Find Nearby Plumbers In Inglewood, California

Superior 1 Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile. While many reviews from 2011-2019 praise Albert's professionalism, punctuality, and quality workmanship on large re-piping projects, a significant cluster of negative reviews (2013-2024) document serious issues: rude and disrespectful behavior toward customers, incomplete work, property damage, billing disputes, and failure to honor warranties. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple accounts of aggressive communication, missed appointments, and dismissive treatment of tenants. Pricing concerns are substantial, with customers reporting overcharges, bait-and-switch tactics, and unauthorized charges. Project completion shows mixed results—large projects often finish on time, but smaller jobs and follow-up work frequently involve delays, incomplete tasks, and callbacks that go unfulfilled. Technical skill appears solid for complex re-piping work, but execution quality is inconsistent, particularly in drywall and cleanup phases.

• CRITICAL: Severe behavioral red flags. Multiple independent reviews (2024, 2020, 2017, 2016) document aggressive, insulting, and disrespectful conduct by owner Albert toward customers and tenants, including barging into homes without permission, threatening language, and dismissive attitudes.
• BILLING FRAUD CONCERNS: At least 3 reviews (2019, 2013, 2013) allege unauthorized charges, misrepresentation of work scope, and dramatic price inflation between estimate and invoice (e.g., $75 estimate fee, $785 quoted vs. $50 actual value; $4,150 vs. $330 for same work).
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: 2013 review documents failure to honor 20-year warranty on sewer line replacement, with company denying prior commitments and demanding additional $3,800 for liner work.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2024, 2017, 2017) document damage to customer property (cracked tiles, holes in walls, stolen fixtures, broken planters, damaged appliances) with inadequate remediation.
• INCOMPLETE WORK & POOR FOLLOW-UP: Consistent pattern across reviews of unfinished tasks, missed callbacks, and refusal to complete promised work (2013, 2017, 2017, 2016).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2013-2024 period, suggesting ongoing systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. Positive reviews are predominantly from 2011-2019, with few recent endorsements.
• TENANT RELATIONS: Multiple reviews from apartment building tenants (2024, 2020, 2017, 2017) report aggressive behavior, lack of respect for access protocols, and dismissal of tenant concerns.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews from 2021 (3 reviews on same date with nearly identical phrasing: 'fast and efficient,' 'nice and friendly,' 'recommend to friends and family') warrant scrutiny, though older 5-star reviews contain specific project details and appear authentic.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 36 reviews with substantial mention counts, the data reveals a company with fundamentally inconsistent service quality and serious behavioral/ethical concerns. The score of 62.8 reflects genuine polarization: legitimate technical competence on large projects is severely undermined by documented patterns of disrespect, billing disputes, property damage, and warranty violations. Customers should prioritize the numerous detailed negative reviews describing specific incidents over generic 5-star praise, and should be aware that hiring this company carries material risk of conflict, cost overruns, and incomplete work.

Challenge Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with stark contrasts between older positive reviews (2013-2014) and recent negative reviews (2015-2024). Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple complaints about rude management, poor communication, unresponsiveness, and lack of follow-through on callbacks. Project completion is significantly impacted by delayed timelines, incomplete work, and failure to honor service commitments. Pricing concerns emerge across multiple reviews citing overcharging, lack of transparency, and aggressive upselling tactics. Experience ratings remain relatively stable with acknowledgment of technical skill, but this is overshadowed by service delivery failures and customer care issues.

• CRITICAL: Severe temporal polarization detected. Reviews from 2013-2014 are uniformly 5-star with generic praise; reviews from 2015-2024 are predominantly 1-star with specific, detailed complaints. This suggests either significant company decline following ownership/management change OR potential review manipulation in earlier period.
• Multiple reviews explicitly mention ownership/management change as catalyst for service decline (2018 review: 'Since the original owner passed away'; 2017 review references new management with 'no customer understanding').
• Suspicious pattern in positive reviews: 2013-2014 reviews contain nearly identical phrasing ('professional, friendly, efficient,' 'fast, reliable, reasonably priced') across multiple reviews with minimal specific detail.
• Recent reviews (2017-2024) contain highly specific, detailed complaints with named individuals (Manny, Jose, AJ, Albert, Jeffrey, Manuel) and concrete examples of failures, suggesting authenticity.
• Potential fake review concern: The cluster of 5-star reviews from Dec 2013-Jan 2014 (5 reviews in 4 weeks) with similar language patterns warrants skepticism.
• One review (2024-08-17) contains repetitive structure ('There value is very low and terrible. There service is very low and terrible. There quality is very low and terrible') suggesting possible automated or template-based complaint.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. The extreme polarization between older and recent reviews, combined with evidence of management change and specific complaints about service degradation, suggests the company's current performance may be significantly worse than the overall score indicates. Recent reviews (past 5 years) are more reliable indicators of current service quality than the uniformly positive older reviews. A score of 62.8 likely understates current risk due to the weight of older positive data; current customers should expect performance closer to the 1-2 star range based on 2015-2024 feedback.

Russell Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 11 years. While multiple reviews praise technical competence and honesty (particularly older reviews from 2010-2018), recent reviews (2021-2022) reveal serious concerns about pricing practices, with one customer reporting a $460 labor charge for 2.5 hours against a quoted $105/hr rate, plus questionable parts markups. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented reliability issues (missed appointments, late arrivals without notice) and poor customer service interactions. Pricing emerges as the weakest dimension with explicit allegations of overcharging and non-itemized billing. Project completion is mixed—work gets done but with reliability concerns.

• CRITICAL: Potential business ownership/licensing issue flagged in 2019 review alleging no contractor or business license and ownership change from Jim Russell to Ron Herring (non-plumber). This requires verification.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 6+ years old (2010-2018). Recent reviews (2021-2022) are significantly more negative, suggesting service quality deterioration.
• PRICING RED FLAG: 2022 review documents specific overcharging pattern—$460 labor charge (2.5 hrs) vs. $105/hr quote, plus $370 in non-itemized parts. Customer claims parts list worth ~$185. This is not isolated—2021 review also mentions unexpected $175 charge with no discount/apology.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATOR: Review dated 2015-08-11 contains only a period (.) with 5-star rating—appears to be placeholder or spam. Review from 2005 uses unusual capitalization pattern (VERY HARD, INFORMS, LET'S) suggesting possible data corruption or non-authentic submission.
• ASSISTANT CONDUCT: 2022 review documents assistant making false claims about gas leak and stove replacement, later disproven by gas company. Raises questions about training and oversight.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: Stark contradiction between older reviews praising honesty and fair pricing vs. recent reviews documenting overcharging. Either service quality has declined significantly or earlier reviews may not reflect actual pricing practices.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on adequate mention counts, the 11-year span of reviews masks a clear deterioration pattern, with recent reviews contradicting the positive historical narrative. The licensing allegation, pricing overcharge documentation, and recency bias toward older positive reviews significantly undermine confidence in the overall assessment. Recommend independent verification of business licensing status and recent customer references before engaging this contractor.

Morningside Plumbers presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Positive reviews — mostly from 2018 onward — highlight same-day scheduling, friendly technicians, and competent work on straightforward jobs like faucet replacements, toilet installs, and drain clogs. However, a substantial cluster of negative reviews, many from 2012–2015 but extending into 2014, describe serious pricing concerns including quotes dramatically higher than competitors, charges of $275–$330 per hour, and at least one instance where a $1,800 quote was resolved by another plumber for $325. Professionalism is similarly split: several reviewers praise specific technicians by name, while others describe no-shows, missed appointments, disrespectful behavior, and property damage. Project completion is also mixed, with one notable case of abandoned work mid-contract and a crooked valve installation left under tension. The overall pattern suggests a business that may have declined significantly after a change of ownership, with more recent reviews trending more positively but the historical record dragging scores down considerably.

• Multiple reviewers explicitly reference a change of ownership and attribute a decline in quality, pricing fairness, and professionalism to new management — this is a structural business risk that may affect score reliability across time periods.
• The review set spans nearly a decade (2012–2024), making temporal consistency a significant concern. Older negative reviews may not reflect current operations, but they cannot be dismissed given their specificity and volume.
• Several negative reviews are highly detailed and specific (named technicians, itemized costs, job descriptions), lending them strong credibility and reducing the likelihood they are fake.
• Positive reviews from 2018–2024 are generally shorter and less detailed than the negative ones, though they do name specific technicians and describe specific jobs, which reduces fake review suspicion.
• One review (2017, 1-star) concerns erratic driving behavior by a company vehicle and does not relate to plumbing service quality — it was noted but given minimal weight in scoring.
• The 1-star review from 2012 alleges disrespect toward women, property damage, and predatory pricing targeting an elderly relative — this is a serious conduct flag even accounting for its age.
• Recency note: Only 3 of 14 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024), and all 3 are positive. This is encouraging but insufficient to fully offset the volume of negative historical data.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews spanning 12 years with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the wide time range and documented ownership change significantly complicate interpretation — the score should be treated as a historical average rather than a reliable indicator of current service quality.

This review set presents a deeply polarized picture of a company operating under multiple brand names including Rapid Plumbing, Rapid Rooter, WiseWay Plumbing, and Up To Code Plumbing. A substantial cluster of recent positive reviews — many involving named technicians like Eduardo, Jonathan, Eddie, and Nathan — describe punctual, professional, and knowledgeable service, particularly for Moen Flo device installations. However, these are heavily counterbalanced by a large and detailed body of negative reviews spanning years, with consistent, credible allegations of gross overcharging, fraudulent diagnoses, predatory targeting of elderly customers, incomplete work, property damage, and aggressive upselling. Pricing is the most severely impacted dimension, with dozens of independent reviewers describing quotes 3x to 20x higher than competitors for identical work, and multiple references to an NBC News investigation into the company's fraudulent practices. Project completion is also significantly damaged by reviews describing abandoned jobs, work left incomplete, and problems recurring shortly after service. The professionalism and experience scores are modestly higher due to the genuine volume of positive recent reviews, but the weight of serious misconduct allegations prevents any dimension from scoring well.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Numerous reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on the same date, including multiple identical 5-star and 1-star reviews. This inflates both positive and negative review counts and suggests possible review manipulation on both sides.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE: A significant number of recent 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, or contain no text at all (rating only). Several positive reviews use near-identical phrasing across different dates and technician names, suggesting possible coordinated or incentivized posting.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — NEGATIVE: Some negative reviews also appear duplicated verbatim, which may indicate coordinated negative campaigns. However, the majority of detailed negative reviews contain specific names, dollar amounts, dates, and circumstances that lend them high credibility.
• MULTIPLE BRAND NAMES: Reviews reference at least four distinct business names — Rapid Plumbing, Rapid Rooter, WiseWay Plumbing, and Up To Code Plumbing — suggesting a franchise or rebranding structure. Scores may reflect inconsistent quality across different operators or locations operating under shared branding.
• NBC NEWS INVESTIGATION: Multiple independent reviewers reference an NBC Los Angeles I-Team investigation into this company for fraudulent practices, gross overcharging, and elder abuse. One reviewer states a victim recovered over $30,000. This is a significant credibility flag.
• ELDER TARGETING PATTERN: A statistically notable number of negative reviews — at least 25 — specifically describe elderly or disabled customers being targeted with inflated quotes, unnecessary work, or high-pressure tactics. This is a serious and recurring pattern.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Dozens of reviews describe quotes that were 3x to 20x higher than competitors for identical work, with multiple reviewers confirming via second opinions that the diagnosed problems either did not exist or were vastly overstated.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) skew more positive and involve specific named technicians. Older reviews (2013–2022) are overwhelmingly negative. This may reflect genuine improvement in some service lines or locations, or may reflect a review management strategy. Caution is warranted.

This WW Score of 42.1 should be treated with HIGH caution — while the volume of reviews is large enough to produce a statistically meaningful score, the dataset is severely compromised by duplicate reviews, suspected fake positive reviews, multiple operating brand names, and a documented pattern of fraudulent business practices that fundamentally undermines trust in the company's service quality and integrity.

Freddy's performance is highly inconsistent and contradictory across reviews. While two reviews praise his versatility and work quality, the most recent detailed review (2023) documents severe defects including gas leaks, plumbing failures, electrical hazards, and poor flooring installation—all requiring complete replacement. The 2020 updated review reveals critical safety issues and unethical behavior (refusing accountability, dismissing customer concerns). Professionalism is severely compromised by unprofessional conduct during disputes and lack of follow-through on corrections. The WW Score reflects serious concerns about reliability, safety, and integrity despite some positive initial impressions.

• CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUES: Multiple reviews document dangerous defects including gas leaks inside the home, loose electrical wiring, and plumbing failures that required complete system replacement. These pose serious health and safety risks.
• PATTERN OF POOR WORKMANSHIP: Defects emerged months after completion (gas leaks, ceiling damage from plumbing leak, vinyl flooring with air pockets and unsealed seams), suggesting systemic quality control failures.
• UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR: Contractor refused to take accountability, denied contract existence, refused refunds despite documented poor work, and made dismissive comments about customer finances.
• CONTRADICTORY REVIEWS: The stark contrast between glowing 2020 reviews and the detailed 2023 negative review with specific defects suggests either deterioration in quality or that initial reviews did not account for latent defects.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most damaging review is the most recent (2023), indicating ongoing or worsening issues. The 2020 reviews predate discovery of major defects.
• LACK OF FOLLOW-UP: Contractor refused to correct documented errors, violating basic professional standards.

This score should be treated with caution due to conflicting reviews, but the detailed 2023 review with specific safety violations and documented defects carries significant weight and suggests serious underlying quality and integrity issues that override positive earlier impressions.