Find Nearby Plumbers In Pomona, California

The reviews for Cesar paint a deeply mixed and largely negative picture, particularly when weighted toward recency. The three most recent reviews (2020–2023) are all 1–2 star ratings describing serious failures: no-shows, canceled appointments without follow-up, leaking plumbing installations, and poor-quality work across multiple projects. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a documented no-show with no communication and repeated deadline failures. Project completion is severely impacted by multiple accounts of defective plumbing work that required correction by others, including a pipe that leaked underground for a year undetected. The positive reviews — which do mention fair pricing, reliability, and good workmanship — are all from 2008 to 2011, making them over a decade old and of very limited relevance to current performance.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All positive reviews (4- and 5-star) are from 2008–2011, meaning they are 12–15 years old. All reviews from 2020 onward are 1–2 stars. This is a significant red flag indicating possible decline in service quality over time.
• PATTERN WARNING: The three most recent reviews describe fundamentally different behavior than the older positive reviews — suggesting the contractor's reliability and workmanship may have materially deteriorated.
• NO-SHOW DOCUMENTED: One reviewer explicitly states Cesar canceled 30 minutes before an appointment and then no-showed the rescheduled appointment with no response to calls or texts.
• REPEATED FAILURE: One reviewer used Cesar three times and was unhappy with all three jobs, including a pipe installation that leaked underground for a year.
• QUALITY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers cite defective plumbing installations (bathtub, kitchen sink, showers, garden pipe) requiring rework — suggesting a systemic workmanship issue in recent years.
• OVERPRICING FLAGGED: Two separate reviewers independently describe Cesar as overpriced or 'way expensive,' which conflicts with older reviews praising reasonable pricing.

This WW Score has LOW reliability for predicting current contractor performance because all positive data is over 12 years old, while all recent reviews (2020–2023) are consistently negative across every dimension — the score should be interpreted as a strong caution against hiring this contractor based on current evidence.

This contractor's review profile is severely damaged by two highly detailed negative reviews from 2021, one of which reports a license revocation, a state contractor board judgment, and fines — representing an extraordinary red flag. The 2021 negative review documents multiple workmanship failures including cutting a structural beam, breaking a drain pipe, leaving a valve closed, failing to flush lines, and causing property damage. The positive reviews (2014–2018) predate the negative ones by several years and are largely generic with minimal detail, making them low-value signals. The recency weighting heavily penalizes this contractor, as the most recent reviews are the most damaging. Pricing receives a modest score only because a few older reviews mention affordability, but this cannot offset the serious completion and experience failures documented in recent reviews.

• LICENSE REVOCATION REPORTED: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor's license was revoked and that the state contractors board took action, resulting in a fine and a legal judgment against the owner. This is an extreme red flag and may render this contractor legally ineligible to operate.
• RECENCY BIAS — NEGATIVE: The two most recent reviews (2021) are both highly negative and detailed. All positive reviews are from 2014–2018, making them significantly outdated and less reliable indicators of current performance.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEWS: The positive reviews from 2014–2018 are brief, lack specific detail, and follow a generic praise pattern ('honest, reliable, excellent'). One 5-star review contains only two sentences with no job specifics. These may not reflect genuine detailed experiences.
• ABANDONED RECTIFICATION: The 2021 reviewer explicitly states the owner made no attempt to rectify the work, which compounds the project completion failure.
• STRUCTURAL DAMAGE REPORTED: Cutting a load-bearing 2x4 beam and putting a hole in a wall are serious workmanship failures that go beyond cosmetic issues and may represent safety hazards.

This WW Score has LOW overall reliability due to a small review pool, a wide date range spanning seven years, credible reports of license revocation and legal action, and a stark split between detailed recent negative reviews and vague older positive ones — prospective customers should treat this score as a serious warning signal rather than a balanced assessment.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are extremely positive (5-star ratings) with consistent praise for professionalism, responsiveness, quality workmanship, and fair pricing. However, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. All dimensions show LIMITED confidence due to minimal mention counts (1–2 each). The reviews lack specific details about timelines, project complexity, or potential weaknesses that would strengthen confidence.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation (minimum 3 required).
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Review 2 exhibits generic, template-like language ('outstanding', 'highly skilled', 'top-notch', 'exceeded expectations') with no specific project details, dates, or measurable outcomes. This pattern is consistent with potentially fabricated or incentivized reviews.
• Both reviews are recent (October 2024) and both are perfect 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — lack of variance is atypical.
• Review 2 is notably longer and more promotional in tone compared to typical customer feedback.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and suspected authenticity concerns with at least one review. Do not rely on this data for contractor evaluation — collect at least 5–10 additional independent reviews before making a decision.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions professionalism (clean, efficient work), project completion (job done on time), and experience (quality workmanship), but provides no information about pricing. All dimension scores are based on extremely limited evidence.

• Only 1 review available — far below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• Review contains minor grammatical issues ('Repair the drywall for our home is very clean') suggesting possible non-native English or rushed submission
• No pricing information provided in review
• Review is from August 2023 (approximately 1.5+ years old) — recency is limited

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 review was provided. Do not rely on any scoring from this analysis.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. This single review documents severe failures in professionalism (blocking customer, deleting profile, unresponsive to callbacks) and project completion (incomplete work, safety hazard with scalding water). However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as it does not provide sufficient statistical basis for contractor evaluation.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is recent (2024-11-04) and highly detailed with specific complaints
• No data on pricing fairness, experience/skill level, or communication quality beyond non-responsiveness
• Severe allegations including blocking customer and profile deletion suggest potential fraud or abandonment

This assessment cannot be trusted as a comprehensive evaluation due to insufficient review volume (n=1). A minimum of 3 reviews is required for reliable WW Score calculation.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While this single review is highly positive across all dimensions (punctuality, fair pricing, quick problem-solving, and technical skill), a single data point cannot support a reliable WW Score. All dimension scores are marked LIMITED confidence due to the single-mention threshold.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Single positive review with generic praise language ('honest plumber', 'superb work') and comparative claims ('fraction of the cost') without specific pricing details
• No negative feedback or specifics about pricing structure provided
• Recommend collecting minimum 3-5 reviews before generating a trustworthy WW Score

This analysis cannot produce a valid WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1). Do not rely on any scoring output; additional reviews are required.