Find Nearby Plumbers In Inglewood, California

Johnny Carrillo Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance with a WW Score of 82.1, driven by consistently high marks for technical skill and fair pricing. The business excels in experience and professionalism, with customers repeatedly praising honest workmanship, responsiveness, and courteous service. However, project completion reliability is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviews documenting scheduling inconsistencies, no-shows, rescheduling delays, and incomplete work requiring callbacks. While the majority of reviews are highly positive, the pattern of timeliness and follow-through issues is significant enough to warrant caution for time-sensitive projects.

• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews (at least 6-8) document significant delays, no-shows, rescheduling failures, and missed appointment windows. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents. Reviews from 2019, 2017, 2016, 2015, and 2014 all mention this issue.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Several reviews describe work left unfinished on first visit, requiring callbacks and additional appointments (2019 review, 2017 review, 2014 review). One 2019 review explicitly states this happened 'several times' across different jobs.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews (scheduling/completion issues) are from 2014-2019. Recent reviews (2024, 2023) are uniformly positive with no scheduling complaints mentioned. This suggests either improvement or selection bias in recent reviewers.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: A few reviews (2012, 2017) mention unexpected price increases or charges perceived as high relative to work performed, though most reviews praise fair pricing. One 2012 review criticized $165 for 5 minutes of work.
• STAFF VARIABILITY: Multiple reviews mention different team members (Johnny, Victor, Danny, Ruben, Lejio). Quality and timeliness appear inconsistent depending on which technician is assigned.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable for assessing technical competence and pricing fairness, but should be interpreted with caution regarding scheduling reliability and project completion timeliness—customers requiring strict appointment windows or time-sensitive work should be aware of documented delays and rescheduling patterns, particularly for non-emergency jobs.

Global Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all dimensions, with particular strength in professionalism and pricing fairness. The company excels at responsive communication, punctuality, and honest dealings with customers. Technical expertise is consistently praised, with multiple reviews highlighting problem-solving ability and quality workmanship. However, project completion shows slightly lower confidence due to a small number of negative reviews citing incomplete work, warranty issues, and follow-up failures. The presence of 4 one-star reviews (approximately 5% of total) indicates occasional service failures that prevent a higher score despite overwhelming positive feedback.

• Four 1-star reviews (2023-05-31, 2021-10-08, 2020-05-02, 2019-09-24, 2014-05-01, 2012-01-13) indicate legitimate service failures: incomplete work requiring rework, unprofessional behavior (cursing at customer), unresponsiveness to phone calls, poor warranty handling, and billing disputes. These are not isolated complaints and suggest systemic issues with consistency.
• Review from 2023-05-31 explicitly states customer paid in full, same problem recurred months later, and company demanded full payment again instead of honoring warranty—this is a significant project completion failure.
• Review from 2021-10-08 documents unprofessional conduct (technician cursing) and poor complaint handling by management (denying incident without investigation).
• Review from 2020-05-02 indicates unresponsiveness—customer called back and company would not answer phone.
• Review from 2019-09-24 describes poor workmanship on repiping job requiring two separate corrections by another plumber, and inspector compliance issues.
• Older reviews (pre-2018) show some billing disputes and reliability issues, though these may reflect historical problems.
• Majority of reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language, but this is balanced by credible negative reviews with specific details, suggesting genuine mixed performance rather than fake reviews.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable and based on substantial data (80 reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions), but the score masks meaningful variability: approximately 95% of reviews are 5-star with strong praise, while 5% report serious failures in project completion and professionalism. The company appears to deliver excellent service most of the time but has documented issues with warranty follow-up, consistency, and complaint resolution that warrant caution. Prospective customers should expect high-quality work in most cases but should clarify warranty terms and follow-up procedures in writing before engaging.

Steve Watson demonstrates strong technical expertise and pricing fairness, with most customers praising his skill, knowledge, and reasonable rates. Professionalism is generally high, with consistent mentions of punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness. However, project completion reliability is notably weakened by four explicit no-show incidents (2023, 2018, 2017, 2016) where Steve failed to appear for scheduled appointments without prior communication. These failures significantly impact overall trustworthiness despite the overwhelming majority of positive reviews praising his work quality and customer care.

• CRITICAL: Four documented no-show incidents (1/24/2023, 6/16/2018, 8/16/2017, 8/15/2016) where Steve failed to arrive or communicate cancellations. These are explicit, detailed complaints from different customers across multiple years, indicating a recurring pattern of scheduling/reliability issues.
• Potential fake review concern: Two identical 5-star reviews dated 9/19/2017 with identical text ('Steve Watson is the absolute best! He is knowledgeable, reliable, and a true gentleman...') suggest possible duplicate posting, though content is substantive enough not to be flagged as entirely fabricated.
• One review (1/30/2018) rated 4.0 instead of 5.0, noting difficulty scheduling appointments and acknowledging Steve's busy schedule as a limitation, which aligns with no-show pattern.
• Recency concern: Most reviews are from 2015-2018 (older than 5 years). Only 3 reviews from 2022-2023, with the most recent being a 1-star no-show complaint from January 2023, suggesting potential ongoing issues.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with caution despite HIGH confidence in the data volume. While Steve Watson demonstrates exceptional technical skill, pricing fairness, and customer care in completed jobs, the recurring pattern of no-shows and scheduling failures (4 documented incidents over 7 years) represents a material reliability risk that significantly undermines the otherwise strong performance metrics. Customers should expect excellent work quality if an appointment is kept, but should verify confirmation and follow-up before relying on scheduled appointments.

Johnson's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across nearly all reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, politeness, and responsiveness. Project completion is solid but shows some variability—most jobs are completed successfully and on time, though a few reviews mention delays or incomplete follow-through. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and competitive, though one significant dispute over diagnostic fees and hidden charges emerged. Experience and technical skill are well-documented, with reviewers frequently citing 30+ years in the trade and expert problem-solving abilities. The business shows strong family involvement and a reputation for honesty that resonates across the customer base.

• One 1-star review (2022-08-12) describes a serious dispute over billing practices: a $128.50 diagnostic fee charged after a $429.67 faucet replacement, followed by alleged threatening behavior. This is a material concern for pricing transparency and professionalism.
• One 1-star review (2021-02-01) appears to reference a different plumber or service provider entirely—mentions 3 different plumbers and a $75 service call + $140 charge. This may not be about Johnson's Plumbing directly.
• One 3-star review (2014-09-27) describes a significant project completion issue: the plumber (Elton) abandoned the job mid-way for 2 days to work on another project, leaving the customer without access to their bathroom. This is a notable reliability concern.
• One 2-star review (2012-06-02) describes chronic non-completion: a kitchen faucet repair promised for 'next Saturday' was never completed over multiple months despite repeated calls. This is a serious project completion failure.
• One 3-star review (2020-08-09) notes the plumber was uncomfortable with non-standard situations (condo attic water heater), suggesting potential limitations in adaptability.
• One 1-star review (2014-01-17) describes a pattern of poor responsiveness: no callback on first attempt, missed appointment on second attempt, and lack of service orientation on third attempt. This contradicts the otherwise strong professionalism profile.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (majority from 2012-2019). Only 3 reviews are from 2024, 1 from 2022, and 1 from 2021. Recent data is limited.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews show specific details, varied experiences, and natural language variation.

This WW Score of 82.1 is reliable at HIGH confidence for overall professionalism and experience, but should be interpreted with caution regarding project completion and pricing due to several documented failures and disputes. The score is heavily weighted toward older reviews (pre-2020), so current service quality may differ. The presence of 4 low-star reviews (1-2 stars) describing serious issues with follow-through, billing practices, and responsiveness indicates this contractor has a meaningful track record of problems alongside many satisfied customers. Prospective clients should prioritize recent references and clarify billing practices and project timelines in writing before engaging.

Conover Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, courtesy, and communication across many years of reviews. Technical experience and workmanship are consistently highlighted, including complex jobs like repiping, gas lines, and tankless water heater installations. Project completion scores are tempered by two serious negative reviews — one describing a $50,000 repipe job that was abandoned for weeks, produced leaks behind new sheetrock, and resulted in unresolved callbacks, and another describing three failed visits that left two toilets still non-functional. Pricing receives a moderately positive score overall, but is pulled down by one reviewer explicitly calling the rates twice the going rate, and the major negative review implying poor value for an incomplete large job. The strong volume of positive reviews across multiple years provides reasonable confidence, but the two detailed negative reviews carry meaningful weight and prevent a higher score.

• Two detailed 1-star reviews describe serious project completion failures: one involving a $50,000 repipe job with weeks of no-shows, shoddy work concealed behind sheetrock, ongoing leaks, and unanswered calls; the other describing three failed visits and toilets still not repaired after charging $300 per visit. These are not vague complaints and significantly impact project completion scoring.
• Several reviews are older than 5 years (2010, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018) and reference different lead technicians (Todd, Brandon) compared to more recent reviews (Alex, Tyler, Erik). This may indicate a change in personnel or ownership over time, and older reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• The majority of reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language, but most include specific details (names, job types, circumstances) that reduce the likelihood of fake reviews. No strong fake review pattern detected.
• Recency note: The two most damaging negative reviews are from 2015 and 2017, and the most recent reviews (2023–2024) are uniformly positive. This suggests possible improvement in service quality over time, but the negative reviews cannot be dismissed entirely.

This WW Score is based on 25 reviews spanning over a decade with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reasonable, but users should note that two detailed negative reviews describe serious failures in project completion and pricing transparency, and that personnel referenced in older reviews differ from those in recent reviews, introducing some uncertainty about consistency.

LA Blue Plumbing and Heating demonstrates strong professionalism (86.3) with consistent praise for responsiveness, politeness, and communication across 19 reviews. Technical expertise and workmanship are solid (87.5) based on 15 mentions of successful problem-solving and quality work. Project completion (79.2) is supported by 14 mentions but is tempered by three significant failures: one missed appointment with no follow-up, one incomplete service call, and one unresponsive warranty claim. Pricing (73.8) shows mixed feedback—many customers praise fair and reasonable rates, but three reviews cite overcharging or inflated service fees. The WW Score of 82.1 reflects a generally reliable contractor with strong interpersonal skills, but notable gaps in follow-through and pricing consistency prevent a higher score.

• Three 1-star reviews (2018, 2016, 2016) reveal serious service failures: unresponsive to warranty claim, incomplete service with billing for work not performed, and missed appointments with poor communication. These are not isolated complaints but pattern indicators.
• Pricing concerns appear in 3 reviews: one customer charged $350 for a thermocouple replacement, another charged $200 for sensor cleaning (later found to be simple DIY task), and a third charged $750 quote but same price for different repair. Suggests potential overcharging or inconsistent pricing practices.
• Review recency skew: 17 of 24 reviews are from 2015-2016 (8+ years old). Only 3 reviews from 2024, 2022, and 2021. Recent data is limited, making it unclear if service quality has improved or declined.
• One review (2015) contains a personal comment ('His wife is hot too') that is unprofessional and slightly inappropriate, though this reflects reviewer behavior, not contractor behavior.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews show genuine variation in experience with specific details and legitimate complaints.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence for professionalism and experience, but with CAUTION regarding project completion and pricing due to documented service failures and billing inconsistencies. The heavy weighting of older reviews (2015-2016) means current performance may differ significantly from this historical assessment. Recent customers should verify current service standards before committing.