Find Nearby Plumbers In Long Beach, California

Pristine Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising technicians as friendly, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative — these dimensions are supported by an exceptionally large number of mentions and carry HIGH confidence. Project completion is generally positive, with most jobs described as finished same-day or within the agreed timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews cite callbacks needed, incomplete fixes, or abandoned follow-through (including a notable re-pipe with multiple call-backs, a water heater fix that failed initially, and a missed appointment). The pricing dimension is the most damaging factor in the score: a substantial and consistent pattern of negative reviews explicitly describes price gouging, charges far above competitor quotes, and labor rates that reviewers found indefensible — with multiple 1-star reviews citing specific dollar amounts that were two to five times competitor pricing. This pricing concern is not isolated and spans multiple years and multiple technicians, significantly dragging the overall WW Score down from what would otherwise be a high-performing contractor profile.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: A significant and consistent pattern of price gouging complaints exists across multiple years and multiple technicians. Specific examples include: $1,600 charged for a 1.5-hour drain job, $1,249 quoted vs. $476 accepted from competitors for the same job, $858 for a $125 garbage disposal replacement taking 7 minutes, $900 for a valve replacement, $1,350 quoted for a toilet installation vs. $185-$275 from competitors, $2,800 quoted for a camera inspection vs. $199 from a competitor, and $8,500 estimated to fix their own installation error. This is not a fringe complaint — it appears in at least 15+ distinct reviews.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN — MODERATE: Several reviews describe work that required multiple callbacks to fix correctly, including a re-pipe job with at least 4 callback visits and no final crawlspace inspection, a water heater fix that failed immediately after the tech left, a shower temperature issue that was not resolved after a $340 repair, and a backflow device incorrectly installed that the company then quoted $8,500 to fix.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES — MODERATE: Multiple reviews describe rude or dismissive behavior from office staff, including a woman yelling at a customer and hanging up, a technician (Nick) yelling at a tile contractor, and a manager refusing to take responsibility for a pricing dispute. These are not isolated incidents.
• MISSED APPOINTMENTS — MODERATE: At least 3 reviews describe technicians or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without adequate notice, including one reviewer who took a day off work for a no-show.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW-MODERATE: Approximately 38 reviews in the dataset contain no review text at all (rating only, all 5-star). These blank reviews provide no usable data and inflate the raw star rating without contributing evidence. They have been excluded from scoring. Additionally, a cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-05-25 (4 reviews on the same day) and 2025-06-07 (4 reviews on the same day, 3 with no text) show suspicious clustering patterns. Confidence has not been reduced for the scored dimensions as the substantive reviews are numerous and detailed, but the blank reviews are flagged.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review describing 'SIX different quotes ranging from $793 to $1,357' for an AirBnb leak repair appears to be submitted twice (2022-06-28 with two different timestamps). Only counted once in scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2017 to June 2025. The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2020 onward. Pricing complaints are present across all years including the most recent 12 months (2024-2025), indicating this is not a historical issue that has been resolved.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review dataset (265 total, 227 with usable data) spanning multiple years, giving HIGH statistical confidence in all four dimensions; however, the pricing score in particular should be weighted heavily by prospective customers, as the negative pricing feedback is specific, detailed, and consistent across many independent reviewers — consumers should obtain competing quotes before committing to any work with this company.

Pete's Plumbing has a strong base of loyal long-term customers — many citing 10, 20, 25, even 39 years of repeat use — and the majority of technicians (Colin, Vince, Josh, James, Ron, Joey, Horacio, Frank) are praised for punctuality, friendliness, and technical skill. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (roughly 25–30 out of 163) reveals recurring systemic issues: missed or no-show appointments without notification, poor office communication and follow-through on estimates and callbacks, and at least several instances of work left incomplete or worsened. Pricing complaints are notable — multiple reviewers cite billing discrepancies, undisclosed hourly charges, and feeling overcharged — which meaningfully drags the pricing score below the otherwise positive sentiment. Project completion is similarly mixed: while most jobs are described as completed well, there are documented cases of abandoned work, unresolved problems after service, and refusal to honor callbacks. The experience dimension scores highest, as technical competence is praised far more often than it is criticized, though a few reviews describe plumbers who were clearly out of their depth.

• CLUSTER OF NEAR-IDENTICAL COLIN SPENCER REVIEWS: Between December 2024 and February 2025, there are 14+ reviews all praising 'Colin' or 'Colin Spencer' with very similar structure, generic praise, and minimal job-specific detail. Several are posted on the same dates. This pattern is consistent with a coordinated or incentivized review campaign and should be treated with caution. Confidence in the professionalism score is slightly reduced as a result.
• 15 REVIEWS CONTAIN NO TEXT: These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data beyond a star rating.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews analyzed are from 2024–2025 and carry full weight. Reviews from 2013–2019 are present and were considered but given reduced weight. Several older negative reviews (2014–2019) describe extreme unprofessionalism including profanity from staff and abandoned repipe jobs — these may reflect prior ownership or management and are noted but not fully weighted against current operations.
• REPEATED OFFICE/COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 8 distinct reviews across multiple years describe the same pattern — no-shows, no callbacks, estimates never sent, and dismissive office staff. This is a systemic flag, not isolated incidents.
• BILLING IRREGULARITIES: At least 4 reviews explicitly describe being overbilled, charged for time not worked, or surprised by undisclosed fees. One reviewer documented being billed $172 for a job quoted at $106 with the plumber in and out in under 15 minutes.
• ONE REVIEW (Jeremy/Anoka County) APPEARS TO BE FOR A DIFFERENT BUSINESS: The review referencing 'Jeremy' in 'Anoka County, Minnesota' does not match the Long Beach, CA location of Pete's Plumbing and may be a misattributed review. It was excluded from scoring.
• ONE REVIEW (Paul/Metuchen) ALSO APPEARS MISATTRIBUTED: References 'Paul' and 'Metuchen' plumbers, inconsistent with Pete's Plumbing Long Beach. Excluded from scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (163 total, ~148 usable) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction — but the score should be interpreted cautiously given suspected coordinated positive reviews for one technician (Colin Spencer), documented recurring office and billing failures, and the possibility that current service quality differs from historical performance.

Advanced Mechanical Contractors shows a genuinely mixed track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately well due to numerous positive mentions of courteous, communicative technicians like Bob, Jonathan, and Danny, but is significantly dragged down by multiple explicit complaints of rudeness, failure to return calls, and a no-show incident. Project completion is similarly split: many reviewers praise thorough, follow-through work, but one review describes a catastrophic 4-month job with permit failures and abandoned-quality outcomes, and another describes days of failed attempts before resolution. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with one reviewer citing a quote of $500 for a 2-hour job that another company completed for $150, and another review explicitly noting overrun price estimates alongside poor workmanship. Experience scores modestly positive overall, with several reviewers praising skilled diagnostics and quality repairs, offset by at least two reviews citing poor workmanship and botched concrete and plumbing work.

• Several reviews reference different company names for the same entity (Moe's Plumbing, Ken's Plumbing, Advanced Mechanical Contractors, Advance Mechanical) — this multi-name operation warrants consumer caution and may obscure a consolidated review history.
• A cluster of 5-star reviews from 2018–2020 specifically praising 'Bob' use enthusiastic but somewhat generic language ('AMAZING', 'couldn't be happier', 'highly recommend') with limited job-specific detail — mild concern for possible coached or incentivized reviews, though not conclusive.
• One review (2015) alleges the company performed unauthorized backflow testing and broke a valve, then disputed the city's involvement — this is a serious ethical flag.
• The review corpus spans 2010–2024, meaning many reviews are more than 3 years old. Reviews from 2016–2021 carry reduced weight under recency rules. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024).
• The most recent negative reviews (2023) explicitly cite poor workmanship, overrun pricing, and rude plumber — these are recent and carry elevated weight and suggest issues may be ongoing rather than historical.

This WW Score is based on 24 reviews spanning 14 years with meaningful data across all four dimensions, but the score should be treated with moderate caution due to the wide date range, the multi-name business identity, mild fake-review signals in the 'Bob' review cluster, and serious recent negative reviews that suggest quality inconsistency rather than isolated incidents.

Ray Loya Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, friendliness, same-day availability, and fair pricing, which drives scores upward across most dimensions. However, the most recent review (August 2024) is a detailed, credible 1-star account describing a job that ran nearly three times over schedule, subpar and leaky workmanship, refusal to honor a callback, ignored communications, and an unreturned $200 overpayment — this single review carries significant weight given its recency and specificity. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as the negative review directly describes incomplete and defective work with no follow-through, which is the most critical dimension by weight. Professionalism is also modestly penalized due to the ignored calls and texts described in the 2024 review. The majority of positive reviews are from 2020 and earlier, reducing their recency weight under scoring rules.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews (10 of 15) are dated 2020 or earlier — over 4 years old. Only 4 positive reviews fall within the past 2 years (2023–2024). The most recent review (August 2024) is a detailed negative account. Scores should be interpreted with this recency gap in mind.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 2020-era reviews share suspiciously generic phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'polite,' 'reliable,' 'great service') with no specific job details, and a cluster of reviews appeared within days of each other (e.g., May 20–31, 2020). One review (May 20, 2020) mentions 'landscaping and financial services' alongside plumbing, which is anomalous and raises authenticity concerns. Confidence in the positive review cluster is reduced accordingly.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: The August 2024 reviewer explicitly alleges Ray refused to fix a leak caused by his own work, ignored calls and texts, and failed to return a $200 overpayment. These are serious professional and ethical concerns that are not offset by older generic praise.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: At least one verified instance of a contractor refusing to return for warranty/defect repair work, which is a critical red flag for project completion reliability.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high statistical reliability based on review volume, but the trustworthiness of the positive reviews is undermined by recency gaps, generic phrasing patterns, and a highly specific recent negative review that raises serious concerns about current service quality.

Robert's Plumbing and Rooter Services has a strong base of long-term loyal customers who consistently praise his responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and honest pricing — with multiple reviewers noting he charged less than quoted or offered the most cost-effective solution. However, two detailed 1-star reviews carry significant weight: one resulted in two court judgments against Robert for misdiagnosing a sewer line issue and allegedly collaborating with another plumber to recommend unnecessary excavation, and another documents a failure to complete a paid Vaporooter treatment on both sides of a property followed by unresponsiveness and a demand for additional payment. These are not vague complaints — they describe specific failures in project completion, honesty, and professional conduct. The positive reviews are numerous but many are older than 3 years, and several explicitly reference and dismiss the negative reviews, which slightly reduces their independent credibility. The WW Score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but serious, documented red flags that prospective customers must weigh carefully.

• TWO SERIOUS NEGATIVE REVIEWS: One reviewer obtained two separate court judgments against Robert Waddell for misdiagnosing a sewer line as broken when it only had root buildup, leading to over $2,000 in unnecessary excavation costs. A second judge upheld the ruling on appeal. This is a significant project completion and integrity failure.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / WARRANTY DISPUTE: A second 1-star reviewer paid $1,000 for Vaporooter treatment on both sides of their home. Robert later admitted he only treated one side. He then quoted additional charges to return and complete the originally paid work. This matter was escalated to the Better Business Bureau.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews are from 2017–2020, with only one review from 2022. The most recent review is over 2 years old. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• POTENTIAL BIAS IN POSITIVE REVIEWS: Multiple 5-star reviewers explicitly reference and dismiss the negative reviews by name (Janet S.), which suggests some reviews may have been written partly in response to controversy rather than as independent assessments. This slightly reduces confidence in the positive review pool.
• REVIEW SOLICITATION FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states Robert sent them a message saying 'I just got my first review. Can you review me please.' This indicates active solicitation of reviews, which can inflate ratings and warrants caution.
• PATTERN NOTE: The positive reviews are genuine in variety and detail, and do not appear to be fake or coordinated. However, the solicitation flag and the dismissal of negative reviews in several posts reduce their full evidentiary weight.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to review volume, but the presence of two detailed, independently verifiable negative reviews — including one with two court judgments — means prospective customers should treat this score with significant caution and conduct additional due diligence before hiring.

Isaac and Beach City Plumbing & Rooter consistently receive strong praise for responsiveness, same-day availability, and professional demeanor across nearly all reviews, driving a high professionalism score. Project completion is well-supported by multiple accounts of jobs being seen through to the end, including a notable callback honored a month later at no apparent charge. Technical skill is affirmed across a variety of jobs including valve replacements, gas line removal, water heater installation, and emergency leak repairs. Pricing receives a moderate score — one reviewer explicitly noted the price felt high, while others described quotes as reasonable or fair, suggesting pricing is acceptable but not a standout strength. Overall, the evidence base is solid for a 10-review dataset, though the small sample size limits full confidence.

• All 10 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative reviews present — this is a pattern worth noting, though individual reviews contain specific job details and varied language, reducing the likelihood of fabrication.
• Several reviews are relatively brief and generic (e.g., 'Super quick in responding and professional service'), which limits the depth of evidence for scoring those dimensions.
• Six of the ten reviews are older than 12 months (pre-September 2023), with only two reviews from the past 12 months (2024 and 2023-03). Recency of feedback is limited and the score may not fully reflect current performance.
• No negative or mixed reviews are present in the dataset, which may indicate review selection bias or an incomplete picture of the contractor's track record.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for professionalism, project completion, and experience given sufficient mentions, but the small total review count of 10, all-5-star pattern, and limited recency mean the score should be treated as a promising but not fully validated indicator of contractor quality.