Find Nearby Plumbers In Alhambra, California

CRS Plumbing receives generally positive marks for professionalism, with multiple reviewers praising politeness, punctuality, and neat appearance across several technicians. However, pricing is a notable weak point — two reviews explicitly called out expensive or unfair charges, including one 1-star review where a customer felt billed for time the plumber was not on-site, and another describing the service call fee as steep. Project completion is mixed: most jobs were finished, but one review flagged a lack of communication during the job and a delayed invoice, and another noted a required second trip to resolve the issue. Experience scores moderately well, with several reviewers noting that technicians appeared knowledgeable and skilled, though no review described an exceptionally complex problem being solved with standout expertise.

• Five of the seven reviews are dated between 2010 and 2010-10, making them over 14 years old. Only two reviews (2021) are within the past several years. The score should be treated with caution as it may not reflect current business practices.
• The two most recent reviews (2021) present conflicting signals — one is a strong 5-star with specific praise, and one is a 1-star complaint about billing practices. This recency split adds uncertainty.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail level, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review pool of 7 and the fact that 5 of those reviews are more than 14 years old, making it difficult to assess the contractor's current quality with confidence.

The majority of reviews paint a consistently positive picture of Guillermo/Memo and his team, praising punctuality, honest communication, fair pricing, and quality workmanship across a wide range of plumbing and handyman tasks. However, two negative reviews carry meaningful weight: one documents a clear project completion failure — a clog returning within three days with no warranty or callback honored — which directly undermines the project completion dimension. The second negative review describes workers illegally dumping trash and leaving when confronted, a serious professionalism incident. These two reviews prevent higher scores in professionalism and project completion despite the otherwise strong positive pattern. Pricing and experience scores remain relatively strong given consistent explicit praise across multiple independent reviewers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews dated 2020-02-03 13:47:28 and 2020-02-03 13:10:02 are nearly identical in content, submitted on the same date within minutes of each other. This is a strong indicator of a fake or manipulated review. One of these has been treated as a single data point to avoid inflating scores.
• RECENCY WARNING: All 10 reviews are dated between 2018 and 2020. None are within the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date). The score should be treated with caution as it does not reflect recent performance.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor refused to honor their work after only 3 days, charging again for a recurring clog. This is a direct and specific complaint about lack of follow-through and no service guarantee.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: One reviewer directly witnessed the crew illegally dumping trash into a neighbor's dumpster and leaving without acknowledgment. This is a specific, credible, and serious professionalism incident.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: The near-duplicate reviews from the same date reduce confidence slightly in the overall positive review pool. All positive reviews are 5-star with no mixed feedback, which warrants mild caution, though most do contain specific details that reduce the likelihood of mass fabrication.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the positive dimensions are supported by multiple specific, detailed reviews, but the score is meaningfully tempered by two credible negative incidents, a confirmed near-duplicate review, and the fact that all reviews are over four years old with no recent data available.

Angelo Plumbing presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple serious complaints: a technician who never returned to finish a job, a company that repeatedly failed to resolve an AC issue over five weeks with no management callbacks, a late arrival with no proactive communication, and a Spanish-language review citing bad attitude — all within the past few years. Positive professionalism mentions do exist (courteous technicians, friendly staff, quick response times) but they are counterbalanced by credible negative accounts. Pricing is similarly split: several reviewers praised competitive or lower-than-average pricing, while two separate reviews (including one involving a $1,200 hidden permit charge) describe the company as expensive or deceptive — a serious flag. Project completion is the weakest dimension: multiple reviews describe unfinished work, unresolved issues after repeated visits, and a job where caulking was not done and fixtures were left leaking. Experience scores are moderate — some reviewers praised quality workmanship on complex jobs like underground leaks and multi-unit flooding, but others described damaged fixtures and recurring failures to diagnose problems correctly. The most recent reviews (2024, 2023) skew negative, which is a meaningful concern.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (2024-09-12 and 2024-08-13) are both 1-star and describe serious failures — abandoned work and bad attitude with high pricing. This recent negative trend should be weighted heavily.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: One reviewer (2024) explicitly states the technician removed functioning equipment, replaced it incorrectly, promised to return, and never did. Legal action was mentioned. This is a severe project completion failure.
• HIDDEN CHARGES FLAG: A 2015 review describes a $1,200 permit charge added after a $3,000 quote was paid in full, with the reviewer claiming the plumber implied permits were included. This is a significant pricing integrity concern.
• REPEAT FAILURE FLAG: A 2021 review describes three separate visits over five weeks with no resolution, no manager callbacks, and no customer service follow-through — a systemic project completion and professionalism failure.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: A 2020 review describes paid caulking work that was not performed, a fixture that was damaged, and leaks left unresolved after the job was supposedly completed.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Four reviews contained no text (only star ratings of 4 or 5). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• POSSIBLE GENERIC REVIEWS: Several short positive reviews ('Need a plumber call angelo', 'Great service. Phenomenal work. Very respectful employees.', 'They are very mannerable and informative!') lack specific detail and may reflect low-effort or unverifiable praise. Confidence was not reduced for this alone but noted.
• TELEPHONE ANSWERING SERVICE REVIEW: One 5-star review (2014) was submitted by the company's own telephone answering service vendor — this is a conflict of interest and was excluded from scoring as it does not represent a genuine customer experience.
• RECENCY OF POSITIVE REVIEWS: The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2014–2020. The 2021–2024 window contains predominantly negative experiences, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while mention counts are sufficient across all dimensions to generate HIGH confidence labels per the scoring formula, the presence of multiple credible, detailed negative reviews — including abandoned work, hidden charges, and repeated service failures — in the most recent period (2021–2024) means the score likely overstates current service quality, and prospective customers should treat recent 1-star reviews as particularly significant warning signals.

The review set is small and spans a wide date range (2011–2015), with the most recent substantive review being a highly detailed negative account from 2015 describing substandard workmanship, code violations, and unprofessional behavior. Earlier reviews from 2011–2013 are generally positive but brief and lack specificity. The detailed negative review significantly drags down scores across all dimensions, particularly pricing (charges beyond estimate, upselling on materials not used) and experience (work described as 'hack' and not to code by a third-party plumber). Project completion is mixed: some reviewers report jobs finished as promised, while the 2015 reviewer describes ongoing issues requiring additional remediation. Overall, the contractor's track record appears inconsistent, with quality declining in more recent reviews.

• One review has no text (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2015-06-16) and was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• The most recent detailed review (2015) is a significant negative outlier describing code violations, sloppy workmanship, charges beyond estimate, and upselling on materials that were never used — this is a serious credibility concern.
• All positive reviews are from 2011–2013 and are relatively brief and generic, while the only detailed recent review is strongly negative. This recency gap reduces confidence in positive signals.
• The review corpus is very small (6 total, 5 usable), which severely limits statistical reliability. Scores should be treated with caution.
• No reviews are from the past 12 months relative to a current evaluation context, meaning all data is significantly dated and may not reflect current service quality.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to a very small review sample (5 usable reviews), a wide date range spanning over a decade with no recent data, and a single highly detailed negative review that materially conflicts with older, brief positive reviews.

The review set for Mr. Drain Saver / Al Lopez is deeply polarized, with a significant number of serious complaints that substantially drag down every dimension. Professionalism is heavily penalized by multiple reviews describing condescending and dismissive behavior, inappropriate language toward customers, yelling at a family member in front of clients, and complete non-responsiveness after payment. Pricing is one of the weakest dimensions, with repeated and specific allegations of bait-and-switch tactics, undisclosed fees, charging for unnecessary work, cash-only demands, and contradictions between advertised free estimates and actual service charges. Project completion is mixed — several positive reviews confirm jobs were finished satisfactorily, but at least two reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion, a flooded yard from a leaking pipe, and a dishwasher problem left unresolved with the technician departing before confirming the fix. Experience scores moderately due to a split between reviewers who praised technical knowledge and efficiency and others who described sloppy, amateur workmanship requiring a second plumber to correct.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2015, 2023, 2024) describe nearly identical bait-and-switch pricing behavior — advertised or quoted prices significantly lower than what was charged upon arrival or completion. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• CASH-ONLY AND TAX EVASION CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states Al insisted on cash only and asked for a check made out to his son's name, with the reviewer suggesting possible tax evasion. A separate reviewer noted he may not be licensed.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL: One reviewer describes a pipe that leaked and flooded their yard shortly after work was completed, with Al refusing to honor any warranty and telling the customer's daughter to 'dig it up herself.' This is a serious project completion and professionalism failure.
• POSSIBLE UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR: One reviewer states they discovered Al may not hold a valid plumbing license. If accurate, this is a critical consumer safety concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) still contain serious complaints, indicating the problematic behaviors have not improved over time. Positive reviews exist but are outnumbered and outweighed by detailed, specific negative accounts.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: The positive reviews are generally more generic in structure compared to the highly specific and detailed negative reviews. However, there is not enough repetitive identical phrasing among positives to conclusively flag them as fake. Confidence in positive reviews is treated conservatively.
• REVIEW SPAN WARNING: Reviews span from 2015 to 2024 — nearly a decade. While recency is considered, the persistence of the same complaint types across 9 years suggests these are not isolated incidents but ingrained behavioral patterns.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence; however, the score should be interpreted as a serious warning signal — the volume, specificity, and multi-year consistency of negative reviews describing pricing deception, poor workmanship, and unprofessional conduct make this contractor a high-risk hire.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe severe and recurring failures across nearly every dimension. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with dozens of explicit accounts of plans never being corrected, months-long delays despite repeated promises of imminent delivery, city rejections due to errors, and abandoned corrections after payment was collected. Professionalism scores are extremely low due to widespread reports of unresponsiveness, broken promises, rude or dismissive staff, disorganized offices, and a pattern of requiring full or partial payment upfront before delivering work. Experience scores are similarly poor, with multiple reviewers citing technically incorrect plans — wrong pipe sizes, missing fixtures, incorrect square footage, plans not drawn to code — suggesting a systemic lack of quality control and engineering competence. Pricing is the only dimension with mixed-to-moderate scores, as several long-term clients and a handful of positive reviewers acknowledge low prices, though many negative reviewers note that the low price ultimately cost them far more in delays, rework, and contractor expenses. A small cluster of positive reviews from long-term repeat clients (primarily for Title 24 work) prevents the scores from reaching absolute zero, but they are vastly outnumbered by detailed, specific negative accounts.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE CLUSTER: The positive reviews show some hallmarks of potential inauthenticity or bias. Several 5-star reviews are vague, use generic praise, and lack specific project details. Two reviewers claim 20+ years of use with near-identical phrasing ('been using perfect design for title 24 for 20 plus years'), which is suspicious. One 5-star reviewer explicitly states they are writing the review to counteract the low average rating, which introduces clear bias.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2022–2024) are almost exclusively 1-star with detailed complaints. The positive reviews are predominantly older (2014–2020), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Recent performance appears significantly worse than historical performance.
• PAYMENT PRACTICES FLAG: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly flag the practice of requiring 50% or full payment upfront before work is completed, and then failing to deliver corrections afterward. This is a recurring and specific pattern that suggests a structural business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONED CORRECTIONS: At least 7 reviews independently describe the same pattern — initial work delivered, city corrections required, company then becomes unresponsive or refuses to complete revisions despite having been paid. This is a critical and consistent failure mode.
• SCOPE NOTE: This appears to be an engineering/design firm (Title 24, mechanical, electrical, plumbing plans) rather than a traditional contractor or plumber. The WW Score framework has been applied as closely as possible to the available review data within this context.

This WW Score is based on 27 reviews spanning approximately 11 years with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence — the score of 28.4 reliably reflects a contractor with deeply systemic problems in project delivery, professionalism, and technical quality, and should be treated as a serious warning to prospective clients.