Find Nearby Plumbers In Los Angeles, California

Trophy Plumbing shows a deeply polarized performance profile. Recent reviews (2024) consistently praise Andy's professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill, with multiple mentions of same-day or next-day service and fair pricing. However, older reviews (2016–2017) reveal serious systemic failures including no-shows, incomplete work, installation defects, overcharging, and poor follow-up communication. The company appears to have undergone significant changes in ownership and personnel, with the newer Andy-led operation performing substantially better than the legacy operation. Professionalism scores are dragged down by documented instances of rudeness, no-shows, and lack of callback responsiveness in older reviews. Project completion is compromised by multiple accounts of incomplete work, defective installations, and failure to honor appointments. Pricing concerns stem from documented overcharging and inflated quotes relative to market rates in several 2016 reviews.

• MAJOR RECENCY BIAS: 12 of 13 most recent reviews (2024 and 2023) are 5-star with Andy; 8 of 12 older reviews (2016–2017) are 1-star. This suggests significant company restructuring or ownership change. Scores heavily weighted toward recent positive data.
• OWNERSHIP/PERSONNEL CHANGE DETECTED: Early reviews reference 'Joe' (old owner) and 'Heath' (staff); recent reviews reference 'Andy' exclusively. One 2016 review explicitly states 'new owner was rude' and contrasts with 'Joe the old owner was nice.' This is not fake reviews but rather a genuine operational transformation.
• INSTALLATION QUALITY CONCERNS: Multiple 2016–2017 reviews document defective installations (shower stall gap, gas line safety hazard with propane leak, water pump failure, water heater code violation, incomplete oven hookup). These are specific, detailed complaints with consequences.
• PRICING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Three 2016 reviews allege significant overcharging ($1,300 vs. $350–$400 for same work, commission-based incentive structure leading to unnecessary upsells). These are serious allegations with corroborating detail.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2016–2017) document scheduled appointments with no-show and no callback. One 2024 review also reports no-show and no callback after appointment confirmation.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Several older reviews cite unreturned calls, unanswered phones, ignored emails, and rude staff interactions. Recent reviews show opposite pattern (quick callbacks, clear communication).
• SINGLE RECENT NEGATIVE: One 2024 review (June 16) reports no-show and no callback after appointment confirmation, suggesting the issue may not be entirely resolved despite overall improvement.

This score should be interpreted with caution: the 68.2 WW Score reflects a company in apparent transition, with recent performance (2024) substantially stronger than legacy performance (2016–2017). If evaluating for current service, weight recent reviews heavily and expect professionalism and responsiveness similar to 2024 reviews; however, the historical pattern of installation defects and overcharging warrants verification of current practices and independent inspection of complex work. The single 2024 no-show suggests old issues may not be entirely resolved.

Ritz Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile. A substantial number of positive reviews — many from 2022 to 2024 — praise individual technicians (Reynaldo, Jesus, Adrian, Sebastian, Carlos, and others) for professionalism, responsiveness, and technical competence, often highlighting same-day or emergency service. However, an equally substantial and highly detailed body of negative reviews — spanning 2015 to 2024 — documents a consistent and serious pattern of price gouging, unauthorized work, predatory upselling targeting elderly and vulnerable customers, abandoned jobs, billing fraud, and substandard workmanship. Pricing is the most severely impacted dimension, with dozens of explicit complaints about charges ranging from 3x to 20x fair market value for identical work. Project completion is also significantly undermined by multiple accounts of incomplete work, failed callbacks, and damage caused during service. The volume and specificity of the negative reviews — including references to BBB complaints, California State Licensing Board records, and criminal allegations — substantially reduce confidence in the positive reviews and drag all dimension scores well below what the positive reviews alone would suggest.

• SERIOUS FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe an identical sewer scam — technicians clear a minor clog, then escalate to claiming the main sewer line needs expensive replacement or sleeving, with prices ranging from $5,000 to $25,000. Second opinions consistently reveal no such work was needed.
• ELDERLY TARGETING: At least 6 reviews explicitly describe technicians attempting to overcharge or deceive elderly customers (ages 80–97), including one criminal case in Santa Monica reportedly involving $84,000 in unnecessary sewer work.
• UNAUTHORIZED CHARGES: Multiple reviewers report credit cards or bank accounts charged without authorization or signature, including one instance of a $24,000 charge.
• ABANDONED WORK / NO CALLBACKS: Several reviews describe technicians leaving jobs incomplete, failing to return with parts, and management never returning calls despite repeated attempts — including one reviewer who waited a month for parts.
• BBB F RATING REFERENCED: Multiple reviewers independently reference an F rating with the Better Business Bureau and a long record of complaints with the California State Licensing Board.
• BUSINESS IDENTITY DECEPTION: A large cluster of reviews (2015–2017) documents Ritz Plumbing acquiring Jim's Pasadena Plumbing and Windsor Plumbing without disclosing the ownership change to customers, continuing to answer phones under the old names and sending technicians in unmarked vans.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Several 5-star reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'The best ever. Five star. Great response time. Reliable. Knowledgeable fast quality work. Amazing people.'). One review (Luis, Oct 2024) is word-for-word duplicated within the same review text. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2024. The fraud and overcharging complaints are not isolated to early years — they continue through 2024, indicating the pattern has not been resolved over time.
• REVIEW SUPPRESSION ALLEGATION: Multiple reviewers allege that Yelp is hiding hundreds of negative one-star reviews, and at least one reviewer states they were contacted by Ritz staff and offered a refund in exchange for removing a negative review — a potential review manipulation practice.
• WORKMANSHIP DAMAGE: Multiple reviews describe property damage caused during service, including flooded laminate flooring, a broken terra cotta pipe, a flooded front yard from a damaged incoming water pipe, and sewage sprayed on bathroom walls — with technicians attempting to leave without remediation.

This WW Score of 52.1 is based on a large review dataset with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with significant caution given the volume, specificity, and multi-year consistency of serious fraud allegations, price gouging complaints, and workmanship failures that are not offset by the positive reviews.

This review set cannot be reliably scored. The majority of reviews (approximately 13 of 50) are from JMS Express's lead-generation service targeting contractors, not customer reviews of actual plumbing work. These reviews discuss lead quality and business growth, not the four WW Score dimensions. While approximately 37 reviews do reference actual plumbing services, they are almost entirely 5-star reviews with minimal specific detail about the dimensions being measured. The dataset exhibits strong patterns of fake or artificially inflated reviews, including generic praise, repetitive phrasing, and an absence of any critical feedback across a 12-year span.

• CRITICAL: Approximately 26% of reviews (13 of 50) are not customer reviews of plumbing services but rather testimonials from contractors praising JMS Express's lead-generation service. These are fundamentally different from customer service reviews and should not be included in a plumbing contractor evaluation.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: All 50 reviews are rated 5.0 stars with zero negative or mixed feedback. This is statistically implausible for any service business across a 12-year period.
• REPETITIVE LANGUAGE: Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing: 'on time,' 'professional,' 'fair prices,' 'highly recommend,' 'no mess,' appearing across dozens of reviews with suspicious consistency.
• LACK OF SPECIFICITY: Most reviews provide minimal detail about what work was performed, how problems were solved, or what made the service exceptional. Generic praise without substantiation is a hallmark of fake reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: 28 of 50 reviews (56%) were posted between June 2025 and March 2025—an unusually concentrated cluster of recent 5-star reviews. Older reviews (2013-2022) are sparse.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Three reviews (dated 2023-06-10) contain no text, only 5-star ratings.
• COMPANY NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference 'JMS Express Plumbing,' 'JJJ Plumbing,' and 'Three J's Plumbing' interchangeably, suggesting either data aggregation errors or review manipulation.
• NO DIMENSION-SPECIFIC EVIDENCE: While some reviews mention professionalism, pricing, or completion, the overwhelming majority lack explicit detail required by Rule 1 to score any dimension with confidence.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably. The review dataset is compromised by a high proportion of non-customer testimonials, universal 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, repetitive generic language, and suspicious clustering of recent reviews. The data does not meet the evidentiary standard required for trustworthy scoring and should not be used to evaluate this contractor.

These reviews describe a plumbing supply store and parts retailer, not a contracting/plumbing service business. The reviews consistently praise Ed/Edgardo's professionalism (helpfulness, friendliness, Sunday availability, responsiveness to customer needs), reasonable pricing, and technical knowledge in sourcing rare parts and providing installation guidance. However, no reviews document actual project completion, job timelines, callbacks, or full-service plumbing work. The business model appears to be retail supply and occasional consultation rather than full-service contracting.

• CRITICAL: These reviews describe a plumbing supply store/hardware retailer, NOT a plumbing contractor. The WW Score is designed to evaluate contracting services (job completion, project timelines, follow-through on repairs). This business primarily sells parts and provides retail consultation.
• All 10 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or specificity about actual plumbing work performed. This pattern suggests either exceptional service or potential review curation bias.
• No reviews mention project completion, job timelines, callbacks, or full-service plumbing repairs—the core dimensions of contractor evaluation.
• Review dates span 2019–2024, with 4 of 10 reviews older than 2 years. Recency is mixed.
• Multiple reviews reference the same person (Ed/Edgardo/Mr. Duarte) by different names, suggesting this is a small owner-operated business with limited staff.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated because the business model does not match the contractor evaluation framework. The reviews evaluate a plumbing supply retailer, not a plumbing contractor. A meaningful WW Score requires evidence of project completion, job timelines, and full-service work—none of which are documented here.

Only two reviews were available for analysis, which is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. Both reviews are strongly positive, praising professionalism, communication, and quality of workmanship. Review 2 provides meaningful specifics — same-day diagnosis and repair of a gaming PC, clear explanation of the problem, and fast responsiveness — lending it more credibility than a generic praise review. Review 1 is notably vague and generic, offering little verifiable detail beyond surface-level compliments. Pricing was not mentioned in either review, leaving that dimension entirely unscored.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules. A minimum of 3 reviews is required.
• Review 1 (roofing/pergola) appears to describe a completely different type of business (outdoor construction/painting) than Review 2 (computer repair). This is a significant anomaly — either the reviews are from different businesses mixed together, or one review may have been posted to the wrong listing. This raises authenticity concerns.
• Review 1 is highly generic with no specific details about the contractor, pricing, timeline, or any verifiable facts. It reads as a templated or potentially fake review.
• Both reviews are 5-star with no criticisms or nuance, which is a minor flag, though the small sample size makes this inconclusive.
• Pricing dimension has NO DATA — no reviews mentioned cost, quotes, or value for money.

This score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, a suspected business-type mismatch between reviews, and one review exhibiting generic language patterns consistent with low-authenticity content.

Both reviews speak positively about PM Plumbing across multiple dimensions, including responsiveness, friendliness, fair pricing, and quality of work. Review 1 highlights quick response time, transparent communication about the problem, and a great price for a bathroom backup repair. Review 2 covers a broader scope of work — multiple repairs completed efficiently at a reasonable rate by a professional and friendly plumber. However, with only 2 reviews available, all scores are conservative and carry LIMITED confidence. No negative feedback was present, but the small sample size prevents any reliable conclusions about consistent performance.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback. While the reviews contain specific job details (tub faucet, garbage disposal, toilet backup), the small sample size makes it impossible to rule out selection bias or an unrepresentative sample.
• Review 1 is dated January 2023 and Review 2 is dated September 2022 — both are over 12 months old relative to a typical 2024 analysis window. Recency weighting is a concern; no recent reviews are available to confirm current performance standards.

This score should be treated as highly preliminary and not relied upon for decision-making — only 2 reviews were analyzed, all dimensions carry LIMITED confidence, and both reviews are more than 12 months old.