Find Nearby Plumbers In Los Angeles, California

David McMahan's plumbing service demonstrates strong professionalism across all five reviews, with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous communication. Project completion is well-documented with timely service delivery and thorough follow-through on complex jobs. Technical skill and workmanship quality are explicitly highlighted, particularly in the water pipe relocation project where prior contractors had failed. Pricing data is minimal (only one review mentions cost-conscious repair choice), limiting confidence in the pricing dimension. The overall WW Score of 87.2 reflects reliable execution and professional conduct, though the small sample size and age of most reviews (4 of 5 from 2015–2017) warrant moderate confidence.

• Review recency concern: 4 of 5 reviews are from 2015–2017 (7–9 years old); only 1 review from 2019. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• Potential fake review pattern: Review 4 (2015-08-18) contains awkward phrasing ('I know I'm saying this to stop those reading on'), grammatical inconsistencies, and generic hyperbolic praise with minimal specific detail. This review may be fabricated or heavily edited.
• Limited pricing data: Only 1 review mentions pricing (garbage disposal repair chosen over replacement). Insufficient evidence to confidently assess price-friendliness dimension.
• All 5-star ratings with no negative feedback: While not definitive proof of inauthenticity, the complete absence of any critical comments or minor complaints is atypical for a real contractor with 5+ years of operation.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews), significant age of most data (80% from 2015–2017), and one potentially fabricated review. The professionalism and project completion dimensions are reasonably supported, but overall reliability is limited by recency and pricing data gaps.

Red Lilly Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians who communicate clearly and arrive on time. Experience scores are bolstered by multiple accounts of technicians solving problems that other plumbers could not, demonstrating genuine technical depth. However, pricing is a meaningful drag on the overall score: while many customers report fair or competitive pricing, a notable cluster of negative reviews specifically cite hidden charges, undisclosed service fees, pressure tactics, and rates perceived as significantly above market — including a bait-and-switch complaint regarding a $225 undisclosed service charge and a 1-star review alleging a $1,300 quote for roughly $50 in materials. Project completion is generally strong, with many reviews praising follow-through and warranty-honored callbacks, but is tempered by credible accounts of abandoned work, no-shows, jobs left half-finished, and at least one case where a drain issue recurred shortly after a costly repair. The combination of genuinely excellent technicians and recurring concerns about pricing transparency and occasional reliability issues produces a score that reflects a capable but inconsistent operation.

• 6 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers (1-star and 2-star) explicitly allege undisclosed fees, pressure tactics, refusal to provide itemized invoices, and rates significantly above competitors. This is a consistent pattern across different reviewers and time periods, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: At least two credible reviews describe work being left incomplete with no follow-up, one describing a pattern of half-jobs and invoicing for incomplete work. One review describes a drain fix that failed within a month, leading to a costly unnecessary upsell.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW — ELDERLY CUSTOMER: One 1-star review alleges missing property (table legs) belonging to elderly parents and a billing discrepancy where only one of two quoted lines was serviced but full payment was charged. This raises a serious concern about vulnerable customer treatment.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: The volume of 5-star reviews with specific technician names, job details, and varied writing styles reduces fake review suspicion significantly. However, several very short generic 5-star reviews ('Great, quick, efficient.' / 'Awesome work!') with no detail are noted. Overall the corpus appears largely authentic.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2023–2025 and are therefore recent and highly weighted. A smaller number of reviews date to 2021–2022 and are given slightly reduced weight. The negative reviews are distributed across multiple years, suggesting pricing and reliability concerns are not isolated to a single period.
• WARRANTY CONCERN: One reviewer noted an unusually short warranty period on completed work, which they flagged as disappointing relative to industry norms.

This WW Score is based on 121 reviews spanning approximately four years, with strong recency weighting, and is considered HIGH confidence overall — however, the pricing dimension score should be treated with particular seriousness given the consistent and specific nature of the negative pricing complaints, which represent a genuine and recurring risk for prospective customers.

Rubio's Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise fair pricing, same-day responsiveness, and courteous technicians — particularly Robert, Fernando, and Alex. However, a recurring and credible pattern of no-shows and ghosting across multiple independent reviews (2018, 2022, 2022, 2024) meaningfully drags down professionalism and project completion scores, as these represent a real reliability risk. Workmanship is generally rated positively, though one review documented an apprentice causing damage that was never remedied and another described a misdiagnosis that led to an unnecessary upsell attempt. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with the vast majority of reviewers calling costs fair, affordable, or best in the area. Overall, the contractor performs well when they show up and complete the job, but the no-show pattern is too consistent to ignore.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviews (2018-07-13, 2022-02-15, 2022-02-19, 2022-10-18, 2024-09-04) describe confirmed appointments where the contractor failed to show up and did not call or respond. This is a significant reliability red flag and is weighted heavily against professionalism and project completion scores.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: One reviewer (2022-08-21, 2-star) reported being ghosted after requesting a return visit to fix a pressure issue caused during the original job, and damage to a sink seal was never addressed. This directly impacts project completion and experience scores.
• MISDIAGNOSIS CONCERN: One reviewer (2022-06-07, 3-star) paid $98 for a repair that failed, was quoted $1,000+ for wall work, and a second plumber fixed the issue in 5 minutes by adjusting the cartridge. This suggests a possible upsell attempt or skill gap in diagnosis.
• LICENSING FLAG: One reviewer (2023-12-22, 1-star) claims the company was listed as unlicensed on Angi. This could not be verified from reviews alone but is a serious concern if accurate. Additionally, this reviewer alleged a piece of plumbing was taken without permission.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: Several reviews from April 17, 2024 share the exact same date with no timestamp and contain unusually generic praise. One very long review (2024-04-17) reads like promotional copy rather than an organic customer account. Confidence is not reduced to LOW DATA levels given the large overall volume, but these specific reviews are treated with reduced weight.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2021–2024, which is positive for recency weighting. Reviews from 2014–2019 are present but given reduced weight. The no-show complaints span multiple years including 2024, indicating the issue is not historical only.
• SCORE CLARIFICATION: The no-show pattern across 5+ reviews is treated as explicit negative evidence, not merely absence of praise, and is factored directly into professionalism (punctuality, responsiveness) and project completion (follow-through) scores.

This WW Score is based on 91 reviews spanning 2014–2024 with HIGH data volume, but the score should be treated with moderate caution due to a documented and recurring no-show pattern, at least one unresolved workmanship complaint, a licensing concern raised by a reviewer, and signs of potentially inflated reviews on a single date — consumers should verify licensing independently and confirm appointments explicitly before committing.

Stephens Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual, courteous technicians who communicate well and maintain clean work sites. Technical expertise is solid across HVAC and plumbing services, with many customers praising knowledgeable problem-solving. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, credit card surcharges, and perceived overcharging relative to market rates. Project completion is generally reliable but marred by occasional scheduling failures and follow-up issues. The company excels in emergency response and customer service but struggles with pricing transparency and consistency.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 89 mentions of pricing issues reveal a pattern of customer dissatisfaction. Multiple reviews cite charges 2-3x higher than competitors for identical work, credit card surcharges (3%), and unexpected cost escalations. This is the primary driver of lower overall score.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Approximately 15-20 reviews contain identical or near-identical phrasing (e.g., 'Toilet and sink work great now! Williams was prompt and efficient!' appears twice verbatim on consecutive dates). Several reviews are blank or contain only ellipses, suggesting possible review manipulation.
• SCHEDULING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (at least 12) report no-shows, missed appointments, or significant delays despite confirmed time windows. Some customers waited entire days without technician arrival or callback.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 8 reviews document incomplete repairs requiring second visits, leaks recurring shortly after service, or technicians not returning as promised to complete work.
• HONESTY CONCERNS: One detailed review (July 11, 2024) alleges technician deliberately damaged AC unit to justify expensive repairs. Another (July 19, 2024) describes suspicious diagnosis of non-existent problems. While unverified, pattern of high quotes and upselling appears across multiple reviews.
• CREDIT CARD BILLING ISSUES: Multiple customers report being charged twice (original quote + discounted rate), overdraft fees, and aggressive 3% surcharges for card payments, creating trust issues.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (past 12 months) show consistent pattern of pricing complaints and occasional service failures, suggesting issues are ongoing rather than historical.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable but reflects a company with significant operational inconsistencies: strong technical competence and professionalism are substantially undermined by pricing practices that customers perceive as unfair or deceptive, combined with occasional scheduling failures and follow-up issues. The HIGH confidence is warranted due to large sample size and consistent patterns, but potential customers should prioritize obtaining detailed written estimates and comparing with competitors before committing.

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.

Flood Brothers demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently punctual arrivals, clear communication, and courteous technicians across 98 reviews. Technical expertise and problem-solving ability are well-documented across 72 reviews, with technicians frequently praised for diagnostic accuracy and quality workmanship. Project completion is solid across 67 reviews, with most jobs finished on schedule and follow-up service honored. However, pricing emerges as a significant concern: 28 reviews explicitly mention pricing issues, with multiple customers reporting aggressive upselling, inflated quotes (sometimes 3-10x competitor pricing), and pressure tactics. This pricing weakness substantially reduces the overall score despite otherwise strong performance.

• PRICING PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (at least 8 distinct instances) report significantly overpriced quotes or aggressive upselling. Examples include: $5k-$15k quotes for simple regulator replacement ($400 fix), $1200-$1500 for basic drain unclogging (completed elsewhere in 20 minutes for reasonable cost), $1800 for 1.5 hours of toilet work, $1525 estimate for standard toilet installation, $1200 quote vs. $175 actual cost for hose bibb replacement. This pattern suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or deliberate targeting of uninformed customers.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: One detailed 1-star review (Jan 2023) documents sloppy workmanship on water remediation project with incomplete work, excessive drywall damage, and poor execution requiring professional redo. Another 1-star review (Jan 2023) describes incomplete p-trap replacement work. These contrast sharply with majority positive reviews, suggesting inconsistent quality depending on technician or project type.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 20-25 reviews contain minimal detail (e.g., 'Very professional and quick', 'Informative. Very polite.', empty review text with 5-star rating). While not conclusively fake, the high volume of generic praise with zero specifics is atypical. However, the presence of detailed negative reviews and specific pricing complaints suggests the dataset is not entirely fabricated.
• RECENCY BIAS: Approximately 60% of reviews are from 2025 (June, May, April) and early 2024. Older reviews (2021-2023) contain more critical feedback and pricing complaints. Recent reviews are predominantly 5-star with minimal detail. This temporal pattern warrants caution in weighting recent reviews too heavily.
• SUPERVISOR INTERVENTION NOTED: At least two reviews mention supervisor/management intervention to resolve customer complaints (pricing dispute resolution, free service offer after overquote). This suggests company awareness of pricing issues but reactive rather than proactive correction.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable for assessing professionalism and technical competence (both HIGH confidence), but the pricing dimension (MODERATE confidence, 28 mentions) introduces material uncertainty. Customers should expect professional, skilled service but should independently verify quotes against competitors before committing, as pricing appears inconsistent and potentially inflated relative to market rates. The company's strong recent review volume is offset by documented historical pricing concerns and quality variance on complex projects.