Find Nearby Plumbers In Anaheim, California

Scott English Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with many customers praising individual technicians (Daniel, Walter, Silvano, etc.) for punctuality, friendliness, and skilled workmanship. Project completion is generally reliable with responsive scheduling and thorough work. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with multiple customers reporting substantial overcharges, hidden fees, mid-service price increases, and quotes that far exceed market rates. Several serious incidents—including a carbon monoxide hazard from incorrect water heater installation, unresponsive management to complaints, and apparent business closure issues—substantially impact overall trustworthiness despite individual technician quality.

• PRICING CONCERNS: At least 10 reviews explicitly cite overcharging, hidden fees, or price gouging. Examples include $468 for a $7.93 part (15 min work), $1,278 for toilet remounting, $745 for single drain service, and $1,325 charged instead of $550 quoted. This pattern is consistent and credible.
• SAFETY INCIDENT: One review reports a gas water heater installed instead of propane unit, causing carbon monoxide buildup that sent a tenant's son to hospital. Company allegedly ignored follow-up calls and claims.
• BUSINESS CLOSURE/UNRESPONSIVENESS: Multiple recent reviews (Feb-May 2025) indicate company is closed or non-responsive to service calls and insurance claims, leaving customers unable to resolve billing disputes.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Several customers report promised callbacks from managers/supervisors that never occurred, suggesting systemic customer service failures at leadership level.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While many technicians receive praise, some reviews report rude dispatchers (Steve), unprofessional behavior during estimates, and argumentative staff.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 40-50 reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('professional,' 'friendly,' 'knowledgeable,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail. Many are clustered on 2024-12-10 and 2024-06-08 with generic 5-star ratings. However, negative reviews are detailed and credible, suggesting some positive reviews may be inflated but overall dataset is not entirely fabricated.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most recent reviews (2025) indicate business closure or severe operational problems. Historical reviews (2023-2024) show better service but persistent pricing complaints throughout.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution: while individual technician professionalism and experience are genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), the company's pricing practices are predatory and well-documented across multiple independent reviews, and recent business closure/unresponsiveness suggests the company may no longer be reliably operational. Do not use this company without obtaining multiple competitive quotes and clarifying all costs in writing before work begins.

Hirsch Pipe & Supply demonstrates strong technical expertise and product knowledge (82.0), with extensive inventory and knowledgeable staff frequently praised by contractors and experienced customers. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by consistent complaints about poor customer service, long wait times, dismissive treatment of non-contractor customers (particularly women and DIY homeowners), and unresponsive staff. Pricing is generally fair to competitive (76.0), though some customers report markups and restrictive return policies. Project completion data is limited but shows occasional delivery and fulfillment issues. The business clearly prioritizes contractor relationships over retail customers, creating a two-tiered service experience.

• SIGNIFICANT BIAS AGAINST NON-CONTRACTOR CUSTOMERS: Multiple reviews (at least 8-10) explicitly report discriminatory treatment toward homeowners, DIY customers, and women. Staff allegedly deprioritize or refuse service to non-contractors despite stated willingness to serve the public.
• CHRONIC STAFFING/SERVICE ISSUES: Recurring complaints across 15+ reviews about insufficient counter staff, 20-30+ minute wait times, employees ignoring customers, and slow order fulfillment. This is a systemic operational problem, not isolated incidents.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing reviews from contractor accounts (praising specific named staff like Tony, Ernie, Dave, Felipe) and negative reviews from walk-in customers. Suggests service quality is highly dependent on customer type and individual staff member.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Review dated 2024-06-12 (Trevor Mordecai review) contains highly unusual, rambling language with nonsensical phrases ('hunge like a parakeet,' 'pinwheel hat,' 'snailsman') and appears to be either satirical, deliberately obfuscated, or fabricated. This review is difficult to score and may indicate review manipulation.
• GENDER DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS: At least 3 reviews explicitly mention poor treatment of women customers, with one stating staff made her 'feel stupid' and another noting general preference for male contractors.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While recent reviews (2024) are positive, many negative reviews are older (2015-2020). However, negative patterns persist in recent reviews as well, suggesting ongoing issues.
• PREDATORY PRICING REPORTED: Multiple customers report significantly higher prices for walk-in customers vs. contractors, with one example citing $24.44 vs. $16.00 retail for same part, and another noting $22 markup on water heater enclosure with 15% restocking fee.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable for understanding Hirsch's performance with contractor/professional customers (where experience and pricing are strong), but significantly overstates satisfaction for retail/homeowner customers. The HIGH overall confidence reflects substantial review volume, but masks a deeply bifurcated customer experience. Homeowners and DIY customers should expect notably lower service quality than the aggregate score suggests. The professionalism dimension is particularly dragged down by systemic service failures that appear structural rather than anecdotal.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

Moffett Plumbing & Air receives consistently strong marks for professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising technician courtesy, punctuality, cleanliness (shoe covers, protective mats), and clear communication. Experience and workmanship are also well-regarded, with numerous reviewers citing knowledgeable diagnostics and quality repairs across plumbing and HVAC. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished thoroughly and on time, though a handful of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, or callbacks that required follow-up visits. The most significant drag on the overall score is pricing: a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews explicitly describes charges as 2x to 3x market rates, with specific dollar amounts cited across multiple independent reviews, and several customers report feeling upsold or misled on scope and cost. This pricing concern is too consistent and specific to discount.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review from 'Vince & Bryan were the best plumbers...' appears twice with identical text, posted on 2025-05-25 and 2025-05-23. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• PRICING CONCERNS — RECURRING AND SPECIFIC: At least 12 independent reviews explicitly cite overpricing with specific dollar amounts (e.g., $4,500 for dishwasher/sink install, $6,500 water heater quote, $1,249 for two faucets labor only, $730 for a drain clear, $300 for a $50 filter, charges 2x average market rate for anode rod and pressure relief valve). This is a strong and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• UPSELLING PATTERN FLAGGED: Multiple reviewers across different years independently describe technicians attempting to upsell memberships, additional services, or new equipment during service calls. This is a consistent behavioral pattern worth noting.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT INCIDENTS: At least two reviews describe a no-show or incomplete work scenario (Oct 2024 no-show after 4-hour wait; Jan 2022 review describing work left incomplete with broken parts and delayed follow-through). These negatively impact project completion scoring.
• MISDIAGNOSIS INCIDENTS: At least two reviews describe technicians providing incorrect diagnoses — one where a furnace was declared fine but was later identified as faulty by two other companies, and one where a $4,000 pipe reroute was quoted for a problem that turned out to be a simple toilet flush mechanism. These reduce confidence in the experience score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024-2025 and are therefore recent and weighted appropriately. A smaller number of reviews date to 2018-2021 and were given slightly reduced weight. The pricing complaints span the full date range, indicating this is a long-standing pattern rather than a recent change.
• GENERIC REVIEWS PRESENT: Approximately 8 reviews contain no substantive text (blank body, rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring. Several additional reviews contain only 1-2 generic sentences with no specific detail, which were treated as low-information and given minimal weight.
• POSITIVE RECOVERY PATTERN NOTED: Several 1-star or negative reviews were subsequently updated to 3-4 stars after management intervention (refunds, callbacks, personal apologies). This suggests responsive management but does not eliminate the underlying service failures that prompted the original complaints.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (163 reviews spanning 2018–2025) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the pricing score in particular reflects a strong, specific, and multi-year pattern of overcharging complaints that meaningfully suppresses the overall score and should be treated as a reliable signal rather than outlier noise.

The majority of reviews across this large dataset praise responsiveness, same-day or next-day service, friendly technicians, and solid workmanship — with many customers citing specific technicians by name (Mark, Levin, Hugo, Art, Justin, Edward, Cesar, Daniel, Manny, Vito, Arman, Devin, Jeff, and others) as knowledgeable and professional. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years and multiple technicians — describes serious failures including no-shows, broken appointments, work left incomplete, warranty promises not honored, damage caused and not remedied, and in several cases outright non-communication after payment. Pricing feedback is mixed: many customers praise fair and affordable rates, while several others report being quoted prices far above competitors or experiencing unexpected cost escalations mid-job. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with documented cases of abandoned work, repeated rescheduling, and failure to return after partial completion. The breadth of the review set (spanning 2010–2025) and the consistency of both praise and criticism across different technicians and time periods suggests these are genuine reviews reflecting real variability in service quality.

• Multiple 1-star reviews describe near-identical failure patterns: no-shows, missed appointments, warranty not honored, and non-communication after payment — these appear across different technicians and years, suggesting systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.
• Several 5-star reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Two reviews (dated 2024-10-24 and 2024-11-10) appear to describe the same negative experience with technician 'Art' in nearly identical language, suggesting possible duplicate submission by the same customer — scored as one incident.
• A small number of 5-star reviews use generic, non-specific praise with no job details (e.g., 'Great company. Honest, hard workers. Can't go wrong with MVP') — these were counted for overall sentiment but given reduced weight in dimension scoring.
• One review (dated 2024-09-19) alleges a mid-job price escalation from $9,500 to $17,800 with demands for upfront payment — this is a significant pricing integrity concern.
• One review (dated 2020-04-09) alleges MVP caused property damage during a re-pipe and then refused to pay for repairs over a period of months — this is a serious project completion and integrity flag.
• One review (dated 2019-08-16) claims a lawsuit was filed and won against MVP for property damage, with no payment received after over a year — unverified but noted as a serious flag.
• Reviews span from 2010 to 2025. Reviews older than 24 months were given reduced weight. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a predominantly positive pattern, but negative reviews in this window still exist.
• This dataset appears to aggregate reviews from multiple business entities operating under similar or related names (MVP Plumbing, New Flow Plumbing, MVP Custom Plumbing) across multiple geographic regions. Scores reflect the combined dataset as submitted.

With 290 reviews analyzed and HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, the WW Score of 72.1 is statistically reliable as a representation of this contractor's overall service quality, but prospective customers should weigh the recurring pattern of no-shows, incomplete work, and unresolved damage claims documented in the negative reviews before hiring.

MVP Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with a large volume of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative. Project completion is generally solid, with many jobs finished same-day or within promised timeframes, and the company demonstrates a pattern of returning to resolve issues — though several reviews describe incomplete or ineffective first visits requiring callbacks. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most contested dimension across the review set: a substantial number of reviewers explicitly describe prices as extremely high, outrageous, or far above market rate, with multiple customers obtaining the same work from competitors for a fraction of the quoted cost. Several customers also reported being charged more than the advertised or quoted price upon arrival, and at least four reviews mention receiving refunds after disputes, which is a meaningful signal of systemic pricing integrity issues.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviews (at least 10+) describe quotes that were 3x to 10x higher than competitor prices for identical work. Examples include: $2,800 vs $500 for toilet seal replacement, $5,500 vs $1,500 for main clean-out, $850 for a dishwasher air gap replacement costing $15 in parts, $800 faucet replacement fixed free by another plumber, $575 garbage disposal replacement that another plumber unjammed in 2 minutes. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• REFUND PATTERN: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention receiving full or partial refunds after disputes ($2,266 refund, $2,800 reduced to $500, full refund for incomplete work, full refund for alleged manipulation). While the company's responsiveness to complaints is positive, the frequency of refund situations suggests systemic overcharging or upselling practices.
• ADVERTISED PRICE BAIT-AND-SWITCH: Multiple reviews reference a '$33 drain cleaning' advertisement but being charged $99-$130 upon service. This is a recurring complaint across different reviewers and time periods, suggesting a deliberate or structural pricing discrepancy between marketing and actual charges.
• INCOMPLETE WORK COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe jobs that were not resolved on the first visit, including one review where a customer paid for three escalating services totaling nearly $4,000 and the line remained clogged. One review describes a leak that was not fixed after payment. One review describes a camera inspection that was claimed but results never provided.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — JASON (FREDERICK, MD): A cluster of reviews referencing 'Jason' in the Frederick, Maryland area appear to describe a different or separate operator under the MVP brand. Three reviews dated 2023-04-07 are near-identical in wording (copy-pasted with minor variations including a checkmark character), which is a strong indicator of review manipulation. These reviews have been noted but their influence on scoring has been reduced.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Jason Harris dated 2021-04-29 appears twice with identical text. The review praising Jason Harris dated 2023-04-07 appears three times with near-identical text. These duplicates were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2013 to June 2025. The majority of substantive reviews with detailed content are from 2022 onward. Older reviews (2013-2020) skew heavily positive and reference a single operator (Jason in Frederick, MD), which may represent a different business context than the larger LA-area operation reflected in more recent reviews. More weight was given to 2023-2025 reviews.
• UPSELLING CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending unnecessary or excessive repairs. One review explicitly states the technician did not attempt to unjam a garbage disposal before declaring it broken and quoting replacement. Another describes a technician who would not attempt to fix a toilet without full pipe replacement, which another plumber resolved for $125. This pattern across multiple reviewers suggests a possible systemic upselling practice.
• 1-STAR REVIEW WITH NO TEXT: One review dated 2025-02-09 has a 1-star rating with no text. This was counted in total reviews but could not contribute usable data to any dimension.

The WW Score of 72.1 is based on a very large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, consumers should weight the pricing dimension heavily in their decision-making, as the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints — including documented refunds and verifiable price comparisons — represent a credible and material risk that is not fully captured by a single numeric score.