Find Nearby Plumbers In San Diego, California

Paws Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately well — many reviewers praise punctuality, communication systems (text alerts, technician photos), courteous technicians, and mask/shoe-cover compliance — but this is significantly offset by multiple serious complaints including a plumber appearing intoxicated, rude behavior, non-responsiveness after causing damage, and months of failed follow-through on repairs. Pricing is the weakest dimension: a substantial number of reviewers explicitly describe flat-rate pricing as opaque, inflated, or shocking, with multiple cases where second-opinion plumbers completed the same work for a fraction of the cost; a few reviewers did find pricing fair or competitive, preventing a lower score. Project completion is heavily penalized by several detailed, credible accounts of abandoned or repeatedly failed work — including one salon owner who documented over a dozen return visits with ongoing leaks, and multiple cases where Paws caused new damage and then failed to remediate it — though many simpler jobs were completed successfully and on time. Experience scores similarly mixed: standout technicians like Eric, Robert, Jacob, and Michael Ross received strong praise for skill and problem-solving, but multiple reviews document misdiagnosis, incorrect materials, inability to locate leaks found easily by competitors, and work that failed repeatedly.

• SERIOUS PATTERN — Multiple detailed, independently written 1-star reviews describe Paws causing new damage (leaks, floor stains, cracked fixtures) and then failing to remediate or compensate, suggesting a systemic accountability problem rather than isolated incidents.
• PRICING CONCERN — At least 8 reviews explicitly state that Paws quoted prices 2x–4x higher than competitors for identical work, and several describe being charged for incomplete or incorrect diagnoses. Flat-rate pricing model is a recurring complaint.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RISK — At least 4 reviews describe work that was not completed correctly after multiple return visits (salon leak saga, slab leak reroute causing new leak, tankless water heater misdiagnosis, gas line sizing overcharge). These are high-severity failures.
• RECENCY NOTE — The most severe negative reviews span 2020–2024, indicating these are not isolated historical issues. Negative reviews are present in the most recent 12 months (2024), suggesting problems have not been resolved over time.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE. The positive reviews vary enough in detail and specificity to appear largely genuine. However, a cluster of very brief 5-star reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Leak in the laundry room connection for the washer. Fast fix. Definitely recommend') slightly elevates suspicion. No definitive fake review pattern detected, but brief generic positives may inflate the positive count.
• INTEGRITY FLAG — One review alleges the company was dishonest about ordering replacement fixtures for 7 months (never placed the order). Another alleges the company lied about causing damage to fixtures. These are serious integrity concerns beyond mere incompetence.
• GENDER BIAS ALLEGATION — One reviewer (salon owner) explicitly alleges the company treated her differently as a female business owner, including not protecting her floors and leaving cleanup to her. This is a notable flag regardless of its verifiability.

This WW Score is based on 70 reviews spanning 2019–2024 with HIGH data volume across all dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the wide variance between glowing praise and severe complaints suggests Paws Plumbing's quality is highly technician-dependent and job-complexity-dependent, so the score of 67.4 should be interpreted as an average that masks significant downside risk on complex or high-value projects.

Goettl demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism from individual technicians, with many reviews praising knowledgeable, courteous, and thorough service delivery. However, the company is significantly undermined by severe pricing concerns—numerous customers report being quoted 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work, with allegations of aggressive upselling and fear-based sales tactics. Project completion is hampered by chronic scheduling failures, including no-shows, cancellations, and missed callbacks, creating frustration despite quality workmanship. The acquisition of Pacific Drain and subsequent rebranding appears to have degraded service consistency and customer trust.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: 50+ reviews explicitly cite overcharging, with documented examples of quotes 50-300% higher than competitors for identical services (e.g., $14,000 vs $3,000 for sewer work; $19,000+ vs $8,000-9,000 for HVAC; $2,500 drain cleaning vs $80-115 elsewhere). This is the single largest driver of negative sentiment.
• AGGRESSIVE SALES TACTICS: Multiple reviews describe fear-mongering (false mold claims, fabricated CO dangers, exaggerated system failures) to justify expensive replacements. Several customers obtained second opinions and found recommended work unnecessary.
• CHRONIC NO-SHOWS & SCHEDULING CHAOS: 40+ reviews document repeated appointment cancellations, no-call/no-shows, rescheduling failures, and missed callbacks. Customers report taking time off work multiple times only to be stood up. This pattern is consistent across 2020-2025.
• ACQUISITION IMPACT: Reviews from customers who previously used Pacific Drain (acquired by Goettl) consistently note service degradation post-acquisition. Trust eroded significantly after ownership change.
• WARRANTY & FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple customers report Goettl refusing to honor warranties, failing to register equipment, and providing poor follow-up on promised repairs or callbacks.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: While individual technicians (e.g., Chris Rios, Brian Aung, Mike Ward, James Williams) receive consistent 5-star praise, management, scheduling, and sales operations are frequently criticized as disorganized and predatory.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 80-100 reviews are 5-star with minimal detail or generic praise (e.g., 'Very professional,' blank reviews with 5-star ratings). However, the volume of detailed negative reviews with specific dollar amounts and corroborating second opinions suggests authentic customer frustration rather than fabricated reviews. The 5-star cluster may reflect selection bias (satisfied customers rate quickly) rather than manipulation.

This WW Score of 62.8 is reliable and conservative. While Goettl's technicians demonstrate genuine expertise (HIGH confidence on experience and professionalism), the company is severely compromised by documented pricing abuse, chronic scheduling failures, and aggressive sales practices. The score reflects a company with strong individual performers undermined by systemic operational and ethical failures. Customers should expect quality workmanship but should obtain multiple quotes, verify all recommendations with independent inspectors, and be prepared for significant scheduling friction and potential overcharging.

Tarpy exhibits a significant quality divide. Individual technicians consistently demonstrate strong professionalism, knowledge, and workmanship (75.5 experience score), with many customers praising specific technicians by name. However, systemic operational failures severely undermine overall performance: chronic no-shows and missed appointments, poor communication between office and field teams, unresponsive call centers (especially post-2023 acquisition by ARS), and aggressive upselling tactics dominate recent complaints. Pricing practices are highly controversial, with customers reporting markups of 300-400% on parts and labor rates around $400/hour, creating widespread distrust. Project completion suffers from delayed callbacks, incomplete warranty service, and follow-through failures despite initial promises.

• MAJOR OPERATIONAL DECLINE POST-2023: Company was acquired by American Residential Services/Rescue Rooter in 2023. Reviews from 2023 onward show dramatic deterioration in service quality, communication, and customer satisfaction. Pre-2023 reviews are predominantly 5-star; post-2023 reviews contain numerous 1-star complaints.
• CALL CENTER INTEGRATION FAILURE: Multiple recent reviews (2024-2025) cite outsourced call center issues—wrong company names, routing errors to out-of-state offices, inability to reach local management, no callbacks despite promises. This is a systemic problem affecting scheduling and customer service.
• CHRONIC NO-SHOWS AND RESCHEDULING: At least 15+ reviews document missed appointments, multiple rescheduling attempts, technicians calling in sick without customer notification, and failure to honor scheduled time windows. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING AND PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple customers report technicians spending more time selling annual memberships/upgrades than fixing problems. Pricing complaints include: $6,800 to move a $4,500 condenser; $399 capacitor (Amazon price $15.50); $800 for 15-minute thermostat swap; $400/hour labor rates; $9k+ gas line quotes vs. $2,300 elsewhere. Pattern suggests deliberate overcharging.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Several customers report warranty denials on systems <2 years old, refusal to honor service contracts, technicians failing to complete work, and management refusing callbacks despite escalation requests.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Multiple installation failures documented—faulty units from start, drain lines routed incorrectly, electrical damage during installation, heating mode not working post-install, AC leaking water for 3+ months requiring 8 service calls. Some customers report 75+ visits to fix installation mistakes.
• POTENTIAL FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: One customer alleges technician made false carbon monoxide claims with no evidence; another reports technician claimed oil leaking from motor with no oil to leak; another reports $20k in fraudulent diagnostic charges on 7-year-old system with no actual problems (verified by independent inspection).
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: Approximately 40-50 reviews from 2023-01-09 appear clustered on same date with generic praise, minimal detail, and several blank/minimal text entries (5-star ratings with no text). This clustering is unusual and may indicate fake reviews or bulk posting. However, these are balanced by detailed negative reviews from same period, suggesting mixed authenticity.
• COMPANY OWNERSHIP MISREPRESENTATION: Website still claims 'Family Owned and Operated' despite 2023 acquisition by corporate parent ARS. Multiple customers note this discrepancy and feel misled by relying on old Tarpy reputation.
• RECENCY MATTERS CRITICALLY: Reviews from past 12 months (2024-2025) are predominantly negative (1-star), while older reviews (pre-2023) are predominantly positive (5-star). This temporal shift is dramatic and indicates genuine operational deterioration, not just review bias.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with caution and interpreted as a DECLINING company in crisis. The score masks a critical temporal divide: pre-2023 Tarpy was genuinely high-quality (estimated 80+), but post-acquisition performance has collapsed. Recent customers (2024-2025) report systemic failures in scheduling, communication, pricing transparency, and warranty fulfillment. The HIGH confidence rating reflects substantial data volume, but the score itself is heavily weighted by older positive reviews that no longer reflect current operations. Prospective customers should prioritize recent reviews (past 6 months) and be aware that the company's operational structure has fundamentally changed. The individual technician quality remains decent (75.5), but corporate/office failures make the overall experience unreliable.

Elite Rooter demonstrates significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While individual technicians (Steve, Aaron, Grayson, Brandon, Edgar, Omar, Mark, James, Kailib, Arturo) frequently receive praise for professionalism and technical skill, systemic issues severely undermine the company's overall performance. Pricing is a major weakness, with numerous customers reporting quotes 3-7x higher than competitors for identical work, suggesting either incompetence or predatory practices. Project completion suffers from chronic no-shows, missed appointments, delayed callbacks, and incomplete work requiring customer follow-up. Management responsiveness is critically poor, with many customers unable to reach supervisors or obtain promised documentation. The company shows a troubling pattern of overcharging, misdiagnosis, and abandoning customers post-service.

• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews document quotes 3-7x market rate (e.g., $1,949.94 vs $275 for same work; $2,100 vs $125 for drain clearing; $1,400 vs $475 for hydrojet). This is not isolated—at least 12 reviews cite excessive pricing.
• SYSTEMIC NO-SHOW AND CANCELLATION PROBLEM: At least 8 reviews document missed appointments, failed to show up, or last-minute cancellations despite confirmed bookings. This is a recurring operational failure.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: Multiple customers report inability to reach managers, get callbacks, obtain itemized invoices, or receive promised documentation over weeks/months. This suggests organizational dysfunction.
• QUALITY CONTROL FAILURES: Several reviews describe incomplete work, damage to property (stucco, wood floors, sprinklers, dryer exhaust), improper sealing causing pest infestation, and code violations requiring contractor remediation.
• DANGEROUS INCIDENTS: Two reviews describe serious safety failures—carbon monoxide exposure from indoor generator use and undetected gas leak after work that tenant reported but was dismissed.
• MISDIAGNOSIS AND UNNECESSARY WORK: Multiple reviews (architect customer, pressure regulator quote, sewer main claim) document either incompetent diagnostics or deliberate overselling of unnecessary repairs.
• INSURANCE CLAIM MISREPRESENTATION: At least 2 reviews report company made confident promises about insurance coverage that proved false, leaving customers liable.
• POTENTIAL LICENSING/LEGAL ISSUES: One review documents illegal work without permits in Compton; another mentions state licensing board complaint; multiple references to BBB complaints and lawyer involvement.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 35 reviews are highly positive with minimal specificity (generic praise, no details about pricing or challenges). However, these are balanced by 25+ detailed negative reviews with specific dollar amounts, dates, and names, suggesting authenticity. The positive reviews do name individual technicians consistently (Grayson, Brandon, Edgar, Aaron, Mark, James, Arturo, Kailib, Steven, Omar), which adds credibility. No clear evidence of coordinated fake positive reviews, but the volume of generic 5-star reviews is notable.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (past 12 months) show continued problems with no-shows, pricing, and management responsiveness, indicating issues are ongoing, not historical.

This WW Score of 62.3 should be trusted as a reliable warning indicator. The score is based on 80 reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions. While individual technicians demonstrate genuine skill and professionalism, the company exhibits systemic failures in pricing transparency, appointment reliability, project completion follow-through, and management accountability. The consistent pattern of complaints across multiple years and locations suggests these are not isolated incidents but reflect organizational culture. Customers should obtain multiple independent quotes before engaging this company and should be extremely cautious about any large or complex projects.

Powers Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Older reviews (pre-2021) are predominantly positive, praising specific technicians like Jeff, Eric, Corey, and Doug for punctuality, technical skill, and honest pricing. However, reviews from 2022 onward — particularly 2023–2025 — show a sharp and consistent decline across all dimensions, with numerous customers citing incomplete work, billing fraud, hidden charges, poor communication, and work that had to be redone by other companies. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with repeated complaints about undisclosed travel-time billing, hidden consumable fees, charging for time when no work was performed, and significant markups on parts. Project completion is severely impacted by multiple accounts of jobs left unfinished, leaks made worse, and technicians returning multiple times without resolution. Professionalism scores are dragged down by combative customer service staff, owner unresponsiveness, and technicians arriving unprepared or incompetent, though some individual technicians still receive strong praise.

• SIGNIFICANT TEMPORAL DECLINE: Reviews from 2022–2025 are overwhelmingly negative (1-star), while reviews from 2010–2021 are predominantly positive (5-star). This strongly suggests a change in ownership or management quality around 2021–2022, which is corroborated by multiple reviewers explicitly stating the company was bought out by new owners.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2024-08-12 contain no review text (6 blank reviews), which is a strong indicator of fake or incentivized reviews. Additionally, several 5-star reviews from 2017 reference the same technician 'Jeff' with nearly identical phrasing and structure, suggesting possible coordinated or planted reviews.
• BILLING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe being charged for time when no work was performed, undisclosed travel-time billing, hidden 'consumable' fees, billing for parts not installed, and being billed after already paying in full. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 8 reviews explicitly describe work being left incomplete, leaks made worse, or having to hire a second company to redo Powers' work. This is a critical project completion risk.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE HOSTILITY: Multiple reviews describe the owner and a staff member named Janet as combative, dismissive, and retaliatory when complaints were raised. One reviewer describes the owner calling to defend charges rather than resolve issues. Another describes Janet personally messaging reviewers on Yelp to remove negative reviews.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) are 1-star. Only a small number of recent 5-star reviews contain substantive detail. The positive score contributions are disproportionately driven by older reviews that may no longer reflect current company performance.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 6 reviews with no text content but 5-star ratings were counted in total review volume but excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but consumers should treat the score with caution given the strong evidence of a post-2021 ownership-driven quality decline, a systemic billing misconduct pattern, and suspected fake 5-star reviews inflating the historical average — the current operational quality of this company is likely materially worse than the blended score suggests.

This contractor presents a deeply polarized review profile. A cluster of positive reviews — mostly from 2016–2018 — describe Chad as knowledgeable, responsive, fair-priced, and thorough, with multiple customers praising same-day or emergency availability and honest pricing. However, a significant number of 1-star reviews raise serious and specific concerns: repeated no-shows and broken appointments are documented across multiple independent reviewers, one reviewer won a court judgment against him for property damage, and another alleges fraudulent credit card charge manipulation. The professionalism and project completion scores are heavily penalized by these credible, detailed negative accounts. The most recent reviews (2022) are both 1-star and describe unreliability and unprofessional behavior, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Pricing is mixed — several reviewers praised fair rates while one reviewer cited charges 3–4 times above market rate.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (2022) are both 1-star, describing repeated no-shows and unprofessional behavior. Positive reviews are concentrated in 2016–2018 and may not reflect current service quality.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2022-02-09) states they sued Chad in court and won after he damaged electrical service and refused to pay. This is a significant legal and professional red flag.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2018-02-08) alleges Chad used a payment app to alter a submitted credit card charge after the fact, charging more than agreed and leaving work unfinished. This is a serious and specific claim.
• REPEATED NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 3 independent reviewers (2022-05-19, 2018-01-02, 2017-12-14) explicitly describe Chad failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notification, suggesting a systemic reliability problem.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One reviewer (2017-12-26) cited charges 3–4x above market rate for drain snaking, while other reviewers praised fair pricing. This inconsistency may suggest variable or situational pricing practices.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several 5-star reviews from 2016–2018 use very similar superlative language ('above and beyond', 'highly recommend', 'great job') with limited specifics. While not conclusive, this warrants mild caution. However, enough reviews contain specific job details to suggest most are genuine.
• TEMPER ISSUES: Two separate reviewers (2022-02-09 and 2018-02-08) independently describe Chad losing his temper with customers, lending credibility to both accounts.

This WW Score is based on 23 reviews with high mention counts across all dimensions, giving it statistical reliability, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible allegations of fraud, a documented court loss, a pattern of no-shows, and the fact that the most recent reviews are uniformly negative — suggesting the positive historical record may no longer reflect current performance.