Find Nearby Plumbers In Lakewood, California

Royal Flush Plumbing & Drains has a strong and well-documented track record of rapid response, emergency availability, and generally fair pricing, with dozens of reviewers explicitly praising Frank and his team for punctuality, communication, and going above and beyond. However, a meaningful cluster of 1-star reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious issues including incomplete work, work not performed to code, broken fixtures caused by technicians, hidden charges, and deeply unprofessional conduct by the owner Frank in billing disputes. The negative reviews are specific, detailed, and credible, preventing scores from reaching the high 80s or 90s despite the volume of positive feedback. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as multiple reviewers explicitly describe jobs left unfinished, promises not honored, and work that had to be redone by other contractors. Pricing scores moderately well overall but is tempered by complaints about quote changes on arrival and charges for damage caused by the company's own workers.

• 6 reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring — these cannot be evaluated for quality.
• One review (1-star, 2024-06-09) references threatening to withhold a newborn's discharge certificate — this appears to be a misdirected review for a different type of business (likely a hospital or medical provider) and was excluded from scoring as irrelevant to plumbing services.
• One review (1-star, 2020-06-10) describes a parking lot incident unrelated to plumbing work quality — it was counted for professionalism/customer service only, as it reflects on company staff conduct.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Best service ever', 'Highly recommend him! Great job.', 'Joshua m. O'Neill') with no substantive detail — these were not counted toward dimension scores due to lack of usable evidence per Rule 1.
• The review corpus spans 2012–2024. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 60%) are older than 3 years, and the most recent substantive reviews (2024) are mixed. Recency weighting was applied; older reviews were given reduced influence on final scores.
• Multiple detailed negative reviews describe a consistent pattern: Frank or James causing damage and refusing accountability, charging for broken parts they themselves broke, and incomplete work billed as complete. This pattern across independent reviewers over multiple years is credible and materially impacts project completion and professionalism scores.
• No clear fake review pattern detected, though the volume of brief, undetailed 5-star reviews warrants mild caution. The presence of detailed negative reviews with specific names, dates, and dollar amounts increases overall corpus credibility.

This WW Score is based on a large review corpus (85 reviews) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given a documented pattern of serious service failures in negative reviews that are specific, credible, and recurring across multiple years.

Dial One Schilling demonstrates strong technical competence and generally reliable project completion, with technicians like Scott and Mike frequently praised for skill and knowledge. However, pricing practices significantly undermine the overall score, with multiple customers reporting substantial overcharges for parts and labor—including a $350 capacitor that cost $15, a $4,000 labor quote for a simple water heater swap, and $270 for 50 minutes of diagnostic work. Professionalism is solid with good punctuality and communication, but the company's handling of customer complaints and refusal to take responsibility for technician errors (the compressor damage incident) raises serious concerns about accountability. The WW Score reflects strong execution capability offset by persistent pricing transparency and ethical issues.

• PRICING PATTERN: At least 6 reviews explicitly cite overpricing or unfair labor charges. Customers report parts marked up 20-30x cost and labor rates that appear inconsistent with market standards. This is the single largest driver of negative sentiment.
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUE: Two separate 1-star reviews (2020-09-02 and 2020-09-01) describe the same incident where a technician damaged a compressor during repair. Owner George refused to take responsibility despite multiple witnesses. This suggests a systemic problem with warranty/liability practices.
• INCONSISTENT PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviews mention difficulty obtaining itemized breakdowns or hourly rates. One customer (2019-06-14) reported owner George could not explain how pricing was calculated and only offered a 20% refund after complaint.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2015-2020 period. More recent reviews (2021-2024) are predominantly 5-star with minimal pricing complaints. This may indicate either improved practices or selection bias in recent reviewers.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: At least 3 reviews (2015-01-25, 2018-07-25, 2019-06-14) describe aggressive upselling or recommending unnecessary work. One customer (2015-01-25) reported technician became rude when customer declined expensive option.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: Several recent 5-star reviews (2024-08-18, 2023-08-20, 2023-08-05, 2023-08-01) contain generic praise with minimal specific detail. However, these are balanced by detailed positive reviews, so no strong fake review signal detected overall.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable for assessing technical competence and professionalism (HIGH confidence), but the pricing dimension carries elevated risk due to documented overcharging patterns and customer complaints about lack of transparency. The company excels at problem-solving and customer service delivery but has serious ethical concerns around pricing practices and accountability that should weigh heavily in contractor selection decisions.

RPB Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across a large review base spanning over a decade, with consistent praise for responsiveness, courteous technicians (especially Jason and Richie), and reliable follow-through on jobs. Professionalism scores are tempered by several serious negative incidents including a technician allegedly yelling a vulgar obscenity and making an obscene gesture at a customer, a tech reportedly damaging a furnace unit during inspection, a worker spray-painting a damaged ceiling instead of repairing it, and a plumber breaking a drain stopper and fleeing the scene. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out high costs, a $600 charge for a $15 part, and a service fee for estimates that competitors waive — though a meaningful number of reviewers also found pricing fair or competitive. Project completion is generally strong with many completed jobs and callbacks honored, but the spray-paint ceiling incident and the furnace damage incident represent notable failures in workmanship follow-through that prevent a higher score.

• SERIOUS CONDUCT INCIDENT: One reviewer (2024-03-16) alleges technician Jason verbally abused them with a vulgar obscenity and made an obscene gesture — this is a significant professionalism red flag if accurate.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: One reviewer (2017-07-13) claims a technician damaged their entire furnace unit during an inspection visit, resulting in a $2,000 loss — no evidence of resolution provided.
• INCOMPLETE REPAIR / DECEPTIVE PATCH: One reviewer (2016-08-08) reports that instead of replacing damaged drywall after a repipe leak, the technician spray-painted over the damage — a clear project completion and integrity failure.
• TECHNICIAN ABANDONMENT: One reviewer (2013-03-17) reports a technician broke a drain stopper, refused accountability, and left the premises mid-dispute — job was eventually corrected but trust was broken.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviewers (2022-01-13, 2024-03-08) explicitly cite pricing as significantly above market rate, with one describing it as 'highway robbery' and another noting double the rate of competitors.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with strong positive signals span 2016–2024, giving reasonable recency coverage. The most recent negative incident (vulgar technician) is from March 2024, which is within the past 12 months and carries elevated weight.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating — no suspicious uniformity or templated language observed. Review base appears authentic.

This WW Score is based on 37 reviews with strong dimension coverage across all four categories, yielding HIGH confidence — however, the presence of multiple serious misconduct and workmanship failure incidents means the score reflects a genuinely mixed track record, and prospective customers should weigh the negative reviews carefully rather than relying solely on the aggregate score.

Albano's Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise responsiveness, friendly office staff, and courteous technicians — particularly named plumbers like Christian, Kevin, Gustavo, Jesus, and Alan. However, a meaningful minority of reviews (roughly 15–18 out of 120) describe serious concerns including price-switching after quotes, incomplete work requiring return visits, job abandonment, property damage (stained carpets, cracked tiles, used customer towels), and dishonest communication from both field staff and management. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out bait-and-switch tactics, inflated quotes, and final bills significantly exceeding estimates. Project completion is also dragged down by several reviews describing jobs left unfinished, drains not fully cleared, and warranty disputes. The high volume of reviews provides statistical confidence, but the pattern of negative reviews is too consistent and specific to dismiss.

• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: 22 reviews share the exact same date of 2025-05-10, all rated 5 stars, many with generic phrasing ('great service,' 'very professional,' 'highly recommend') and no specific job details. This is a statistically anomalous cluster and strongly suggests a coordinated review campaign. These reviews were included in scoring but treated with reduced individual weight.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about losing a job and paying monthly ('Not only are they plumbing experts, they are kind and compassionate...') appears twice with slightly different wording — dated 2024-06-09 and 2024-03-06. Only one instance was counted.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The re-piping review crediting Alan ('Contacted Albano's for re-piping work...') appears twice — dated 2021-06-10 and 2021-04-25. Only one instance was counted.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2012, 2016, 2018, 2022, 2023) describe quotes being raised at time of service, final bills exceeding estimates, and technicians explicitly stating they 'need to make money.' This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Several reviews describe work that was not completed correctly on the first visit, including a drain not fully cleared after payment, a toilet not properly reinstalled causing flooding, a slab leak warranty dispute, and a toy not removed from a toilet despite being charged for it.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: At least two reviews describe physical damage to customer property — carpet stained by plumbers walking in with dirty boots, and a tile cracked under a toilet.
• RECENCY NOTE: The 2025-05-10 cluster accounts for a disproportionate share of recent reviews. Excluding that cluster, the most recent organic reviews are from late 2024. Negative reviews span from 2012 through 2024, suggesting persistent rather than resolved issues.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (one rated 4.0, one rated 5.0) and were excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (120 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to a suspected coordinated 5-star review injection on 2025-05-10 and a consistent multi-year pattern of pricing and project completion complaints that meaningfully offset the otherwise positive customer sentiment.

DrainPros demonstrates strong technical expertise and competitive pricing across multiple reviews, with Randy consistently praised for knowledge, responsiveness, and going above and beyond (free camera inspections, free advice). Professionalism is generally high with punctuality and politeness noted. However, one recent negative review (2016) raises concerns about reliability decline and responsiveness, explicitly stating Randy 'will not return calls.' Project completion is solid but not universally perfect. The dataset is heavily weighted toward older reviews (most from 2013-2020), limiting recency confidence.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 10 of 11 reviews are from 2013-2020; only 1 review from 2016 or later is negative. No reviews from past 12 months. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews dated 2017-02-15 (three identical reviews on same date) contain nearly identical phrasing ('gave me information to fix the problem free of charge,' 'They are awesome'). Two of these three are suspiciously generic with no specific details. This suggests possible review manipulation.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: One 2-star review (2016) directly contradicts the overwhelmingly positive pattern, claiming Randy 'will not return calls' and is unreliable. This is a material concern that cannot be dismissed.
• SAMPLE SIZE LIMITATION: Only 11 reviews total is a small dataset. Confidence in overall score is constrained by volume.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of reviews (most pre-2020), suspected fake reviews in the 2017 cluster, and a recent negative review contradicting the positive trend. The WW Score reflects historical performance but may not represent current service quality. Recommend seeking recent references before engaging.

Andres and Quick 4 Plumbing receive strong praise across most dimensions, with multiple reviewers highlighting responsiveness, punctuality, and technical skill in handling emergency and multi-issue plumbing situations. Project completion is well-supported, with specific accounts of thorough work including toilet reinstallation, leak diagnostics, and garbage disposal repair. Experience scores are bolstered by detailed accounts of problem-solving ability and quality workmanship. However, one 1-star review explicitly describes a failure in communication — showing up unannounced without a prior call and not returning a voicemail — which meaningfully tempers the professionalism score. Pricing data is very thin, with only one review mentioning it, so that dimension carries limited weight in the final score.

• Most reviews are from 2016–2018, with only one review from 2022. The majority of data is more than 5 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• Several reviews use generic praise with limited specifics (e.g., 'Amazing service,' 'very responsive and attentive'), which slightly raises concern about authenticity, though the more detailed reviews provide enough grounding to avoid a full fake-review flag.
• Only 1 review mentions pricing, making the pricing dimension score highly unreliable and minimally impactful on the final WW Score.
• One explicit negative review (1-star) documents a communication failure — unannounced arrival and no callback — which has been factored into the professionalism score.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the experience and project completion dimensions are reasonably well-supported, but the score is based on a small, predominantly dated review set (mostly 2016–2018), and the pricing dimension lacks sufficient data to be meaningful.