Find Nearby Plumbers In Los Angeles, California

Sal's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive dispatch, courteous technicians, and clean work practices consistently praised across 68 reviews. Technical expertise is solid with 48 mentions of skilled problem-solving and quality workmanship. Project completion is reliable with 55 mentions of timely, thorough work. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness with 32 mentions revealing concerns about overcharging, inflated estimates, hidden fees, and prices substantially higher than competitors. Multiple customers report being quoted $3k-$9.5k for jobs completed elsewhere for $175-$2k, and several describe feeling 'ripped off' despite good service quality.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple credible complaints (at least 8 detailed 1-star reviews) document significant overcharging patterns. Examples include: $4,600 estimate vs. $475 actual cost elsewhere; $950 quote reduced to $650 then $175 elsewhere; $9,500 liner job requiring $4,000 additional charge one year later; $1,800 labor for standard water heater install; $325 for <1 hour cartridge replacement. This pattern suggests systematic overpricing rather than isolated incidents.
• DEPOSIT/REFUND DISPUTES: Two separate 1-star reviews describe identical scenarios where customers paid deposits ($1,000 each) for jobs that were delayed or quoted at significantly higher prices upon completion, with company refusing refunds and blocking phone numbers.
• QUALITY CONTROL INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (5+ instances) describe incomplete repairs, leaks recurring after service, careless mistakes (loose valve left in wall causing $12k damage), and work that made problems worse rather than better.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 15-20 reviews dated 2023-06-09 contain minimal detail, generic praise, and identical structural patterns ('Great service', 'Professional', 'Friendly', 'Affordable' with no specifics). Several are blank text with 5-star ratings. This clustering suggests potential review manipulation.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed negative reviews (pricing, quality issues) are from 2023-2024. Most generic 5-star reviews cluster on 2023-06-09. Recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive but lack detail.
• OWNER CONDUCT: One review documents owner responding to complaint with anger, refusing refunds, and telling customer to 'take me to court,' suggesting poor dispute resolution practices.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with CAUTION. While professionalism and experience scores are well-supported by 48-68 mentions, the pricing dimension (32 mentions) reveals a serious and credible pattern of overcharging that materially undermines overall trustworthiness. The company excels at customer service and technical execution but appears to systematically exploit information asymmetry in pricing. Customers should obtain multiple quotes and verify pricing carefully before engaging. The suspected fake reviews (15-20 generic 5-stars) further reduce confidence in the overall rating distribution.

Victor's Rooter demonstrates strong technical expertise and responsiveness, with 85 positive reviews praising quick response times, knowledgeable work, and fair pricing. However, a consistent pattern of reliability issues emerges across 8 negative reviews documenting no-shows, ghosting, missed appointments, and incomplete work. While professionalism and experience scores are solid (82.5 and 85.0), project completion is significantly dragged down by documented failures to follow through on commitments and callbacks. The business shows capability but suffers from execution inconsistency that undermines customer trust.

• CRITICAL PATTERN DETECTED: 8 reviews (2024-11-02, 2024-04-12, 2024-02-11, 2024-02-08, 2024-01-08, 2022-06-13, 2022-03-13, and one additional) document no-shows, ghosting, missed appointments, and failure to complete work. This represents an 8% no-show/abandonment rate.
• RELIABILITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe being stood up after confirmed appointments, with some customers ghosted without communication. One review explicitly states 'pattern of ghosting customers' observed across multiple 1-star reviews.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE: Review from 2024-04-12 describes a technician providing poor diagnosis (recommending unnecessary drywall removal), and review from 2024-01-08 documents incomplete work (bathroom line not connected to sewer, resulting in flooding) and failure to complete backyard work despite preparation.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: One review (2024-02-08) reports being quoted $150 but charged $199 (33% overcharge). Another review (2024-01-08) documents work taking 'almost twice as long' as committed.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2022 to 2024, suggesting this is an ongoing pattern rather than isolated incidents. Most recent negative review is from 2024-11-02.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CONCENTRATION: 85 of 100 reviews are 5-star with consistent praise language ('amazing', 'fantastic', 'highly recommend'), but this is offset by the severity and specificity of negative reviews documenting actual service failures.

This WW Score of 78.2 should be treated with caution: while Victor demonstrates genuine technical expertise and responsiveness when jobs are completed, a documented pattern of no-shows, ghosting, incomplete work, and missed commitments across 8+ reviews creates significant reliability risk that is not fully captured in the overall score. Customers should expect strong work quality IF the appointment is kept, but should be prepared for potential scheduling failures and follow-through issues.

Craig's Plumbing has an overwhelmingly positive track record across a very large review base spanning over a decade, with the majority of customers praising punctuality, responsiveness, honesty, and technical skill — particularly on complex gas line and pipe work. Professionalism scores well but is tempered by a meaningful cluster of negative reviews citing rude interactions, poor communication, and failure to return calls or honor appointments, which is a recurring pattern across multiple years. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers praise fair and competitive pricing, a notable number of negative reviews specifically allege billing disputes, bait-and-switch pricing, undisclosed hourly rates, and charges that exceeded quoted amounts — these are too numerous and specific to dismiss. Project completion is generally strong, with many reviews confirming jobs finished on time and followed up, but several reviews describe abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and incomplete work, pulling the score down from what would otherwise be very high. Experience scores highest, with consistent praise for diagnostic skill, technical knowledge on older homes and gas systems, and quality of workmanship across a wide variety of job types.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 3 pairs of near-identical or fully duplicated reviews were identified (e.g., the gas leak review from 2022-08-14 and 2023-06-07 are word-for-word identical; the odor/powder room review appears twice with slightly different dates; the sewer line Christmas Day review appears twice). This inflates the positive review count and reduces confidence in raw totals.
• SEVERAL REVIEWS CONTAIN NO USABLE TEXT: Multiple reviews consist only of 'unknown', '.', or blank text with a 5-star rating. These were excluded from scoring but inflate the total review count and skew the average star rating upward.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SPECIFIC AND RECURRING: At least 10 distinct reviews across multiple years describe billing disputes, undisclosed hourly rates, charges exceeding quotes, or perceived gouging. This is too consistent a pattern to be dismissed as isolated incidents and materially reduces the pricing score.
• RESPONSIVENESS/COMMUNICATION FAILURES ARE RECURRING: Multiple reviews across different years describe Craig or staff failing to return calls, canceling appointments without notice, or going silent after initial contact. This is a meaningful pattern that reduces the professionalism score.
• WARRANTY/CALLBACK DISPUTES: At least 2 reviews describe situations where warranty work was disputed or the company was unresponsive to warranty claims, including a gas line replacement where the company allegedly failed to return for a warranty issue and accused the customer of lying.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of the most detailed and positive reviews are from 2014–2025, giving the dataset reasonable recency. However, a significant portion of reviews predate 2020, and some negative patterns (billing disputes, no-shows) appear across the full date range, suggesting these are not isolated historical issues.
• STAR RATING INFLATION: The raw average star rating is heavily skewed by the large volume of 5-star reviews, many of which are brief or contain no substantive detail. Conservative scoring has been applied to account for this.

This WW Score is based on a very large review dataset and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but users should be aware that duplicate reviews, a significant number of content-free 5-star entries, and recurring billing and communication complaints mean the true performance level is likely somewhat below what the raw star average suggests — the score of 76.4 reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in technical skill and honesty on diagnostics, but meaningful and recurring weaknesses in pricing transparency and communication reliability.

All City Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers praising punctuality, communication, cleanliness, and courteous technicians across many named individuals. Experience and workmanship are also well-regarded, with multiple reviewers highlighting technicians who correctly diagnosed problems that prior plumbers had missed. Project completion is generally solid, though a handful of reviews describe incomplete work, a no-show for an estimate, and a job that required multiple visits to resolve — pulling the score down from excellent to good. Pricing is the clearest weak point: multiple reviewers across different years explicitly describe quotes as high, and two 1-star reviews accuse the company of gross overcharging and upselling unnecessary services, resulting in a significantly below-average pricing score.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2016, 2018, 2023, 2024) describe quotes that were 3–4x competitors or included charges for work not performed (e.g., longshoring billed but not done on a $25k–$27k job). This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: One reviewer (2016) describes a job left incomplete with a leaking trap, a promised refund that was then rescinded, and the company refusing to return — a serious failure of follow-through.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: One reviewer (2024) reports the company never showed up to provide an estimate, citing internal miscommunication.
• UPSELLING CONCERN: One reviewer (2023) and another (2024) independently allege pressure to purchase unnecessary services (pipe blasting, liner replacement, excessive faucet replacement quote of $2,400). This pattern across multiple years warrants caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2016–2024. The oldest negative reviews (2016, 2018) are outside the 12-month recency window but describe structural issues (refund disputes, gross overquoting) that are corroborated by more recent reviews, so they were retained with reduced but non-zero weight.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, specificity, named technicians, star ratings (including 1-star), and writing style. No suspicious patterns of identical phrasing or coordinated generic praise were identified. The review set appears authentic.

This WW Score is based on 42 reviews with strong data across all four dimensions and is considered moderately reliable overall, though the pricing score in particular should be weighted heavily by prospective customers given the consistent, multi-year pattern of overcharging complaints from credible, detailed reviewers.

Lords of Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with consistently praised punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship across most reviews. However, the company is significantly hampered by pricing concerns—multiple customers report overcharges, inflated estimates, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion issues are notable, with several reviews documenting incomplete work, poor follow-through on callbacks, and communication breakdowns on larger jobs. While many recent reviews (past 12 months) are highly positive, older reviews reveal systemic problems with job management, estimate accuracy, and customer service recovery.

• PRICING RED FLAG: At least 12 reviews explicitly mention overpricing, inflated estimates, or aggressive upselling. Examples include: $350/toilet estimate later found unnecessary, $595 for work done elsewhere for $175, $1200 estimate vs. $750 actual cost, $300+ dishwasher install vs. $120-150 elsewhere. This pattern suggests commission-based incentives or inconsistent pricing practices.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2021-2023) document abandoned work, incomplete jobs, poor communication on status, and failure to return for promised callbacks. One detailed 2021 review describes $5,500 charged for unfinished work with multiple failures.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Several reviews mention failed inspections, incorrect installations (toilet set too high, incorrect wall heater repair, pipe left open overnight), and work that had to be redone by other contractors.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Recurring pattern of missed appointments, late arrivals (30-120 minutes), failure to send promised estimates despite multiple follow-ups, and poor handoff between team members on multi-visit jobs.
• SAFETY CONCERNS: One 2021 review documents a potentially life-threatening wall heater repair that was incomplete and unsafe, with the plumber allegedly making inappropriate personal comments to female customer.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Reviews suggest significant variation depending on which technician is assigned (Dan, Mike, Manuel, Trevor, Edmund, etc.). Some technicians highly praised; others criticized for rudeness, lack of knowledge, or unprofessional behavior.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2021-2022) contain detailed negative experiences. This temporal pattern warrants caution—recent reviews may not reflect full service picture.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple empty reviews with 5-star ratings (at least 8 reviews with no text), and several very generic praise reviews with identical phrasing ('amazing,' 'professional,' 'knowledgeable') and no specifics. This suggests possible review manipulation.
• ESTIMATE ACCURACY: Multiple reviews document significant discrepancies between initial estimates and actual costs, or estimates that were never delivered despite promises.

This WW Score of 76.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and technical skill (supported by 50+ detailed positive reviews), it is substantially undermined by consistent pricing complaints, documented project completion failures, and potential review manipulation in recent months. The company appears to deliver excellent service on small, straightforward jobs but struggles with larger projects, estimate transparency, and customer service recovery. Customers should obtain multiple quotes, request detailed written estimates, and clarify pricing structure before engaging, particularly for complex work.

Drains R Us demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise across most reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and workmanship quality. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous customers reporting substantial overcharges, predatory pricing practices, and quotes 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work. While many reviews highlight honest, fair pricing and excellent customer service, the frequency and severity of pricing complaints—particularly targeting vulnerable customers (elderly, uninformed homeowners)—substantially reduces overall trustworthiness. The company shows inconsistency: some technicians (Wayne, Arch, Nick, Robert) receive exceptional praise, while others (Tony in particular) are associated with aggressive sales tactics and poor workmanship.

• PRICING PATTERN ALERT: At least 18 reviews explicitly cite overcharging, predatory pricing, or quotes 2-4x market rate. Examples include $850 for a 2-hour job (others quoted $250-400), $3000 for a simple water heater/faucet replacement, $500+ for flange replacement, $1200 for incomplete drain work. This is not isolated—it is systematic.
• TECHNICIAN INCONSISTENCY: 'Tony' appears in multiple negative reviews (aggressive sales, poor workmanship, incomplete jobs, rude behavior, overcharging). Other technicians (Wayne, Arch, Nick, Robert, Bill) receive consistently high praise. Quality and ethics vary dramatically by individual.
• AGGRESSIVE SALES TACTICS: Multiple reviews describe high-pressure sales, fast-talking, intimidation with technical jargon, and refusal to provide written estimates or guarantees. One customer reported Tony pressured them to start work without a written estimate and then charged $500 for incomplete work.
• POOR WORKMANSHIP INCIDENTS: Several reviews document incomplete jobs, water damage caused by technician error (forgotten water line reconnection), loose fixtures, and callbacks that were refused or charged separately. One customer had to fix the technician's work themselves.
• ELDERLY TARGETING: Two separate reviews (2016) describe charging elderly customers $300 for a simple trap cleaning after unnecessarily recommending roof work. This pattern suggests exploitation of vulnerable populations.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While many 5-star reviews are brief, they contain specific names, situations, and details. The negative reviews are detailed and credible. The mix of genuine praise and serious complaints appears authentic, not fabricated.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) show continued pricing complaints and service inconsistency, indicating problems are ongoing, not historical.

This WW Score of 74.2 should be trusted with HIGH confidence due to large sample size (176 reviews) and consistent data patterns, but customers should be aware that while the company demonstrates strong technical capability and professionalism in many cases, systematic overcharging and technician inconsistency create substantial risk. Obtain multiple quotes before engaging, request written estimates with guarantees, and specifically request experienced technicians like Wayne or Arch if available. Avoid situations where you lack knowledge of fair pricing, as the company appears to exploit information asymmetry.