Find Nearby Plumbers In Concord, California

Same Day Service demonstrates significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While professionalism and technical experience receive moderate scores (68 and 72 respectively), with many reviews praising courteous technicians and skilled diagnostics, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing concerns. Pricing scores critically low at 28/100, driven by 58 explicit mentions of overcharging, inflated estimates (often 3-5x market rates), and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion is middling (65/100), with multiple reports of incomplete repairs, missed diagnoses, and failed callbacks. The company shows capability in individual technician performance but systematic failures in pricing transparency and follow-through undermine overall trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL: Extreme pricing disparity — 58 reviews explicitly cite overcharging, with documented cases of quotes 3-10x higher than competitors for identical work (e.g., $4,682 vs $75 water heater pilot light; $6,700 vs $2,000 main line replacement; $1,250 vs $250 toilet replacement)
• Pattern of aggressive upselling and pressure tactics — multiple reviews describe technicians recommending expensive replacements when simple repairs sufficed, and using scare tactics (carbon monoxide warnings, structural damage claims) to justify inflated quotes
• Inconsistent service quality — stark contrast between highly positive reviews (often 5-star, praising specific technicians like Corky, Roger, Jimmy) and highly negative reviews citing same company, suggesting quality depends heavily on individual technician assignment
• Documented warranty and callback failures — multiple reviews report refused callbacks on warranty work, demands for re-inspection fees on incomplete repairs, and lack of follow-through on promised services
• Potential predatory targeting — several reviews explicitly mention targeting elderly/vulnerable customers (92-year-old widow, grandmother's account), with accusations of taking advantage of those unfamiliar with plumbing costs
• Responsiveness issues — multiple reports of missed same-day service despite company name, delayed callbacks, and poor communication (wrong address repeated twice, scheduling failures)
• No evidence of fake reviews — reviews are detailed, specific, and internally consistent; negative reviews provide concrete examples (invoices, competitor quotes, specific dollar amounts); positive reviews also contain specifics and name individual technicians

This WW Score of 52.3 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 35+ mentions each) and reflects a company with serious systemic issues in pricing ethics and transparency that substantially outweigh competent individual technician performance; the score should be trusted as an accurate warning that while technical capability exists, customers face significant financial risk and should obtain multiple independent quotes before engaging this company.

This contractor's review pool is deeply polarized: a cluster of recent (2024) positive reviews praises responsiveness, professionalism, and quality workmanship, while a substantial body of older reviews (2012–2018) documents serious concerns including alleged scam pricing, bait-and-switch tactics, no-shows, incomplete work, and rude owner behavior. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out inflated quotes ($265 to clear a sink, $400 for a disposal install, $500 for a ball valve), hidden fees, and a $45 show-up charge that drew strong negative reactions. Project completion is mixed: several reviewers praised same-day or next-day resolution, but others reported abandoned jobs, return visits needed to fix errors, and technicians arriving without tools. Professionalism scores reflect a split between courteous, timely technicians praised by name in recent reviews and documented incidents of attitude problems, no-call no-shows, and an owner who reportedly hung up on a customer. The score is dragged down significantly by the volume and severity of negative reviews, many of which contain specific, credible detail.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The same 1-star review (dated 2014-03-27) appears three times with nearly identical timestamps (15:54, 15:55, 15:56). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation — either the reviewer submitted multiple times or the data source contains duplicates. Only one instance was counted for scoring.
• RECENCY BIAS CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are concentrated in 2024, while the majority of negative reviews are from 2012–2018. This may reflect genuine improvement over time, but it could also reflect selective review solicitation. The 2024 reviews are given more weight per scoring rules, but the historical negatives are numerous and specific enough to materially affect all dimensions.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION (MILD): Several older 5-star reviews (2013) contain very similar phrasing patterns — 'within an hour,' 'friendly and knowledgeable,' 'will not need a plumber soon but will call again' — and were posted within days of each other with no reviewer names or specific job details. These may be seeded reviews and were treated with reduced confidence.
• SCAM ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2014, 2015, 2016, 2018) explicitly used the word 'scam' and described consistent patterns: refusal to quote over phone, $45 show-up fee, then dramatically inflated on-site quotes. This pattern is too consistent across unrelated reviewers to dismiss.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: At least two reviews describe jobs left unfinished — one where the technician had to return to fix electrical after a water heater install, and one where a hose bib was left unreplaced after a $500 job. One review also describes damage caused by a technician (boiler rod cap not replaced, causing months of water leakage and mold).
• OWNER CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One detailed review describes the owner (Todd) interrupting a customer, making dismissive statements ('I'm the owner, I can do whatever I want'), and hanging up mid-conversation. This is a significant professionalism flag at the leadership level.
• SERVICE AREA MISREPRESENTATION: Two reviews note that the company's listed location did not match its actual service area, suggesting misleading geographic listings.

This WW Score is based on 49 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the strong temporal split between recent positive reviews and a well-documented history of serious complaints, duplicate review submissions, and credible scam allegations from multiple independent sources.

Figueroa Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with severe professionalism and pricing concerns offsetting some positive technical capability. Multiple reviews document unprofessional conduct including shutting off water without payment, showing up without appointments, and leaving work sites in poor condition. Pricing complaints are consistent and serious—customers report being charged 70% more than quoted, paying $1,200 for $400 work, and excessive service call fees. However, when work is completed, technical quality is generally praised. The company demonstrates responsiveness and problem-solving ability in positive reviews, but these strengths are heavily undermined by trust and communication failures.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews dated 2017-10-17 at 12:16:09 and 12:15:28 are identical word-for-word, suggesting possible data error or review manipulation.
• SEVERE PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2019, 2018, 2016) document significant overcharging, hidden charges, and bait-and-switch pricing tactics. This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAGS: Documented instances of shutting off customer water without consent (2018), showing up without appointments (2017), leaving tools in toilets (2017), and unprofessional estimate practices (2018).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2016-2019 (4+ years old). Only one recent review from 2019 is available, which is also highly negative. Cannot assess if practices have improved.
• POTENTIAL FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: The 5-star reviews from 2016-2017 use generic praise language ('beautiful job,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews. However, the commercial restaurant review (2016) provides specific technical details (pressure testing, gas leak detection) suggesting authenticity.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Same company name produces both 5-star and 1-star reviews for similar services, indicating either inconsistent execution or different crew quality.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 13 reviews, the extreme polarization (8 reviews rating 1-2 stars vs. 5 reviews rating 5 stars), documented pattern of pricing fraud across multiple years, and professionalism violations create significant trust concerns. The WW Score of 54.8 reflects serious systemic issues, but the age of most reviews (4+ years) and the presence of one potentially duplicated review reduce confidence in current reliability. This company presents substantial financial and service risk.

Hurst Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 38.2, driven by severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is particularly weak (32.0), with 67 reviews documenting rude staff, poor communication, missed appointments, and unprofessional behavior. Project completion is equally problematic (35.0) with 72 reviews describing incomplete work, abandoned jobs, false diagnoses, and failure to follow through on callbacks. Experience scores marginally higher (42.0) but 48 reviews reveal incompetent diagnostics, incorrect repairs, and lack of technical knowledge. Pricing concerns (28.0) appear in 18 reviews citing overcharges, hidden fees, and unnecessary work recommendations. The company demonstrates a consistent pattern of poor service, particularly when working through home warranty companies.

• CRITICAL: Overwhelming majority of reviews (approximately 75+) are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints rather than generic praise. This is NOT indicative of fake reviews but rather genuine, consistent dissatisfaction.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews describe identical problematic behaviors across different technicians (Ramon, Todd, Caesar, etc.) and time periods (2014-2024), suggesting systemic company-wide issues rather than isolated incidents.
• BUSINESS MODEL CONCERN: Numerous reviews suggest the company may deliberately provide poor diagnoses or incomplete work when jobs are warranty-covered, potentially to avoid doing work or to generate additional billable visits.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews span from 2014-2024 with no improvement trend. Recent reviews (2024) show identical complaints as older reviews (2014-2016), indicating persistent, unresolved problems.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ANOMALY: The 12 five-star reviews (12% of total) are notably brief, generic, and lack specific detail compared to negative reviews. However, some positive reviews do provide specific details (e.g., water heater installation, drain clearing), suggesting they may be legitimate but represent a small minority experience.
• HOME WARRANTY PATTERN: While some reviews acknowledge home warranty company limitations, the overwhelming consensus is that Hurst Plumbing actively avoids work, provides false reports, and prioritizes payment over customer service—issues within their control.
• LEGAL THREATS: One review documents the owner (Todd Hurst) threatening legal action against a negative reviewer, which is a serious red flag for business ethics and customer relations.

This WW Score of 38.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 100 detailed reviews spanning 10 years with consistent, specific complaints across all dimensions. The HIGH confidence rating reflects the overwhelming volume of evidence (67+ mentions for professionalism, 72+ for project completion) documenting systemic failures. The pattern of complaints is too consistent and detailed to be coincidental, and the lack of improvement over a decade indicates fundamental business problems rather than temporary issues.

This contractor's reviews are dominated by severe and repeated pricing complaints, with numerous customers reporting charges they describe as grossly excessive, hidden, or predatory — including charging elderly customers hundreds of dollars for simple repairs and providing estimates many times higher than competitors. Professionalism is mixed: individual plumbers are sometimes praised for courtesy and punctuality, but the company-level behavior (defensive owner responses, unresponsive management, a road-rage incident by an employee) drags the score down significantly. Project completion is a serious concern, with multiple reviews describing incomplete diagnoses, improperly performed repairs, abandoned follow-through, and work that failed to resolve the original problem. Technical experience is similarly split — a handful of reviewers praise knowledgeable plumbers, while several others describe misdiagnoses, unnecessary upselling, and repairs that had to be redone by other contractors. The overall picture is of a company with some capable individual technicians undermined by systemic pricing and quality control failures.

• Two reviews (dated 2015-03-06 and 2015-02-24) are near-identical in text and content, suggesting a duplicate submission or copied review. These were counted as one unique data point for scoring purposes.
• One review (dated 2016-06-13) contains only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• A significant portion of positive reviews are vague or generic (e.g., 'Yes job got done.', 'Quick and courteous, nice job!') with little specific detail, which limits their evidentiary weight.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months; only 4 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). Recent reviews continue to reflect the same pricing and completion concerns seen historically.
• Multiple reviews explicitly describe the company targeting elderly or vulnerable customers with inflated estimates, which is a serious ethical flag beyond normal pricing complaints.
• Owner/management responses to negative reviews were described by multiple reviewers as defensive and dismissive, suggesting a systemic customer service issue at the company level.

This WW Score is based on 37 usable reviews spanning approximately 10 years, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to strong mention counts; however, the preponderance of older reviews and the small number of recent data points mean current performance may differ, and the score should be treated as a reliable historical signal rather than a guaranteed reflection of present-day service quality.

AJ Bono Plumbing's review corpus is dominated by deeply negative experiences across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism and project completion drawing the most criticism. Recurring complaints include chronic no-shows, technicians arriving well outside agreed windows with no proactive communication, rude and dismissive office staff (particularly individuals named Martin and Carlita), and outright abandonment of jobs mid-process. Project completion failures are severe and consistent: jobs left unfinished, incorrect parts ordered, misdiagnoses leading customers to hire other plumbers at their own expense, and in multiple cases technicians allegedly falsifying reports to home warranty companies to deny claims or avoid work. On the positive side, a meaningful minority of reviewers — typically those assigned specific technicians such as Diego, Alejandro, Rafael, or Armando — report punctual, professional, and competent service, which prevents scores from bottoming out entirely. Pricing drew limited but mixed feedback: one reviewer praised flexible pricing negotiation while others noted being quoted prices far above competitors or being charged for work that was not completed or was done incorrectly.

• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers independently allege that technicians submitted falsified reports to home warranty companies to deny claims or avoid completing work. This is a serious pattern, not an isolated complaint.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: A high volume of reviews describe jobs left unfinished, wrong parts ordered and never followed up on, and technicians leaving after only minutes without performing any repair.
• CHRONIC COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Across dozens of reviews spanning 2019–2024, customers consistently report no-call no-shows, missed appointment windows by 1–5+ hours, and promises of callbacks that never materialize — indicating a systemic operational problem rather than isolated incidents.
• HOSTILE OFFICE STAFF: Multiple independent reviewers name specific office personnel (Martin, Carlita) as rude, dismissive, and in some cases shouting at or hanging up on customers. This is a repeated, named pattern.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW — HIGH SUSPICION: The 5-star review dated 2023-07-12 is unusually long, names multiple staff members effusively, uses marketing-style language ('sets them apart from the rest'), and includes the dismissive aside that negative reviewers 'must work for the competition.' This review reads as potentially inauthentic and has been weighted accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are present across the full date range (2019–2024), including multiple 1-star reviews in 2024, indicating no sustained improvement over time. Positive reviews are also present across the range but are significantly outnumbered.
• LEGAL FLAG: One reviewer (2021-06-01) states they are organizing a class action lawsuit against the company. Another (2023-10-28) alleges the company was operating without a valid permit in a jurisdiction.
• PAYMENT SECURITY CONCERN: Multiple reviewers note that the company requested credit card details be written on paper receipts on-site, which is flagged as a security and fraud risk.

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews spanning 2019–2024 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically robust and highly reliable as a representation of this contractor's overall performance — the score of 32.1 should be treated with strong confidence as an accurate reflection of a contractor with serious, systemic service deficiencies.