Find Nearby Plumbers In Pomona, California

All three reviews speak positively about Repipe Plumbing Solutions, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and professional conduct — particularly from a technician named Dillon. Project completion is well-supported, with two reviews describing complex jobs (full copper repipe, root-infested drain line) completed on time and with follow-through including a free callback visit. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews as competitive and fair, though the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions. Workmanship quality is noted in two reviews with specific detail about clean pipe routing and quality patch work, suggesting genuine technical competence. The overall picture is positive, but the very small review pool limits reliability significantly.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• All reviews are 5-star, which warrants mild caution, though each review contains specific details and unique language that reduces the likelihood of fake reviews.
• One review (2024-06-03) is within the past 12 months; the other two are from 2023 and carry slightly less recency weight.
• No negative or mixed feedback present — this may reflect genuine quality or simply an incomplete review sample.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered a preliminary signal only — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality.

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.

Royal Plumbing and Rooter presents a deeply divided picture across its reviews. Professionalism is the most contested dimension: while loyal long-term customers praise Pete, Joey, and the crew as honest, dependable, and hardworking, three separate reviewers independently describe the phone receptionist (Cindy or an unnamed woman) as rude, dismissive, and disorganized — a recurring and specific complaint that significantly drags the professionalism score down. Project completion is similarly mixed: most positive reviewers confirm jobs were finished well and promptly, but two negative reviewers describe missed appointments, no-shows, and poor scheduling follow-through, indicating systemic coordination failures. Pricing received limited but mostly positive mentions, with one reviewer explicitly calling charges 'very fair' and one negative reviewer alleging overcharging. Technical experience and workmanship were generally praised even by some dissatisfied customers, suggesting the field workers perform adequately but the office operations undermine the overall customer experience.

• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are dated between 2016 and 2020. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to the most recent review date of 2020-09-22) beyond that date are present. The score reflects potentially outdated business conditions.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN: Three independent reviewers (2016, 2017, 2020) describe the same specific issue — a rude, disorganized female phone operator who fails to communicate appointment times and does not call back. This consistency across multiple years and reviewers is credible and treated as a reliable signal of a systemic problem.
• SPLIT REVIEWER BASE: Reviews appear to come from two distinct groups — long-term property management clients who are highly satisfied, and one-time or new residential customers who had poor experiences. This suggests service quality or prioritization may differ by client type.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Positive reviews contain specific names (Pete, Joey, Cindy, Scott), specific job types (slab leaks, water main, pressure regulator), and specific timeframes. Negative reviews contain specific, consistent complaints. No generic or suspiciously identical phrasing detected.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence in its directional accuracy given 9 reviews with strong specificity and consistent patterns, but should be treated with caution due to the age of all reviews (2016–2020) and the possibility that business operations have changed since then.

Pomona Valley Plumbing shows a mixed but generally functional track record. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by one review describing mud tracked into the home, upselling pressure on a spouse, and failure to bring necessary parts, as well as a late arrival at the end of the promised window — though multiple other reviews explicitly praise polite and professional technicians. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with two reviews explicitly calling out excessive or surprise charges (a $285 Saturday call fee, a $1,200 estimate for minor work, and an inflated $875 quote that included unjustified upselling), partially offset by one review praising outstanding pricing. Project completion is generally positive — most jobs described were finished and explained to the customer — but one review resulted in no work being completed at all due to the plumber lacking necessary parts. Experience scores moderately well, with several reviews noting skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship, though the failure to stock basic parts on the truck raises a competency concern.

• Two reviews (1-star, 2021 and 1-star, 2024) describe pricing practices that suggest potential upselling or inflated charges — this is a meaningful pattern across different years and should be weighted seriously.
• One review (2021-10-11) describes a job that was never completed due to the plumber not having basic parts on the truck — this is a significant project completion failure.
• The 5-star reviews are generally specific enough to appear genuine, but the review dated 2021-01-22 is very generic ('great customer service', 'very pleased') with no specifics — treat with limited weight.
• Review dates span 2021–2024. The most recent review (2024-08-12) is a 1-star complaint about pricing. The oldest reviews are over 3 years old. Recency weighting slightly favors the negative pricing signal.
• Only 7 total reviews — sample size is small and limits overall reliability of the WW Score.

This WW Score is based on only 7 reviews spanning multiple years, which limits statistical reliability; the score should be treated as a directional indicator rather than a definitive assessment, and prospective customers should seek additional recent references before hiring.

Rooter Hero's review corpus reveals a deeply polarized customer base: a substantial cluster of positive reviews praising individual technicians by name for promptness, friendliness, and effective work, contrasted against an overwhelming volume of detailed, credible 1-star reviews documenting systematic upselling, price gouging, no-shows, and in some cases outright fraud. The pricing dimension is the most severely damaged, with dozens of reviewers independently describing the same pattern — a low advertised price ($77 drain cleaning) used as a bait, followed by a supervisor call and escalating quotes for hydro-jetting, pipe replacement, or epoxy lining costing thousands to tens of thousands of dollars, which competing plumbers subsequently resolved for a fraction of the cost. Project completion is critically undermined by a high frequency of no-show appointments, abandoned jobs, incomplete work, and failure to honor callbacks, with multiple reviewers describing waiting entire days without contact. Professionalism scores reflect the split: individual technicians are frequently praised as courteous and friendly, but the company-level behavior — pressure tactics, dispatcher failures, management unresponsiveness, and alleged targeting of elderly and vulnerable customers — severely drags the dimension down. Experience scores similarly reflect a split between genuinely skilled technicians highlighted in positive reviews and a pattern of misdiagnosis, use of undersized equipment, and failure to clear drains that competitors resolved in minutes.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: Multiple reviews dated 2025-06-08 and nearby dates contain zero text with only a 5-star rating (at least 8 blank reviews). These provide no usable data and inflate the star average artificially.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: Three reviews dated 2023-09-19 all praise a technician named 'Danny' with nearly identical structure, posted within hours of each other, with suspiciously generic phrasing. Confidence in these reviews is reduced.
• SYSTEMATIC UPSELLING PATTERN: Dozens of independent reviewers across multiple years and geographic locations describe an identical script — technician attempts minimal work, calls a 'supervisor' on speakerphone, quotes thousands for hydro-jetting or pipe replacement, then reduces price when customer hesitates. This is a documented and repeated business practice, not isolated incidents.
• PREDATORY TARGETING OF ELDERLY: Multiple reviews explicitly describe technicians targeting elderly, widowed, or cognitively vulnerable customers with high-pressure tactics and inflated quotes. One reviewer references a court finding of guilt for preying on seniors.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A very high volume of reviews (30+) describe missed appointments, no callbacks, and wasted days waiting. This is a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe jobs that were not completed, damage caused by technicians (e.g., blocked toilet from vacuum pump valve, leaks created where none existed, wrong pipes installed), and work that failed immediately after completion.
• PERMIT AND LICENSING CONCERNS: At least one reviewer alleges the company lied on a building permit, and another references the company being on CSLB probation. These are serious legal and regulatory flags.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) show a mix of positive and blank/no-text entries. The most detailed and credible negative reviews span 2022–2024, suggesting the problematic patterns are well-established and ongoing.
• RESPONSE PATTERN: The company appears to respond to negative reviews with boilerplate apology language and escalation promises, but multiple reviewers note that promised callbacks from management never materialized.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCTION APPLIED: Due to the volume of suspected fake blank reviews and the Danny review cluster, positive dimension scores have been conservatively weighted downward.

This WW Score of 38.2 is based on a very large review corpus with HIGH statistical confidence and should be treated as a reliable signal of serious, systemic problems with this contractor's pricing practices, scheduling reliability, and project completion — prospective customers are strongly advised to obtain multiple competing quotes before authorizing any work beyond the initial advertised service.

Mike Diamond Plumbing's WW Score is severely dragged down by an overwhelming volume of negative reviews across all four dimensions. Pricing is the single most-cited dimension and is catastrophically poor: the advertised $99 drain special is repeatedly described as a bait-and-switch tactic, with dozens of reviewers documenting charges of $200–$8,000 for jobs quoted at $99, hidden surcharges for floors, lack of cleanouts, and fuel fees, and extreme parts markups. Project completion is also deeply problematic, with widespread reports of no-shows, multi-day delays, warranty non-fulfillment, jobs left incomplete, and work that failed within days of completion. Professionalism scores marginally higher due to a consistent subset of positive reviews praising specific named technicians (Cesar, Jorge, Sean, Brian, Daniel) as polite, punctual, and communicative, but these are heavily offset by reviews describing rude managers, aggressive upselling, technicians who refused to attempt the advertised service, and at least one internal employee review that raises serious concerns about commission-based sales culture. Technical experience is similarly split: a minority of reviewers praise skilled workmanship, while a large majority describe technicians who misdiagnosed problems, refused to use basic tools, or were outperformed by competitors charging a fraction of the price.

• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN: The $99 drain cleaning advertisement is cited in over 40 individual reviews as deceptive. Charges routinely escalated to $198–$8,000 with post-arrival justifications including floor level, lack of cleanout, pipe access method, or time taken. This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• PREDATORY TARGETING OF ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS: Multiple reviews explicitly describe technicians targeting elderly or cognitively impaired customers with inflated quotes ($7,400; $8,000; $15,000; $22,000) for work completed by others for a fraction of the cost. This is a serious ethical and potentially legal concern.
• COMMISSION-BASED SALES CULTURE CONFIRMED: One review from a self-identified former employee and another from a person claiming insider knowledge both confirm technicians are paid on commission and incentivized to upsell, with minimum wage penalties for low sales. This structurally explains the upselling pattern across hundreds of reviews.
• FAKE OR SUSPECT REVIEWS: A significant number of 5-star reviews contain zero text (38 blank 5-star reviews identified). These inflate the star average without providing any verifiable customer experience. Additionally, one review is clearly written by a current employee promoting the company internally. These reviews were excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star count.
• WARRANTY NON-FULFILLMENT: Multiple reviewers describe purchasing 30-day or 90-day warranties that were subsequently dishonored, with the company refusing callbacks, claiming exclusions not disclosed at time of sale, or demanding thousands of dollars for repeat visits covered under warranty.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: Dozens of reviews describe missed appointment windows, same-day cancellations, multi-day delays for urgent plumbing issues, and false claims of 24/7 availability. This is a systemic reliability failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) continue to show the same pricing, upselling, and scheduling complaints as reviews from 2006–2020, indicating no meaningful improvement over nearly two decades. Recent positive reviews are almost exclusively for named technicians (Cesar, Jorge, Sean) and do not reflect company-wide improvement.
• SCORE RELIABILITY: Despite HIGH confidence due to large mention counts, the extreme polarization of reviews (a small cluster of genuine positive experiences with specific technicians vs. a large majority of deeply negative experiences) means the WW Score reflects the dominant customer experience accurately. The positive reviews are real but represent a minority outcome.

This WW Score is highly reliable and based on 163 reviews with substantive content across all four dimensions, with mention counts well above the threshold for HIGH confidence on every dimension; the score accurately reflects a contractor with a deeply problematic business model despite occasional positive individual technician experiences.