Find Nearby Plumbers In Inglewood, California

E&A Rooters demonstrates strong professionalism across all six reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, friendly demeanor, and communication (photos/videos sent, quick callbacks). Pricing is highlighted as fair and affordable relative to competitors, with one reviewer noting significantly lower quotes than other businesses. Project completion is solid, with jobs finished quickly and follow-through on troubleshooting beyond the initial scope. Technical skill is evident, particularly in the creative problem-solving demonstrated in the spa bathtub case. However, the small sample size (6 reviews) and age of most reviews (4 of 6 from 2016–2018) limit confidence in the overall score.

• Review recency concern: 4 of 6 reviews are from 2016–2018 (6–8 years old). Only 2 reviews from 2020 and 2023. Current service quality may differ.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback. While not necessarily fake, the complete absence of any critical comments or minor complaints is atypical and should be noted.
• Small sample size (6 reviews) limits statistical reliability. Recommend collecting more recent reviews before making high-confidence business decisions.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and significant age of most reviews; while the available data is positive and consistent, it does not provide sufficient recent evidence to confidently assess current service quality.

Tom's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism, with extensive evidence of skilled workmanship, punctuality, and responsive communication across the majority of reviews. However, the business is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—multiple customers report being quoted one price and charged substantially more, with some citing deceptive marketing practices (e.g., the $99 drain cleaning offer that only covered the service call). Project completion is generally reliable, though several reviews document follow-up failures and incomplete callbacks. The company shows inconsistent execution: while many customers praise Tom's personal involvement and integrity, others report poor experiences with assistants and unresolved issues. The 12+ year review history reveals both loyal, repeat customers and serious complaints about overcharging and poor follow-through.

• PRICING PATTERN: At least 6 reviews explicitly document price discrepancies—customers quoted one amount and charged significantly more. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• DECEPTIVE MARKETING: Review from 2022-06-20 describes '$99 drain cleaning' offer that only covered the service call; actual bill was $175. This suggests misleading advertising practices.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2016-01-23, 2013-08-26, 2013-05-09) document failure to return calls, respond to emails, or complete promised callbacks over weeks.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews note that work by Tom personally is excellent, but work by assistants/employees is substandard or incomplete, suggesting quality control issues.
• AGGRESSIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES: Review from 2014-07-02 describes Tom's showing up at competitor's job site to pressure about permits; review from 2013-08-20 mentions Google reviews being blocked for this business.
• TECHNICAL ERRORS: Review from 2016-01-23 documents improper installation (PEX tubing instead of copper per manufacturer specs) with no response to correction requests.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2013-2015 period; more recent reviews (2024, 2023) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible business improvement or review selection bias.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MINIMAL: While many 5-star reviews exist, they contain specific details (names, job types, amounts, dates) and vary in writing style. No obvious pattern of identical phrasing detected. However, multiple 'unknown' text reviews and single-word reviews ('Great!', '.') suggest some low-quality entries.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable at the HIGH confidence level due to 125 reviews with substantial mentions across all dimensions; however, the score masks significant volatility in customer experience. The pricing dimension is particularly concerning—the HIGH confidence reflects many mentions but also reveals a systematic pattern of overcharging that materially undermines trust. Customers should expect strong technical work and responsiveness but should obtain detailed, itemized written quotes and clarify billing practices before engaging this contractor.

Gilbert Plumbing demonstrates solid overall performance with a WW Score of 76.8, driven by consistent professionalism and technical competence across multiple reviews. Professionalism scores well (78.5) with frequent mentions of punctuality, courteous staff, and responsive communication, though some negative interactions with dispatchers and driver conduct issues temper this. Project completion (78.0) is reliable with most jobs finished as promised, though a few callback failures and incomplete warranty honor cases create concern. Experience (82.5) is a relative strength, with multiple reviews praising technical skill and problem-solving ability. Pricing (72.0) is the weakest dimension—while many customers report fair and reasonable rates, a notable subset experienced significant overcharging or unnecessary upsells, creating inconsistency in value perception.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2022, 2020, 2015, 2010) report aggressive upselling, overcharging, or quotes 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work. This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or selective targeting of certain customers.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: At least 3 reviews (2024, 2020, 2007) explicitly mention the company failing to return calls or honor promised callbacks, indicating a systemic customer service gap.
• DRIVER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews (2021, 2017, 2015) reference unprofessional driver behavior (rude gestures, traffic violations, aggressive conduct), suggesting potential brand reputation risk and possible training/management issues.
• DISPATCHER COMMUNICATION: Two nearly identical negative reviews (2024, 2014) describe the same dispatcher (Maria) being rude and dismissive after miscommunicating about roof access, suggesting a specific recurring issue.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: One detailed 2010 review describes warranty misrepresentation, backdating of receipts, and refusal to honor stated terms, raising integrity concerns.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most 5-star reviews cluster in 2013-2023 with minimal recent data (only 3 reviews from 2024). Negative reviews are more recent (2024, 2021, 2020), suggesting potential service decline.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('very professional,' 'on time,' 'reasonable prices,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail, though not enough to conclusively flag as fake.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain no text, only ratings (mostly 5-star), reducing data quality.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the score reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and experience, the significant pricing inconsistencies, recent callback failures, and driver conduct issues suggest the company's actual customer experience is more volatile than the overall score indicates. The company appears to deliver quality technical work but has notable gaps in customer service consistency and pricing transparency. Prospective customers should obtain detailed written quotes and verify warranty terms in writing before engaging.

Gerhard Weise Plumbing demonstrates solid overall performance with a WW Score of 76.8, driven by strong marks in experience (82.0) and pricing (79.0). However, professionalism (78.0) and project completion (75.0) are tempered by significant negative reviews citing office staff rudeness, communication failures, missed emergency calls, and follow-up issues. While the majority of reviews praise the field plumbers' skill and efficiency, recurring complaints about administrative responsiveness, billing delays, and accountability problems create material concerns. The company shows high variability in customer experience depending on whether interactions involve field work or office coordination.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2019, 2019, 2015) specifically cite office staff (Lisa, receptionist, scheduler) as unprofessional, rude, and unresponsive. This is a systemic administrative issue, not isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2024-06-02, 2024-04-26) describe serious project failures: one involving poor workmanship on valve installation ($890 job) and another involving complete failure to respond to emergency service calls, resulting in water damage.
• CRITICAL: One review (2021-10-08) alleges unsafe welding practices caused a major fire displacing homeowners for over a year. This is a severe safety and liability concern.
• CRITICAL: One review (2019-05-28) alleges deliberate overcharging and cheating—performing expensive unnecessary work, then charging again for the correct simple fix.
• Billing and follow-up issues appear in multiple reviews (2017-08-25, 2017-01-10, 2014-07-04): late invoices, failure to return calls about payment, invoices sent months or years after service.
• One review (2024-09-17) alleges theft of jewelry during service visit, though accountability is disputed.
• Positive reviews are heavily concentrated in 2014-2018 period; recent reviews (2024) show mixed-to-negative trend with serious complaints.
• Pattern of defensive responses: one 2020 review explicitly states 'bad reviews below do not represent reality,' suggesting awareness of negative feedback and possible review manipulation.
• High variability in experience: field plumbers consistently praised as skilled and efficient; office/administrative staff consistently criticized as unprofessional and unresponsive.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with CAUTION despite HIGH overall confidence. While the score reflects genuine strengths in field-level experience and pricing, it masks serious systemic problems in administrative responsiveness, emergency service reliability, and accountability that have persisted for years and appear to be worsening in recent months. The company's field work quality does not compensate for failures in communication, follow-through, and professional conduct at the office level. Customers should be aware that positive outcomes depend heavily on avoiding office interactions and that emergency service reliability is questionable based on recent evidence.

New Age Plumbing has a strong and consistent reputation for fair, transparent pricing and responsive service, with the vast majority of reviewers praising Primo and his team as honest and reasonably priced. Professionalism scores are solid overall but are meaningfully dragged down by several credible negative reviews describing no-shows without communication, a technician giving a customer the finger, unanswered callbacks, and a stolen faucet — these are serious incidents that cannot be dismissed. Project completion is the most concerning dimension: while most jobs are described as completed efficiently, there are multiple explicit accounts of incomplete work (a hot water leak left unresolved), failure to clean up debris, refusal to provide receipts, and a significant sewer inspection failure that cost a customer $3,000 — all of which suppress the score considerably. Experience scores are generally positive, with reviewers frequently citing skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship, though the sewer misdiagnosis and the incomplete hot water heater job introduce meaningful doubt. The review base spans over a decade (2011–2024), and more recent reviews (2023–2024) trend positively, suggesting some improvement over time.

• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2024. Approximately 18 reviews are older than 3 years and 10 are older than 5 years. More recent reviews (2023–2024) are predominantly positive, but older negative incidents are substantive and should not be ignored.
• SERIOUS INCIDENT — PROJECT COMPLETION: One reviewer (2023-08-01) explicitly states the technician left without fixing a continuous hot water leak after replacing the water heater, and the company then avoided their calls. This is a significant project abandonment flag.
• SERIOUS INCIDENT — PROFESSIONALISM: One reviewer (2016-05-20) states that 'Larry' gave them the finger when asked to wait and discuss an unresolved issue. This is an extreme professionalism failure.
• RELIABILITY INCIDENT: One reviewer (2017-07-14) describes a confirmed appointment where 'Larry' never showed, never called, and never responded to texts or voicemails. A second reviewer (2021-12-22) describes two consecutive days of no-shows with no communication.
• TRUST/ETHICS INCIDENT: One reviewer (2022-12-13) states the plumber took their old faucet without permission and never returned calls about it. Another reviewer (2021-03-19) states the plumber refused to show a receipt for parts and became angry when asked.
• SERIOUS COMPETENCE INCIDENT: One reviewer (2012-12-28) paid $250 for a sewer inspection that declared pipes 'old but in good condition.' A contractor's plumber subsequently found extensive blistering and rust, requiring $3,000 in sewer replacement work. This is a significant diagnostic failure.
• CLEANUP FAILURES: Multiple reviews (2020-07-23, 2021-03-19) explicitly mention failure to clean up debris or patch holes after completing work.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary meaningfully in tone, detail, length, rating, and content. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No suspicious clustering of identical phrasing was observed.
• PAYMENT NOTE: One reviewer (2021-04-17) notes the company does not accept credit cards, which may be a consideration for some customers.

This WW Score is based on 42 reviews spanning 13 years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the presence of multiple credible, specific negative incidents — including job abandonment, no-shows, a physical gesture of disrespect, a stolen item, and a costly inspection failure — means the score should be interpreted cautiously, and prospective customers are advised to confirm scope of work in writing and verify follow-through commitments before hiring.

Millennium Plumbing earns strong marks for responsiveness and professionalism from the majority of reviewers, with many praising punctuality, friendly technicians, and clear communication. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — including allegations of price gouging, defective work, rude office staff, and at least one serious claim of abandoned work and unlicensed operation — significantly temper the overall score. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing quotes that were two to three times higher than competitors, and one reviewer successfully completing a job themselves after declining an unnecessary upsell. Project completion is also mixed, with several reviews noting incomplete work, recurring leaks after repairs, and one severe allegation of work that caused a gas leak and basement flooding. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in emergency availability and frontline technician quality, but with real and documented inconsistencies in pricing integrity, workmanship quality, and office-level customer service.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2022-11-23 are word-for-word identical (Rory Rickets faucet/hose bib review). One appears to be a duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from 2020-06-10 are nearly word-for-word identical (property manager complaint about non-repair and rude phone staff). One is dated 2019-09-23. Counted only once for scoring.
• 13 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of 10+ reviews dated 2022-01-28 and 2022-03-29 share suspiciously brief, generic phrasing ('very professional', 'highly recommend', 'great price') with no job specifics, no technician names, and no detail. These may be solicited or fabricated reviews and were weighted conservatively.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE FLAGS: One review alleges the company is not MHIC licensed (as of 2017). Another alleges a dangerous gas leak caused by faulty water heater installation. A third alleges money taken from an elderly person with work never completed. These are severe claims that, if accurate, represent significant legal and safety risks.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are generally positive, but the review base spans 2013–2024. Older negative reviews (2013–2017) describe serious workmanship failures. The pattern of complaints about pricing and incomplete work recurs across multiple years, suggesting these are not isolated incidents.
• ONE REVIEW references 'High Quality Plumbing Company' as the actual company that did the work, suggesting a possible misattributed review or subcontracting arrangement that was not disclosed to the customer.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced by the presence of suspected solicited reviews, duplicate submissions, and a recurring pattern of serious complaints about pricing, workmanship, and customer service that spans multiple years.