Find Nearby Plumbers In Culver City, California

Ray Blom Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across 24 reviews spanning over a decade. Positive reviews consistently praise specific plumbers — particularly Ben, Dominic, Trent, and Brandon — for punctuality, friendliness, and competent work, while a significant cluster of negative reviews describes serious professionalism failures including a plumber arriving intoxicated and aggressive, no-shows without communication, rude office staff, and alleged fraud. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by those who had good experiences, with multiple reviewers noting fair and transparent costs, but one reviewer reported being cheated and another alleged fraudulent billing practices with a manufacturer. Project completion is similarly split: several reviews describe efficient same-day resolutions, while others document incomplete work, repeat failures, and abandoned appointments. The experience dimension reflects genuine skill from certain technicians but also notable incompetence from others, particularly Scott, who was described as arriving unprepared and unable to complete basic tasks. The score is substantially dragged down by the volume and severity of negative reviews, which describe conduct well beyond minor service failures.

• Multiple reviews describe the same individual 'Scott' in severely negative terms across different incidents and different reviewers — aggressive behavior, intoxication, no-shows, and incompetence — suggesting a persistent and serious personnel problem rather than isolated incidents.
• One review (2018-11-27) alleges the company asked a customer to lie to a manufacturer to fraudulently claim a service visit occurred and to order unnecessary parts. This is a serious fraud allegation that significantly undermines trustworthiness.
• A no-show with no callback was reported (2020-06-05), and a separate reviewer (2019-06-15) reported two separate no-shows due to a broken truck with no proactive resolution offered.
• The review dated 2019-09-16 describes a plumber arriving smelling of alcohol and becoming physically aggressive with a customer. The reviewer states they have doorbell video evidence. This is an extreme professionalism and safety concern.
• Several positive reviews are older than 5 years (2009–2016) and may not reflect current service quality. The most recent reviews (2019–2022) are more mixed-to-negative, suggesting possible decline in service standards over time.
• Recency concern: Of the 7 most recent reviews (2019–2022), 4 are 1-star and 3 are 5-star. The negative trend in recent years reduces confidence in the positive older reviews as representative of current performance.
• Some positive reviews (e.g., 2015-08-31, 2015-09-13, 2015-11-24, 2016-05-17) share similar phrasing patterns ('on time as promised', 'upfront with cost', 'got the job done') and were posted within short timeframes. While not conclusive, this warrants mild fake review suspicion for that cluster.

This WW Score is based on 24 reviews with high mention counts across all dimensions, giving it statistical reliability, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the extreme variance in reviewer experiences, serious misconduct allegations, a declining trend in recent reviews, and possible clustering of suspiciously similar positive reviews from 2015–2016.

Roy E. Smith Plumbing presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by multiple credible accounts of rude behavior from owner Ken, deceptive billing practices, and a particularly serious allegation of an unauthorized charge to a customer's card — though a meaningful cluster of positive reviews from repeat customers praise responsiveness and courtesy. Project completion is a significant concern, with multiple reviewers describing jobs left unfinished, a water heater warranty dispute, a gas line installation that failed the next day, and a case where plumbers charged for work they admittedly did not perform. Pricing scores are mixed: several positive reviewers call rates fair and transparent, while negative reviewers describe billing for wait time, unnecessary two-man crews, and unexpected add-on charges. Experience scores are similarly split, with loyal long-term customers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, while others describe repeated misdiagnoses, a plumber who admitted he could not handle a non-standard fixture, and a gas line job that required no regulator despite being told otherwise. The overall picture is a contractor with a loyal base of satisfied customers but a pattern of serious, credible complaints that cannot be dismissed.

• BILLING FRAUD ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2024-10-01) alleges their card was charged directly to 'Roy E Smith Plumbing' for a background check service, with no refund or documentation provided. This is a serious allegation that significantly impacts trustworthiness.
• CHARGED FOR NO WORK PERFORMED: A 2022 reviewer describes being charged $195 for a visit where the plumber's own office confirmed 'they literally didn't do anything.' The owner did not follow through on a promised refund despite multiple callbacks.
• WARRANTY/CALLBACK REFUSAL: A 2023 reviewer reports a water heater installed by the company failed within 6 months and the company refused to honor any responsibility, directing the customer to the manufacturer.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2017–2020 or earlier. The most recent reviews (2022–2024) are predominantly negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Recent reviews should be weighted more heavily.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several 5-star reviews (particularly 2017–2018) are brief, generic, and lack specific job details. However, enough positive reviews contain specific details (plumber names, job descriptions) to avoid a strong fake review flag. Confidence is not reduced, but noted.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2014, 2022, 2024) specifically cite owner Ken as rude, unresponsive, or dishonest, suggesting a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least two reviewers (2022 Mar Vista resident, 2018 gas line reviewer) describe repeated visits that failed to correctly diagnose the underlying problem, indicating possible systemic skill gaps.

This WW Score is based on 20 reviews spanning 15 years with strong mention coverage across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence in the score directionally; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the clear negative trend in recent reviews (2022–2024) and the presence of serious unresolved billing and conduct allegations.

Fisk-It Plumbing presents a deeply polarized company profile with a stark temporal divide. Early reviews (2008-2011) under original ownership by Steve Fisk describe excellent service, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship. However, post-ownership change (2012 onwards) reviews overwhelmingly document aggressive upselling, inflated pricing, poor follow-through, and safety concerns. The company shifted from hourly billing to job-based pricing without customer notification, leading to bills 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work. Multiple reviews document incomplete work, no-shows, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and dishonest diagnostic practices. While recent positive reviews (2018-2021) suggest possible operational improvements, they are vastly outnumbered by negative accounts spanning a decade. Safety incidents including gas hazards and water damage are documented. The WW Score reflects this troubled history weighted toward recent years.

• CRITICAL: Ownership change around 2011-2012 correlates with dramatic service degradation. Original owner Steve Fisk's departure marks clear inflection point.
• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: 15+ reviews document systematic overcharging, bait-and-switch pricing, and refusal to honor initial quotes. Multiple customers report 50-400% price increases or competitors charging 1/4 to 1/10 of Fisk-It's quotes for identical work.
• SAFETY HAZARDS: Multiple documented incidents including gas line hazards (red-tagged by gas company), water damage from faulty installations, and unlicensed personnel performing licensed work.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 4 reviews document missed appointments, broken promises, and false claims of attempted contact.
• AGGRESSIVE UPSELLING: Systematic pattern of recommending expensive solutions (hydrojetting $450-$625, full sewer relining $18,300) that competitors later identified as unnecessary or vastly overpriced.
• UNRESPONSIVE MANAGEMENT: Multiple reviews document ignored callback requests, manager promises never fulfilled, and owner (John Chin) documented as rude and dismissive.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Several reviews document work requiring return visits, damage caused by initial work, and refusal to warranty repairs.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews cluster in 2018-2021 period but represent only 6 of 40 reviews. Negative reviews span 2009-2016 (31 reviews). Recent positives may reflect limited sample or temporary improvement.
• CREDIBILITY: Negative reviews are detailed, specific, with named technicians and documented follow-up actions (credit card disputes, second opinions). Positive reviews are more generic. No obvious fake review patterns detected, but negative reviews carry higher specificity markers.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION and SKEPTICISM regarding recent improvement claims. While the 52.3 score reflects documented problems, the company's history of deceptive practices and the dramatic shift in service quality post-ownership change suggest that even recent positive reviews warrant independent verification. Consumers should obtain multiple estimates before engaging this company and verify all quotes in writing. The company's pattern of overcharging and incomplete work represents material financial and safety risk.

MNG Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across the reviews analyzed. Positive reviews praise politeness, thoroughness, honesty, and follow-through on callbacks, but these are significantly undermined by two highly damaging reviews — one describing a catastrophic series of installation failures, water damage, and refusal to accept responsibility, and another describing a complete no-show after a three-hour wait. The detailed 1-star review from 2013 is particularly damaging to both project completion and experience scores, describing incorrect valve installation, a faulty tub spout causing hidden water damage, and an inability to operate basic equipment. While the positive reviews suggest genuine competence on simpler jobs, the severity and specificity of the negative review prevents any high score in completion or experience. Pricing was never mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are significantly outdated. The most recent review is from 2021, and the majority are from 2006–2019. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, severely limiting the reliability of this score as a reflection of current performance.
• SEVERE NEGATIVE REVIEW: The 1-star review from 2013 is extremely detailed and specific, describing multiple compounding failures including incorrect valve installation, a hidden leak causing structural water damage, refusal to accept responsibility, and potential legal action. This review carries high credibility due to its specificity and length.
• NO-SHOW COMPLAINT: The 1-star review from 2006 describes a repeated pattern of the plumber failing to show up, which directly impacts the professionalism score.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total. While the WW Score formula has been applied, conclusions drawn from this dataset should be treated with caution. A minimum of 10–15 reviews would provide a more reliable picture.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW — The positive reviews do contain some specific details (sewer line repair, root removal, hot water dispenser installation, booties on entry), reducing suspicion of fabrication. No identical phrasing patterns detected.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust — the sample size is very small (6 reviews), all reviews are over 3 years old with the majority being 5–18 years old, and one highly detailed negative review describing serious workmanship failures and property damage significantly drags down the score in a dataset too small to absorb it statistically.

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.

All 10 reviews are dated between March 2020 and November 2020, making them 3+ years old and outside the recommended 12-month recency window. More critically, all reviews are uniformly 5-star ratings with generic praise and no substantive detail about specific dimensions. The reviews exhibit suspicious patterns: identical structural praise (e.g., 'quick/professional/friendly'), no mention of pricing specifics, no discussion of challenges or trade-offs, and no concrete examples of workmanship quality. These characteristics are consistent with fabricated or heavily curated reviews rather than authentic customer feedback.

• CRITICAL: All 10 reviews are from 2020 only — no recent reviews from past 12 months. Data is 3+ years stale.
• CRITICAL: All reviews are 5-star ratings with no variation. No 3-star, 4-star, or lower ratings present.
• CRITICAL: Suspected fake or heavily curated reviews. Reviews lack specificity, contain generic praise phrases, and show no authentic customer concerns or trade-offs.
• CRITICAL: Repetitive language patterns across reviews ('quick/professional/friendly', 'same day service', 'highly recommend') suggest templated or fabricated feedback.
• No substantive pricing information provided in any review despite 'pricing' being mentioned generically in 2 reviews.
• No detailed discussion of actual workmanship quality, technical problem-solving, or specific plumbing challenges.
• Reviews appear designed to maximize rating rather than provide honest assessment.

This dataset is unreliable and should not be used to assess contractor quality. The combination of extreme age (3+ years), 100% 5-star uniformity, generic language patterns, and lack of specificity strongly suggests fabricated or curated reviews rather than authentic customer feedback. No WW Score can be calculated with integrity from this data.