, 2024-04-30, 2024-05-03, 2024-10-30, 2022-12-09, 2023-05-20) describe a consistent scheme of discovering 'unexpected' problems after the old toilet/fixture is removed, then demanding large cash payments ($750–$2,800) with the customer captive and unable to refuse without leaving a hole in their floor. This appears to be a systematic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews dated 2022-12-09 and 2022-12-10 appear to be from the same customer about the same incident (Christian, oil on driveway, extra $300 charge). Only counted once for scoring purposes.
• NO-SHOW AND CANCELLATION PATTERN: At least 7 reviews (2024-08-13, 2024-07-11, 2024-04-11, 2023-01-12, 2023-01-13, 2022-12-02, 2022-10-03) describe appointments being cancelled same-day or the company simply not showing up, with no proactive communication. This is a systemic reliability failure.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite post-installation leaks, crooked toilet installations, damaged property (scratched floors, oil stains on driveway), and technicians leaving job sites dirty or incomplete, indicating inconsistent technical quality across different technicians.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume (125 reviews), but the score itself should be interpreted with caution: the company's performance appears to have materially deteriorated since 2021, the Lowe's/Angi subcontract channel in particular shows a pattern of predatory pricing and unreliability, and suspected review manipulation in 2019 inflates the historical positive baseline — prospective customers, especially those assigned this company through a big-box retailer, should treat this contractor as HIGH RISK based on recent evidence.

AP Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praise specific technicians (particularly Nathan in recent years and Tony the owner in earlier reviews) for technical competence, creative problem-solving in older homes, and honest diagnostics — such as replacing a valve instead of an unnecessary water heater. Pricing is generally viewed as competitive or reasonable, with one detailed review confirming AP came in cheaper than named competitors. However, professionalism and project completion scores are significantly dragged down by a cluster of serious complaints: a no-show appointment, a plumber arriving 4 hours early unannounced without the right materials, weeks-long disappearances mid-job, rude behavior from both Nathan and the owner Tony toward customers asking basic billing questions, and at least one instance of the owner swearing at a customer and abandoning a job. Communication failures — unreturned calls, no billing breakdowns, and scheduling chaos — appear as a recurring theme across multiple negative reviews spanning several years.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months. Only 2 reviews are from 2023 and 2021 respectively within the past 2-3 years; most reviews date from 2012–2021, with the most recent being July 2023. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect current service quality.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT FLAG: Multiple independent reviews (2013, 2015, 2019) describe rude or hostile behavior from both the owner (Tony) and a manager/plumber (Nathan), including swearing at customers, refusing to answer billing questions, and abandoning a job mid-day. This is a significant and recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT FLAG: One review explicitly describes the owner packing up and leaving on the day of the job after the customer asked basic questions about cost. Another describes weeks-long disappearances mid-service with no communication.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY FLAG: Multiple reviews cite lack of itemized billing, refusal to provide cost breakdowns upfront, and pressure to skip estimates in favor of booking directly — raising concerns about pricing transparency practices.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY FLAG: At least two reviews describe significant scheduling failures — a complete no-show on a confirmed appointment, and a plumber arriving 4 hours early without notice.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary substantially in length, detail, tone, and rating. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No signs of coordinated fake positive reviews identified.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews spanning approximately 11 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in terms of mention volume, but the score's reliability is moderated by the age of most reviews and a clear pattern of serious service failures that appear across multiple independent reviewers over an extended period.

James/JDM exhibits highly inconsistent performance across all dimensions. While some customers praise punctuality, friendliness, and reasonable pricing (5 five-star reviews), a substantial majority report serious failures in project completion, follow-through, and technical competence. Critical issues include abandoned jobs, incomplete repairs requiring costly rework, poor workmanship (failed solder joints, improper installations), unresponsiveness to callbacks, and lack of accountability. The contractor frequently leaves jobs unfinished, fails to test work before departure, and does not follow up on promised corrections. Professionalism is undermined by no-shows, poor communication, and disappearing mid-project. While some positive reviews suggest capability on simpler tasks, the pattern of incomplete work and customer dissatisfaction is substantial and concerning.

• CRITICAL: 13 of 30 reviews (43%) are 1-star ratings citing incomplete work, abandonment, or poor quality—this is a severe red flag indicating systemic issues, not isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews report identical failure patterns: contractor leaves without completing work, fails to respond to follow-up requests, and leaves customers to hire licensed professionals for costly rework.
• Project completion dimension shows the most severe problems: jobs requiring 5+ return trips, work left unfinished, promised callbacks never made, and customers left without essential services (water, functional plumbing).
• Technical competence concerns: multiple reviews cite lack of knowledge (6-hour light switch, unable to diagnose electrical issues, improper plumbing techniques without teflon tape or leak testing, poor concrete work).
• Pricing transparency issues: customers report being charged more than quoted ($945 vs $600 agreement, $50 'parts' charges for minimal materials), though some reviews praise fair pricing—inconsistency suggests selective honesty.
• All reviews are from 2021-2022 (2+ years old); no recent reviews available to assess whether issues have been corrected.
• One review (2022-01-14) contains garbled text and appears corrupted, reducing reliability of that positive assessment.

This WW Score of 52.3 should be treated with caution but is directionally accurate: the contractor shows unreliable performance with significant risk of incomplete work, poor follow-through, and customer dissatisfaction. The HIGH confidence in professionalism and project completion scores reflects the volume of explicit mentions, but the overwhelming pattern of negative outcomes (43% one-star reviews) indicates serious systemic problems. Customers seeking reliable, complete work should seek alternatives. The lack of recent reviews (all 2+ years old) means current performance is unknown.

A&P Heating and Air has an overwhelmingly negative review record across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by a large volume of reviews describing no-shows, missed appointment windows, unresponsive office staff, rude personnel, and failure to follow through on commitments — with a receptionist named Patricia specifically cited multiple times for repeated failures and dishonesty. Pricing is one of the most alarming dimensions, with numerous independent reviewers describing wildly inflated quotes that were debunked by second-opinion contractors, including fabricated repair needs, bait-and-switch estimates, and grossly excessive labor charges. Project completion is critically low, with multiple reviews describing abandoned permits, failed city inspections, unfinished contracted work, repeat service calls for the same unresolved issues, and in one case a system that went two years without passing inspection. Experience scores marginally higher only because a handful of positive reviews describe technically competent individual technicians, but these are heavily outweighed by accounts of misdiagnosis, overcharged parts, improperly installed systems, and freon mishandling.

• FRAUD PATTERN — Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe a consistent pattern of fabricated diagnoses: technicians citing thousands of dollars in needed repairs that second-opinion contractors found to be entirely unnecessary or fixable for under $300. This pattern is too consistent and specific to be coincidental and suggests a systemic upselling or fraud practice.
• SPECIFIC TECHNICIAN CONCERN — Lance is named positively in some reviews but is also named specifically in multiple serious fraud-related complaints, including a fabricated oil leak diagnosis disproven by a machine shop and a $5,800 replacement recommendation that turned out to be a $220 thermostat fix.
• OFFICE STAFF PATTERN — A staff member named Patricia is cited by name across multiple independent reviews for repeated failures to follow up, lying to customers and the home warranty company, and laughing at a frustrated customer. This is a systemic customer service failure, not an isolated incident.
• PERMIT AND INSPECTION FAILURES — At least two separate reviewers describe A&P failing to schedule mandatory city inspections after installation, resulting in expired permits and city violations. One reviewer required a CSLB complaint to get resolution two years after installation.
• RECENCY NOTE — Reviews span from 2011 to 2022. The most recent reviews (2020–2022) continue to reflect serious problems including freon mishandling and fraudulent diagnosis, suggesting issues have not been resolved over time. Positive reviews are more concentrated in the 2012–2019 range.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS — The positive reviews are generally more specific and detailed, reducing suspicion of fabrication. However, the contrast between the highly detailed negative reviews and the brief positive ones warrants note. No definitive fake review pattern detected, but the volume and specificity of negative reviews lends them high credibility.

This WW Score of 38.2 is based on 43 reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's performance — the score may in fact be generous given the severity and consistency of fraud-related complaints documented across multiple independent reviewers spanning nearly a decade.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed, both from 2017 (6+ years old). Review 1 praises professionalism and workmanship but lacks specifics. Review 2 alleges sloppiness, rudeness, and incomplete work but provides no detail. Contradictory signals and minimal mention counts across dimensions prevent reliable WW Score calculation. Recency is a critical concern; no recent reviews available.

• Only 2 reviews total — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are from 2017 — over 6 years old; no recent performance data available
• Extreme polarity (5-star vs 1-star) with minimal detail in both reviews raises questions about representativeness
• Review 2 makes serious allegations (sloppy, rude, unfinished work) but provides no specifics or context
• Insufficient data to assess pricing dimension at all

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum 3 required) and complete lack of recent data (all reviews from 2017). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.