Find Nearby Plumbers In Glendale, California

Premium One Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise James and Harry for professionalism, technical skill, responsiveness, and courteous habits like wearing shoe covers. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious issues including rudeness, abandoned jobs without follow-up, alleged fraudulent reporting to home warranty companies, and significant overcharging relative to competitors. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers call it fair and competitive, while at least three explicitly state they were quoted prices far above market rate. Project completion is the most polarizing dimension, with several reviewers reporting that work was started or diagnosed but never completed, and calls going unanswered. The score reflects a genuinely capable operation undermined by inconsistent service delivery and recurring negative patterns that cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents.

• NEGATIVE PATTERN — FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: At least 2 reviews (Nov 2022, May 2020) allege the plumber made false reports to home warranty companies, including claiming to have inspected areas he did not enter. This is a serious integrity concern.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — ABANDONED JOBS: Multiple reviews (Jul 2020, Oct 2020, Oct 2014) describe the plumber leaving after an initial visit, promising to return or order parts, and then never following up or returning calls.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — RUDENESS: At least 3 reviews (Feb 2022, Nov 2016, Jan 2017) explicitly describe the plumber as rude, condescending, or unprofessional in communication — contradicting the majority of positive reviews.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — OVERPRICING: At least 2 reviews (Feb 2022, Jan 2016) report quotes that were significantly higher than competitors for the same work, with one reviewer paying $280 elsewhere for a job quoted at $585.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2014 to 2024. The most recent negative reviews (2022–2023) suggest ongoing issues, not just historical problems. Positive reviews are also recent, indicating inconsistency rather than a clear trend of improvement.
• HOME WARRANTY CONTEXT: A large proportion of reviews come via home warranty assignments (AHS/American Home Shield). Several negative reviews involve disputes about warranty coverage scope, which may partially reflect warranty company policies rather than contractor fault. However, allegations of deliberate misreporting to deny coverage go beyond this explanation.
• MULTI-TECHNICIAN OPERATION: Reviews mention at least three different technicians — James, Harry, and Alen/Alan — as well as Ricky and Jose. Quality and professionalism scores may vary significantly by individual technician, and the aggregate score masks this variance.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: While many positive reviews share similar praise points (shoe covers, responsiveness, knowledgeable), they contain sufficient specific detail, varied writing styles, and named technicians to be considered authentic.

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews spanning a decade and carries HIGH data confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a persistent minority of serious negative reviews alleging fraud, job abandonment, and unprofessional conduct that meaningfully offset the strong positive majority.

Moe Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism in service delivery, with technicians consistently praised for knowledge, friendliness, and work quality. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—numerous reviews document overcharging, hidden fees, inflated labor hours, and lack of transparency in quotes. Project completion is generally solid with good follow-through, though some older reviews cite scheduling and communication failures. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects a company with genuine technical competence undermined by business practices that erode customer trust, particularly around pricing fairness.

• PRICING PATTERN: 42 mentions of pricing issues across 176 reviews (24% of all reviews). Complaints include: excessive hourly rates, inflated labor time (3-4.5 hours for 30-minute jobs), hidden charges, drive-time fees, parts markups (500%+ on brass valves), and inconsistent quotes. This is the single largest complaint category.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail, while detailed negative reviews cluster in 2015-2022. This suggests either genuine service improvement or potential review manipulation. Conservative scoring applied.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: Multiple 5-star reviews with identical phrasing ('Replaced a broken toilet same day! Super happy!' appears twice verbatim on consecutive dates). Several blank reviews with 5-star ratings. Generic praise without specifics in clusters of recent reviews. Confidence in recent positive reviews reduced accordingly.
• BUSINESS PRACTICE CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document refusal to follow up on complaints, dodging calls, billing disputes, and administrative failures (missed city filings, incorrect invoices, late payment penalties). One review documents $23,000 in work that customer still cannot get fixed.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Same company receives both 'best plumber ever' and 'complete scam' reviews for similar work. Suggests high variance in technician quality or pricing structure.
• ACQUISITION IMPACT: Several reviews note service degradation after company acquisition/ownership change, with shift to commission-based pay mentioned as cause.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable but reflects a company with a fundamental trust problem: while technical work quality is genuinely strong (HIGH confidence on experience dimension), systematic pricing concerns documented across 42 reviews spanning a decade severely undermine overall value proposition. The score should be trusted as an accurate reflection of mixed performance, but customers should independently verify pricing and obtain firm quotes before authorizing work.

Mauerhan Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service delivery, with high marks for skilled workmanship and punctuality. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing complaints across multiple reviews, with customers repeatedly citing excessive charges, undisclosed fees (truck fees, drive time, solder fees), and billing practices that exceed quoted estimates. While many long-term customers express loyalty and satisfaction, a notable segment of reviews document incomplete problem resolution, failed diagnostics, and poor follow-up on warranty issues. The company's professionalism is inconsistent—some reviews praise courteous technicians while others report rude or dismissive staff behavior.

• PRICING PATTERN: 21 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Multiple customers report being charged significantly more than quoted, charged for estimates despite 'free estimate' advertising, charged for drive time/truck fees not disclosed upfront, and billed for work not completed or not needed. This is the single most consistent complaint across the dataset.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / FAILED DIAGNOSTICS: At least 6 reviews document cases where plumbers failed to diagnose or fix the actual problem, left work incomplete, or required multiple visits without resolution (e.g., leak detection failures, water heater diagnosis failures, dishwasher installation errors). Some customers were charged full fees despite problems persisting.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2021-09-01, 2021-05-03, 2019-03-22, 2018-07-01) document aggressive billing practices including charges for estimates, inflated hour billing from time of shop departure rather than arrival, and refusal to honor verbal quotes.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE INCONSISTENCY: Reviews from 2016-11-07 and 2017-04-30 report rude admin staff and belligerent field workers, contrasting sharply with many positive professionalism reviews. This suggests inconsistent company culture or training.
• WARRANTY / FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2024-03-16, 2020-10-13, 2021-03-29) document refusal to warranty work or correct mistakes without additional charges, and poor response to customer complaints.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2019-2024 period, suggesting ongoing systemic issues rather than historical problems. Recent reviews (2024) include both 5-star praise and severe 1-star complaints, indicating high variability in service quality or customer experience.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While many 5-star reviews are generic, they contain specific names, dates, and varied details. No evidence of coordinated fake reviews.

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable and should be trusted, supported by 87 reviews with HIGH overall confidence. However, the score masks significant operational inconsistencies: Mauerhan excels in technical skill and punctuality but has a serious and persistent pricing integrity problem that directly contradicts their market positioning. Customers should obtain detailed written estimates and clarify all fees before engaging this company. The score reflects a company with strong fundamentals undermined by business practice issues that create substantial customer dissatisfaction despite good workmanship.

Precise Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, same-day availability, and friendly service — particularly from technician Ash and David Ceballos. However, the review set contains a meaningful number of serious negative reviews (approximately 8 out of 83) that allege deceptive pricing practices, inflated quotes for unnecessary work, unprofessional conduct, and in one case outright fraud (charging for a permit that was never pulled). Pricing is the most contested dimension, with multiple 1-star reviewers explicitly calling out overcharging, bait-and-switch estimates, and predatory upselling — including targeting a 79-year-old woman. Project completion is generally strong but is dragged down by one review of abandoned work and one of poor follow-up on a sinkhole repair. Experience scores well overall but is undermined by reviews where technicians diagnosed problems incorrectly or refused to properly assess equipment before quoting large replacements.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A large cluster of reviews (approximately 25+) share the date '2024-06-09' with no specific times, which is highly anomalous and strongly suggests bulk-imported or solicited reviews posted on the same day. These reviews are disproportionately generic (e.g., 'Great service and price', 'Amazing services', 'Good service and price') with little to no job-specific detail. Confidence in the positive score base is reduced as a result.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2021-01-25) explicitly states they were charged $375 for a city permit that was never pulled, and that the company did not respond to refund requests. This is a serious allegation of financial dishonesty.
• PREDATORY UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple 1-star reviews (2017-12-21 x2, 2024-01-18, 2022-01-21, 2025-05-26) independently allege that technicians pushed unnecessary and expensive replacements or repairs, suggesting a possible systemic upselling practice rather than isolated incidents.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review dated 2017-12-21 appears to be submitted twice with nearly identical text. Only one instance was counted in scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The negative reviews are spread across multiple years (2017–2025), indicating these are not isolated old complaints. The most recent 1-star review is from May 2025, suggesting the issues have not been resolved over time.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS (no text, only 5-star ratings) were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high data reliability due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of bulk-posted generic reviews on a single date, a recurring pattern of pricing complaints and upselling allegations across multiple years, and at least one credible fraud allegation — all of which suggest the true customer experience may be more polarized than the aggregate score implies.

American Leak Detection receives consistently strong praise for individual technician professionalism, punctuality, communication, and attitude — the majority of positive reviews highlight friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable technicians by name. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down the pricing and project completion dimensions: numerous customers report being charged hundreds to over a thousand dollars for failed or inaccurate leak detection, incorrect leak location markings that led to costly unnecessary excavation, and refusal to honor warranties or return without additional charges. The experience dimension is mixed — while many technicians demonstrate impressive diagnostic skill, a meaningful minority of reviews describe technicians who failed to find leaks that competitors located quickly, used outdated methods, or caused property damage. Pricing complaints are pervasive, with customers frequently describing the service as overpriced relative to results delivered, and several noting hidden or unexpected charges. The overall score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional staff in many locations, undermined by serious and repeated failures in leak detection accuracy, warranty follow-through, and pricing transparency.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews from June 2025 (dates 2025-06-04 through 2025-06-09) contain identical or near-identical text repeated across different dates — e.g., 'On time got the job done' appears twice, 'Chris got right to work and diagnosed the points of the leak quickly' appears twice, 'Very professional and thorough' appears twice, 'Pool kept going down way too fast...' appears twice, 'Etienne Hogue from American Leak Detection is a master of his trade...' appears twice, 'Matt was very thorough and friendly...' appears twice, 'I'm so impressed with the work performed by Casey...' appears twice, 'Appreciate the detectives who found the source of my ceiling leak...' appears twice, 'Matt was great. Arrived on time...' appears twice, 'Christian Lopez did a fantastic job...' appears twice. These are highly suspicious and likely fake or artificially inflated reviews. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is reduced accordingly.
• FRANCHISE INCONSISTENCY: This appears to be a national franchise with many independently operated regional offices. Review quality, technician skill, and customer service vary dramatically by location. Scores reflect the aggregate across all branches and may not represent any single local office accurately.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — FAILED DETECTION: A statistically significant number of negative reviews (estimated 60+ reviews) describe the same failure mode: ALD charges full price for leak detection but fails to locate the leak, marks the wrong location leading to costly unnecessary excavation by plumbers, and then refuses to refund or return without additional charges. This is not isolated to one branch.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — WARRANTY REFUSAL: Multiple reviews across different locations and years describe ALD refusing to honor stated warranties, citing expired 30-day windows, claiming a 'different leak' was found, or demanding additional payment to return after failed repairs.
• RECURRING COMPLAINT PATTERN — PRICING OPACITY: Multiple reviews describe being charged full rates ($300–$795+) for very short visits (10–30 minutes), being charged when no leak was found, and not being informed of pricing structure upfront. One review notes a contractor's license listed as 'inactive' with no liability insurance as of late 2022.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe technicians causing property damage (holes in walls, broken pipes, damaged flooring, dirty linens used as mops) with the company refusing to take responsibility.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 88 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) are heavily dominated by 5-star ratings, many of which are duplicates or very brief. The longer, more detailed negative reviews span 2012–2025 and represent a consistent longitudinal pattern of service failures.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the aggregate masks extreme variance between regional franchise offices, a documented pattern of fake or duplicated recent reviews inflates the positive signal, and the recurring nature of serious complaints about failed detection, warranty refusal, and pricing practices suggests systemic issues that a blended score cannot fully capture.

All Aloha Plumbing (recent reviews, 2025) consistently earns strong marks for professionalism, responsiveness, and courteous technicians, with many customers praising named plumbers by name and highlighting emergency availability. However, the review pool also contains a substantial body of older reviews for Professional Plumbing Services (PPS), a separate or predecessor entity, which significantly drags down scores across all dimensions with repeated complaints about abandoned jobs, missed appointments, poor workmanship, overcharging, and dishonesty. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple PPS reviews describing unfinished renovations lasting months, unkept callbacks, and work left in disarray. Pricing is mixed — recent All Aloha reviews are mostly positive on value, but PPS reviews include credible accounts of overcharging, inflated parts markups, and billing for idle time. Experience scores are similarly split, with recent All Aloha technicians praised for skill and problem-solving, while PPS reviews document poor workmanship, incorrect installations, and a gas line improperly installed.

• MIXED ENTITY ALERT: This review set appears to contain reviews for two distinct businesses — 'All Aloha Plumbing' (reviews primarily from 2025) and 'Professional Plumbing Services / PPS' (reviews from 2007–2024). These may be separate companies or a rebranded entity. Scores reflect the combined pool but the two entities have very different performance profiles.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTE: All Aloha Plumbing reviews from 2025 are overwhelmingly positive (mostly 5-star). PPS reviews from 2012–2022 include numerous 1-star complaints. If only the 2025 reviews are relevant, the WW Score would be substantially higher (estimated 85+). If PPS history is relevant to the same operator, the lower scores are warranted.
• FAKE REVIEW FLAG (PPS): One reviewer (2020) explicitly alleges that PPS/Louis Moon fabricated a 5-star review using their name without consent. This raises credibility concerns about some of the generic positive PPS reviews with no detail.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN (All Aloha 2025): Several All Aloha reviews are blank text with only a 5-star rating (at least 5 such reviews detected). These provide no usable data and inflate the star average without substantive evidence.
• ABANDONED WORK (PPS): Multiple independent reviewers describe PPS leaving jobs unfinished — a bathroom renovation taking 10 months, a dishwasher left in the kitchen for days with no callback, a sewer problem unresolved after $835 paid, and a tub installation with ongoing squeaking never remedied.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES (PPS): Documented issues include a gas line installed improperly (fire department called), pipe support made by smashing copper pipe, incorrect vent line installation, broken toilet caused by technician, and a lavatory popup assembly that fell apart immediately after repair.
• OVERCHARGING COMPLAINTS (PPS): At least two detailed reviews describe being charged for technician idle time, parts marked up 4x retail price, charges exceeding quoted amounts, and a $400 quote for a 10-minute job.
• PROJECT DELAYS (PPS): Multiple renovation projects ran significantly over promised timelines — one took 4 weeks instead of 2, another took 10 months, and one job was abandoned entirely with no-shows on scheduled days.
• POSITIVE SIGNAL (All Aloha 2025): Recent All Aloha reviews are specific, name individual technicians, describe real scenarios, and include both 5-star and occasional 3-star honest feedback — suggesting these are largely authentic.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a predictor of current service quality is MODERATE at best, because the review pool conflates two potentially distinct business entities across an 18-year span — prospective customers should weight the 2025 All Aloha reviews heavily and treat the PPS history as a separate risk signal requiring clarification on business continuity.