Find Nearby Plumbers In Los Angeles, California

Mr. Harris earns strong praise across the majority of reviews for punctuality, communication, responsiveness, and transparent pricing, with many customers noting he beats competitor quotes and follows up after jobs. However, three significant negative reviews — including one detailing incomplete work, a defensive response to a callback request, and a refusal to remedy sloppy installation — meaningfully drag down all four dimensions. The project completion dimension is the most penalized, as multiple reviews describe unfinished tasks, items left undone after payment, and a failure to respond when contacted about deficient work. Professionalism and experience scores are similarly tempered by one reviewer citing poor attitude and damage caused, and another describing careless workmanship on a faucet installation. Pricing receives a moderate penalty due to one reviewer feeling overcharged for low-quality work, though the majority of pricing mentions are positive.

• Three negative reviews (1–2 star ratings) describe serious issues: incomplete work after full payment, defensive behavior when called back, sloppy installation with no follow-up, and alleged property damage — these are not isolated complaints and materially affect all dimensions.
• The negative reviews cluster tightly in date (2023-01-08, 2023-01-10, 2023-01-11) which could suggest a difficult period of service quality or a dispute with a specific client group, but the pattern warrants caution rather than dismissal.
• A large proportion of 5-star reviews use enthusiastic but somewhat generic praise (e.g., 'professional,' 'reasonable,' 'highly recommend') with limited job-specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in the uniformly positive reviews — though enough reviews do contain specific details to avoid a full fake-review flag.
• Several reviews are older than 12 months (dating back to 2020–2022); per recency rules, these carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) include both strong positives and the cluster of negatives, making the current picture mixed.
• One reviewer explicitly states Mr. Harris is 'not a licensed plumber' and recommends finding a licensed professional for plumbing work — this is a notable flag for consumers seeking licensed trade services.

This WW Score is based on 24 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions at HIGH confidence, but the presence of three substantive negative reviews describing incomplete work, poor follow-through, and attitude issues means the score should be treated as a realistic mixed assessment rather than a strong endorsement — consumers should weigh the negative reviews carefully before hiring.

Monkey Wrench Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and technical knowledge, with the vast majority of positive reviews praising technicians by name for being punctual, courteous, communicative, and knowledgeable. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews explicitly describes quotes that are 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, aggressive upselling, commission-driven sales behavior, and in several cases outright misdiagnosis of problems that other plumbers resolved cheaply. Project completion is moderately positive overall but is dragged down by multiple credible accounts of abandoned work, missed appointments, jobs left incomplete, and at least one multi-month installation failure involving a furnace. The WW Score of 71.2 reflects a company with genuinely skilled and personable technicians operating within a business model that a significant minority of customers describe as predatory and untrustworthy.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Dozens of independently written negative reviews describe quotes 2x–5x above market rate for identical work. Multiple reviewers obtained second opinions and had the same job completed for a fraction of the Monkey Wrench quote. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• UPSELLING / COMMISSION CONCERN: Multiple reviewers explicitly state that technicians appear to work on commission and are incentivized to recommend replacements over repairs, catastrophize minor issues, and push unnecessary add-on products (e.g., Flow-Tech, water softeners, full system replacements).
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: At least 8 reviews describe technicians recommending expensive replacements or repairs for problems that other plumbers fixed for under $200, including cases where a breaker reset, cleaning ignition rods, or adjusting a gas valve resolved the issue entirely.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe incomplete work, missed appointments with no notice, jobs abandoned mid-project, and at least one case where a furnace installation failed for four months with no resolution, requiring the customer to hire another company.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A large volume of 5-star reviews are extremely brief (e.g., 'Luis was great', 'Perfect', 'Excellent', blank rating with no text), lack specific detail, and cluster around the same dates. One reviewer explicitly states they were offered a discount in exchange for a 5-star review. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY: Multiple reviews across different time periods describe last-minute cancellations, no-shows after confirmed appointments, and being told on the day of service that no technicians were available.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2020 to June 2025. The pricing complaints and upselling concerns are present across all time periods and are not improving. The most recent reviews (2025) still contain both strong praise for individual technicians and serious pricing/completion complaints.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2024-03-22 from the same user about Ruben Gaeta and the Noritz tankless water heater replacement are nearly word-for-word identical and appear to have been submitted twice. These were counted as one data point.

This WW Score is based on a very large review sample (310 reviews) spanning over four years and carries HIGH overall confidence; the score reliably reflects a company with skilled, professional technicians but a well-documented and systemic pattern of aggressive pricing, upselling, and occasional project completion failures that prospective customers should weigh carefully before hiring.

Papa's Plumbing has a large and long-running review history showing a genuinely split reputation. The majority of positive reviews praise specific technicians — particularly George, Jay, Chris, Grant, and Alex — for being professional, responsive, knowledgeable, and thorough, which drives moderately strong scores in professionalism, project completion, and experience. However, a significant and credible cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns: multiple reviewers independently allege price gouging (including a $350 fluidmaster replacement, charges three times competitor quotes, and a $600 garbage disposal quote), abandoned or incomplete jobs (a water heater installation left mid-job with the main water line cut), and a pattern of the owner Mike being described as rude, dismissive, or unresponsive when complaints arise. Project completion is penalized by at least three reviews describing work left unfinished or recurring failures shortly after service. Pricing receives the lowest score due to the volume and specificity of overcharging allegations, which are corroborated across multiple independent reviewers spanning several years.

• PRICING CONCERNS — HIGH SEVERITY: Multiple independent reviewers across different years allege significant overcharging. Specific examples include $350 for a fluidmaster part worth $12-16, charges described as three times competitor rates, $600 for a garbage disposal replacement quoted at $300-400 elsewhere, and $195 charged for work the customer says was never completed. These are specific, detailed, and credible.
• ABANDONED WORK — HIGH SEVERITY: At least one review describes a technician leaving mid-job after cutting the main water line, leaving the household without water for two days. The reviewer states the company then blocked their calls. This is a serious project completion failure.
• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: Multiple reviewers across different years independently describe the owner 'Mike' as rude, dismissive, yelling, hanging up on customers, or refusing to return calls when complaints arise. This is a consistent pattern, not an isolated incident.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: Several reviews describe recurring problems shortly after service (clogged toilet returning the next day, leak recurring after first technician misdiagnosed), a flood caused by a technician ignoring a sprinkler head above a water heater, cracked granite during an install with no remediation offered, and a broken pump left unaddressed.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated exactly '2022-06-10', '2021-06-10', '2024-06-09', '2023-06-10', and similar round dates contain no review text (blank body, only a 5-star rating). There are at least 15 blank or near-blank 5-star reviews with no substantive content. These have been excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star average. Additionally, several reviews from 2015-2016 contain only the word 'unknown' as text. These are treated as unusable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024-2025) include both strong positives and strong negatives, suggesting the quality inconsistency is ongoing and not a historical artifact. The negative reviews from 2024-2025 are given full weight.
• SENIOR CITIZEN TARGETING ALLEGATION: Two separate reviews allege that the company attempted to upsell or overcharge elderly customers, including one describing a $700 quote for a simple valve installation and another describing a $350 charge to a senior. This is a notable pattern worth flagging.
• HIGH SCORE VARIANCE: The gap between the best and worst experiences described is extreme — ranging from technicians who go far above and beyond to a company that allegedly abandoned a job and blocked a customer's number. This suggests highly inconsistent quality control depending on which technician is dispatched.

This WW Score of 71.2 is based on a large volume of reviews (175 total, 155 with usable data) and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but prospective customers should weigh the score carefully given the serious and recurring nature of the negative allegations — particularly around pricing transparency, owner responsiveness to complaints, and occasional job abandonment — which are specific, detailed, and span multiple years.

Metric Plumbing, led primarily by Luis, receives consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the standout strength, with 8 of 9 reviews explicitly noting punctuality, responsiveness, courtesy, and clear communication — including a notable after-hours visit at 10:30pm. Pricing is mentioned positively in 4 reviews, with customers describing rates as competitive and reasonable, though one reviewer acknowledged after-hours pricing was 'truly pricey' before clarifying it was still the most affordable option available. Project completion scores well, with reviewers confirming jobs were finished, follow-up contact was made post-service, and complex issues like sewer main line breaks were handled thoroughly. Experience is supported by references to technical explanations, correct diagnosis, and handling of advanced work such as re-piping and sewer line replacement.

• Two reviews are dated 2016-08-21 — over 8 years old — and should be weighted significantly less than the 2024 reviews. The business's current performance may differ substantially from what those older reviews reflect.
• One review is from 2022, also outside the preferred 12-month recency window.
• Six of nine reviews are from within the past 12 months (mid-2024), which provides a reasonably current signal, but the total review count of 9 is low and limits statistical reliability.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While individual reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformity of ratings warrants mild caution.
• No reviews mention any negative experiences, delays, or unresolved issues — this could reflect genuine quality or a selection bias in the review pool.

This WW Score is based on a small sample of 9 reviews spanning 8 years, with the most meaningful signal coming from 6 recent 2024 reviews; the score is directionally trustworthy but should be treated as MODERATE confidence overall due to the limited volume.

Francisco demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, communication, and punctuality across 7 reviews. Project completion is solid with 8 mentions showing timely work and follow-through. Technical skill is evident across multiple job types (faucets, drains, leaks, cartridges). However, a critical 1-star review from August 2024 alleges significant price gouging and incomplete work, claiming another plumber quoted 1/4 the price. This serious allegation substantially impacts the pricing dimension and creates material doubt about consistency and honesty, preventing a higher overall score despite predominantly positive recent reviews.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2024-08-27) makes serious allegations of price gouging, dishonesty, and incomplete work. Reviewer claims another plumber quoted 1/4 the price for the same job. This directly contradicts the 'reasonable price' claims in other reviews and suggests potential inconsistency in pricing practices or customer selection.
• PATTERN CONCERN: Eight of nine reviews are 5-star ratings with similar positive language ('great service,' 'excellent work,' 'responsive,' 'knowledgeable'). While not definitively fake, the uniformity combined with the stark contrast to the 1-star review warrants caution. The positive reviews lack specific detail about pricing or potential issues.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews cluster in June-August 2024 (7 of 9). The one older review is from July 2023. The most recent review (August 2024) is the damaging 1-star, suggesting a potential recent service failure or customer dispute.
• INCOMPLETE WORK ALLEGATION: The 1-star review explicitly states work was not complete, which is a critical project completion failure. This contradicts the high completion scores from other reviews and suggests either inconsistent quality or a specific problematic engagement.

This score should be treated with caution. While the majority of recent reviews are positive and consistent, a credible 1-star allegation of price gouging, dishonesty, and incomplete work from August 2024 creates significant doubt about the contractor's reliability and pricing practices. The score reflects this conflict: strong on professionalism and completion in most cases, but materially weakened by pricing concerns and the serious recent complaint. Recommend requesting detailed quotes and references before engaging.

Velvet Plumbing receives broadly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism and responsiveness being the most consistently praised attributes — multiple reviewers specifically noted prompt callbacks, on-time arrivals, and courteous demeanor. Project completion scores well, with many reviews confirming jobs were finished quickly and thoroughly, including a standout detailed review where the plumber (Adan) saved a customer over $1,000 by diagnosing a simpler fix. Pricing is mentioned favorably in roughly a third of reviews, with customers describing charges as fair, reasonable, and free of upselling. Experience scores are supported by specific mentions of skilled diagnostics, technical knowledge, and quality workmanship, though many reviews are too generic to fully validate this. Scores are tempered by significant fake review concerns that reduce overall confidence in the dataset.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — HIGH SUSPICION: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 (9 reviews), 2025-04-10 (4 reviews), 2025-03-11 (4 reviews), 2024-09-12 (4 reviews), 2024-08-13 (3 reviews), and 2024-06-09 (2 reviews) share suspiciously identical posting dates, suggesting bulk or coordinated review submissions rather than organic customer feedback.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Many reviews use nearly identical sentence structures and generic superlatives ('highly recommended,' 'I will strongly recommend to everyone I know,' 'excellent service,' 'fast and effective') with no specific job details, plumber names, or unique circumstances — a hallmark pattern of inauthentic reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The majority of reviews are 5-star with no variation in sentiment, no constructive criticism, and no nuance. Only one review (4-star) deviates from a perfect rating across 51 reviews, which is statistically anomalous for a real-world service business.
• ONE BLANK REVIEW: One review entry (2024-08-13) contained no text — only a 5-star rating. This review was excluded from dimension scoring.
• CREDIBLE REVIEWS IDENTIFIED: Approximately 8–10 reviews appear genuinely organic, including detailed accounts mentioning specific plumbers by name (Adan, Brett), specific job scenarios, and realistic nuance (e.g., the washer/dryer valve review, the weekend sink installation review, the water heater second-opinion review). These reviews carry significantly more evidentiary weight than the generic cluster.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from within the past 12 months (2024–2025), which is positive for recency weighting, but the clustering of dates undermines confidence in their authenticity.
• BRAND NAME INCONSISTENCY: Some reviews reference 'Velvet Plumbing' while others reference 'Pivotal Plumbing' and a plumber named 'Adan,' suggesting this may be a rebranded or merged business. This inconsistency should be noted when evaluating continuity of service quality.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust due to strong indicators of coordinated fake reviews inflating the dataset; the score is anchored primarily by a smaller subset of approximately 8–10 credible, detailed reviews which genuinely support a competent and professional operation, but the bulk review patterns significantly compromise the statistical integrity of the overall rating.