Find Nearby Plumbers In Los Angeles, California

MVP Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with a large volume of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative. Project completion is generally solid, with many jobs finished same-day or within promised timeframes, and the company demonstrates a pattern of returning to resolve issues — though several reviews describe incomplete or ineffective first visits requiring callbacks. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most contested dimension across the review set: a substantial number of reviewers explicitly describe prices as extremely high, outrageous, or far above market rate, with multiple customers obtaining the same work from competitors for a fraction of the quoted cost. Several customers also reported being charged more than the advertised or quoted price upon arrival, and at least four reviews mention receiving refunds after disputes, which is a meaningful signal of systemic pricing integrity issues.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviews (at least 10+) describe quotes that were 3x to 10x higher than competitor prices for identical work. Examples include: $2,800 vs $500 for toilet seal replacement, $5,500 vs $1,500 for main clean-out, $850 for a dishwasher air gap replacement costing $15 in parts, $800 faucet replacement fixed free by another plumber, $575 garbage disposal replacement that another plumber unjammed in 2 minutes. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• REFUND PATTERN: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention receiving full or partial refunds after disputes ($2,266 refund, $2,800 reduced to $500, full refund for incomplete work, full refund for alleged manipulation). While the company's responsiveness to complaints is positive, the frequency of refund situations suggests systemic overcharging or upselling practices.
• ADVERTISED PRICE BAIT-AND-SWITCH: Multiple reviews reference a '$33 drain cleaning' advertisement but being charged $99-$130 upon service. This is a recurring complaint across different reviewers and time periods, suggesting a deliberate or structural pricing discrepancy between marketing and actual charges.
• INCOMPLETE WORK COMPLAINTS: Several reviews describe jobs that were not resolved on the first visit, including one review where a customer paid for three escalating services totaling nearly $4,000 and the line remained clogged. One review describes a leak that was not fixed after payment. One review describes a camera inspection that was claimed but results never provided.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — JASON (FREDERICK, MD): A cluster of reviews referencing 'Jason' in the Frederick, Maryland area appear to describe a different or separate operator under the MVP brand. Three reviews dated 2023-04-07 are near-identical in wording (copy-pasted with minor variations including a checkmark character), which is a strong indicator of review manipulation. These reviews have been noted but their influence on scoring has been reduced.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Jason Harris dated 2021-04-29 appears twice with identical text. The review praising Jason Harris dated 2023-04-07 appears three times with near-identical text. These duplicates were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2013 to June 2025. The majority of substantive reviews with detailed content are from 2022 onward. Older reviews (2013-2020) skew heavily positive and reference a single operator (Jason in Frederick, MD), which may represent a different business context than the larger LA-area operation reflected in more recent reviews. More weight was given to 2023-2025 reviews.
• UPSELLING CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending unnecessary or excessive repairs. One review explicitly states the technician did not attempt to unjam a garbage disposal before declaring it broken and quoting replacement. Another describes a technician who would not attempt to fix a toilet without full pipe replacement, which another plumber resolved for $125. This pattern across multiple reviewers suggests a possible systemic upselling practice.
• 1-STAR REVIEW WITH NO TEXT: One review dated 2025-02-09 has a 1-star rating with no text. This was counted in total reviews but could not contribute usable data to any dimension.

The WW Score of 72.1 is based on a very large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, consumers should weight the pricing dimension heavily in their decision-making, as the volume and specificity of overcharging complaints — including documented refunds and verifiable price comparisons — represent a credible and material risk that is not fully captured by a single numeric score.

Rocket Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base, with many customers praising individual technicians — particularly Chris, Sam, Matt, Jose, and Anthony — for professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of serious complaints: multiple reviewers report no-shows or missed appointments without communication, pricing disputes and unexpected charges, and at least two detailed accounts of alleged dishonesty involving a water heater (aging it on the invoice to push a replacement sale). Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous reviewers calling costs high or excessive, and several negative reviews specifically citing overcharging or bait-and-switch pricing. Project completion is moderate — most jobs are finished, but there are credible accounts of incomplete work, recurring problems shortly after service, and one multi-visit failure requiring a competitor to redo the job. Experience scores reasonably well given the volume of positive technical feedback, but is tempered by a few accounts of poor diagnosis or work that did not hold.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two reviews appear to be near-identical copies posted on different dates (the long 'I pray we never have another plumbing problem' Chris/Brian review appears verbatim on both 2016-06-10 and 2015-11-10; the Brian/water heater education review appears verbatim on both 2016-06-10 and 2015-06-18). These duplicates have been counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes but raise concerns about review authenticity.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2020-06-09, 2018-04-23, 2017-06-10, 2016-06-10, and 2015-06-11 contain multiple entries with no review text (rated 1 or 5 stars), generic one-liners with no specifics, and identical dates — consistent with bulk or incentivized review activity. Confidence is reduced accordingly.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: Two independent reviewers (one in 2019, one in 2018) allege the same plumber 'Chris' falsified a water heater's age on the invoice to pressure customers into an unnecessary $1,400 replacement. Both reviewers had the unit independently verified as functional by another plumber. This is a significant integrity flag.
• NO-SHOW / COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 5 distinct reviews describe technicians failing to show up for confirmed appointments with no proactive communication. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2014–2024. The most recent reviews (2024) are generally positive, but the no-show and pricing complaints persist across all years including 2023–2024, suggesting these issues have not been resolved.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Overcharging, price changes mid-job, trip fees inconsistent with website, and charges for incomplete work appear across multiple years and multiple technicians — not isolated to one employee.

With 125 reviews analyzed and strong mention counts across all four dimensions, the WW Score of 72.1 carries HIGH statistical confidence in its accuracy; however, the presence of duplicate reviews, suspected bulk ratings, and serious recurring allegations of dishonesty and no-shows mean prospective customers should weigh the negative reviews carefully rather than relying solely on the aggregate score.

This contractor has a large and genuinely mixed review base spanning over a decade. The majority of recent reviews (2022–2025) are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendly technicians, and solid workmanship across a wide range of plumbing and HVAC jobs. However, a significant minority of reviews — particularly from 2012–2021 — describe serious concerns including bait-and-switch pricing, abandoned or incomplete work, no-shows, unskilled technicians, and failure to honor callbacks, which meaningfully drag down all four dimension scores. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple credible complaints about overcharging, undisclosed fees, and quotes that escalated mid-job. Project completion scores moderately well in recent years but is undermined by historical patterns of repeat visits failing to resolve issues and work left unfinished. The overall picture is of a company that has improved over time but carries a legacy of serious service failures that cannot be ignored.

• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2012–2025. The most recent 24 months (2024–2025) are overwhelmingly positive (5-star), while reviews from 2012–2021 contain a disproportionate number of 1-star complaints about pricing fraud, no-shows, and poor workmanship. Scores were weighted toward recent reviews but older negatives were not discarded.
• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to reference at least two distinct business entities — 'Real Plumbers' (Los Angeles/Santa Monica area) and 'Warner Super Service / Warner Plumbing' (DC/Maryland area). These may be separate companies whose reviews have been aggregated. This significantly undermines the reliability of the composite score and all dimension scores.
• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe the same pattern — low initial quote, escalating charges mid-job, pressure to pay in full before work is verified complete, and charges for return visits caused by the company's own errors. This is a credible and recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW / GHOSTING PATTERN: At least 5 reviews describe confirmed no-shows, missed appointment windows without contact, or being ghosted after initial service. One reviewer explicitly noted their edit that no one ever reached out after a public complaint.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of 5-star reviews from May 2025 and surrounding months are very brief, generic, and contain no specific details (e.g., 'Great Experience, Greatly satisfied.' and blank-text 5-star submissions). 24 reviews in the dataset contain no review text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but inflate the perceived volume of positive sentiment.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES ON RECORD: Multiple reviews describe technically incorrect installations (improper venting, gas leaks post-installation, incorrect pipe materials, failed inspections by DCRA) that required repeated return visits or third-party correction. These are serious safety-relevant failures.
• CALLBACK / FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Several reviews describe the company refusing to return for warranty or callback work without charging a new service fee, or simply not returning calls after a complaint. This is a recurring theme across multiple years and reviewers.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its reliability as a predictor of future service quality is MODERATE at best, primarily because the reviews likely span two different business entities operating in different geographic markets, and because the historical record contains credible, patterned complaints about pricing fraud and workmanship failures that prospective customers should weigh seriously alongside the more recent positive reviews.

Cornett Plumbing and Heating has a large and loyal customer base with many long-term clients spanning decades, and individual technicians like Dave, Wayne, Roger, Brian, Josh, and Jason receive frequent and specific praise for skill, efficiency, and professionalism. However, a persistent and recurring pattern of complaints about rude, dismissive, or unprofessional office staff — particularly the receptionist/dispatcher — significantly drags down the professionalism score, as this issue appears across multiple years and multiple reviewers. Pricing is generally regarded as fair or competitive by satisfied customers, but several negative reviews cite hidden service call fees, charges for incomplete work, and a refusal to itemize bills, which introduces meaningful concern around pricing transparency. Project completion is mostly strong, with many jobs finished on time or ahead of schedule, but there are notable failures including abandoned work, unresolved issues billed as complete, and at least one technician who left without cleaning up or finishing. The experience dimension is the strongest, with many reviewers specifically citing technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and years of expertise among field technicians.

• Multiple blank reviews with only a 5-star rating and no text (approximately 15 reviews) were identified. These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence inflates the raw star average and may reflect padding.
• Several reviews dated 2024-06-08 share the exact same date with no review text or very generic praise, suggesting a possible coordinated review event or fake review cluster. Confidence in the aggregate star rating is reduced as a result.
• A recurring and specific complaint about a staff member named 'Manal' or 'Minel' appearing across multiple independent reviews spanning multiple years lends credibility to those negative professionalism claims — this is not a one-off complaint.
• Two separate reviewers (2024-06-08 and 2024-02-02) describe nearly identical experiences involving an undisclosed $125 service call fee for a toilet quote. The similarity of the situation and the specific dollar amount suggests these may be the same person leaving duplicate reviews, or two genuinely separate incidents — either way, the pricing transparency issue is credible.
• The road rage and intimidation reviews (2025-05-18 and 2025-04-09) describe off-site behavior by a worker or owner and are not directly related to service quality, but they do reflect on professionalism and company culture. These were factored into the professionalism score.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) include a disproportionate number of negative experiences compared to the 2019–2022 period, which was predominantly positive. This may indicate a decline in service quality or staffing changes in recent years.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable, but the score should be interpreted with caution given the presence of blank filler reviews, a possible duplicate review incident, and a clear and consistent pattern of office staff complaints that spans multiple years and reviewers.

Plotke Plumbing has a large and long-standing customer base with many loyal multi-year clients who consistently praise punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness — these positives anchor the professionalism and experience scores. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews describe serious failures: missed appointments with no callbacks, incomplete work left unfinished, rude responses to complaints, and billing disputes involving charges significantly above quoted amounts. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple reviewers citing bills that doubled or tripled original quotes, parts charged at twice retail cost, and one bid that came in $7,000 higher than competitors. Project completion is similarly mixed — while many jobs were finished well, several reviews describe abandoned work, unreturned calls after payment, and repairs that failed shortly after completion. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but a pattern of serious service failures that cannot be ignored.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('Extremely Reliable and arrived EARLY also finished early. All on a one day notice without an emergency charge. Reasonable pricing Quality work. HAPPY Customer for over a decade.') posted three days apart (2024-11-08 and 2024-11-11). These appear to be the same review submitted twice or a potentially fake/inflated review. Only one instance was counted in scoring.
• 13 reviews contain no text at all (blank or single punctuation mark) and were excluded from dimension scoring. These blank 5-star reviews inflate the average star rating without providing verifiable information.
• Several reviews use the label 'unknown' as their text content and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive reviews are older than 1 year (pre-2024). Only 3 reviews are from the past 12 months, limiting confidence in current service quality. The most recent negative review (2023) describes mockery and offensive behavior.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe quotes being dramatically exceeded at billing — one job went from $600 quoted to $1,300 billed, another from $8,400 to $21,000 demanded, and one reviewer was told parts cost twice the Home Depot retail price. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: Multiple reviews describe paid work that was left incomplete, repairs that failed shortly after completion, and no-shows after payment was collected. One reviewer documented corroded pipes that were not replaced despite being part of the agreed scope.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW PATTERN: At least 12 reviews are 1-star with substantive complaints. These are spread across multiple years (2006–2023), suggesting systemic rather than isolated issues.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (101 reviews) spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the significant volume of detailed negative reviews describing billing disputes, incomplete work, and missed appointments — patterns that suggest real and recurring service quality issues rather than outlier complaints.

New Pro Plumbing, primarily represented by Miguel, earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness across a large volume of reviews — punctuality, shoe covers, clear communication, and same-day availability are repeatedly praised. Project completion scores well overall, with the vast majority of reviewers reporting jobs finished quickly and thoroughly, though a small but notable cluster of negative reviews describes incomplete diagnosis, return visits for recurring issues, and one instance of a job taking four hours due to disputes. Experience scores are solid, with many reviewers citing Miguel's technical skill and problem-solving ability across diverse plumbing tasks. However, pricing is the most significant drag on the overall score: at least 7 reviews explicitly describe quotes that were dramatically above market rate — in some cases 3x to 8x what competitors charged — with several reviewers alleging high-pressure sales tactics, price inflation based on perceived vulnerability, and post-signature contract alterations, which substantially lowers confidence in fair and transparent pricing.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: At least 7 reviews (spanning 2015–2024) describe quotes that were significantly above market rate. Specific examples include: $800 for a toilet fill valve rebuild (market rate ~$225), $4,500 for 5 feet of pipe (fixed for $550), $1,200 for a toilet replacement (fixed with a $10 seal), $900 for a running toilet repair, $1,549 for a bidet hose swap (competitor charged ~$275 for two), and $1,250 to unclog a drain. This is a consistent and recurring pattern across multiple years and multiple reviewers.
• PREDATORY SALES TACTICS ALLEGED: One 2024 review describes high-pressure sales techniques including manufactured urgency, fear of mold, and refusal to provide written bids. A 2015 review describes alleged contract forgery, price inflation mid-job, and threatening behavior. These are serious allegations that, while not universally corroborated, appear in multiple independent reviews.
• POSSIBLE PRICE DISCRIMINATION: One reviewer (2022) explicitly states she believed prices were inflated because the company knew a business was paying and that she, as a young woman, would not question the pricing. A 2020 review quotes Miguel as saying 'this is Mar Vista and you have a very valuable home' to justify a $900 quote. This pattern suggests pricing may be adjusted based on perceived client wealth or vulnerability.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2021–2024, which is encouraging. However, the pricing complaints are also present in recent reviews (2024, 2023, 2022), indicating the pricing issue has not been resolved over time.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW TO MODERATE: The volume of 5-star reviews is high and many are generic in phrasing (e.g., 'Miguel was great,' 'highly recommend,' 'fast and professional'). However, enough reviews contain specific job details, named issues, and unique circumstances to suggest the majority are genuine. Confidence is not significantly reduced on this basis alone, but the pattern warrants mild caution.
• CALLBACK/REWORK ISSUE: One reviewer (2020) documents a toilet reset that leaked again within days, requiring a return visit. While Miguel did return to fix it and the reviewer ultimately updated to 5 stars, this represents a quality control flag for initial workmanship on that job.
• INCOMPLETE DIAGNOSIS: One 2023 reviewer paid $1,250 and the company could not identify the source of a roof leak — the stated primary reason for the call. This is a project completion failure on a core deliverable.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 10+ years and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy; however, the pricing dimension score should be weighted heavily by any prospective customer, as the pattern of inflated quotes is too consistent and specific across too many independent reviewers to be dismissed — customers are strongly advised to obtain competing written quotes before authorizing any work.