Find Nearby Plumbers In Montebello, California

Gregory Lucero receives consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers highlight punctuality, responsiveness, honesty, and courteous behavior such as wearing shoe booties indoors. Pricing transparency is explicitly praised in multiple reviews, with one reviewer specifically noting he did not inflate the price mid-job despite having leverage to do so. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing resolved problems, a full house repipe, and a water heater installation with unexpected complications handled successfully. Experience and technical skill are affirmed across multiple reviews referencing proper diagnostic tools, craftsmanship, and repeat hiring. The primary limitation of this score is the small total review count of 6 and the fact that all reviews are dated between 2016 and 2018, meaning there is no recent data to confirm current performance.

• ALL reviews are older than 5 years (range: May 2016 – May 2018). No reviews from the past 12 months exist. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• One reviewer explicitly states the contractor may no longer be operating in Arizona as of late 2017, raising questions about business continuity.
• All 6 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformity warrants mild caution.
• Review volume is low (6 total). Scores should be treated as directionally useful but not statistically robust.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to specific, detailed reviewer accounts supporting each dimension, but is significantly limited by the small sample size of 6 reviews and the fact that all data is 6–8 years old with no recent reviews to validate current performance.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency in service delivery. Professionalism is undermined by multiple instances of poor scheduling (late arrivals, no-shows, early arrivals with attitude), though some recent reviews praise responsiveness and cleanliness. Project completion is problematic—one catastrophic failure (burst pipes during hydro jetting) and a no-show appointment severely damage this dimension. Technical experience appears solid when work is completed, with customers praising explanations and workmanship quality. Pricing is transparent for their prepaid model but one review suggests competitive pricing concerns. The 2024 review shows recent improvement in communication, but older negative reviews (2018, 2021) reveal systemic operational issues.

• CRITICAL: One review (2021-12-31) describes a major service failure—burst underground pipes during hydro jetting—with poor customer service response and aggressive upselling ($5-7K repair). This is a serious liability issue.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 6+ years old (2015-2018). Only 1 review from 2024 and 1 from 2021. Cannot reliably assess current operational standards.
• SCHEDULING PATTERN: Multiple reviews cite scheduling failures (late arrival, no-show, early arrival with attitude). This suggests systemic operational issues, not isolated incidents.
• CONFIDENCE LIMITATION: With only 7 total reviews and most being outdated, confidence in overall score is moderate at best. Recent positive review (2024) may indicate improvement, but insufficient data to confirm.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited sample size (7 reviews), heavy skew toward older data (5 of 7 reviews pre-2020), and one catastrophic failure incident that raises serious concerns about quality control and accountability. The 2024 review suggests possible recent improvement, but more recent data is needed to validate current performance.

JR Grease exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies in professionalism and project completion, with multiple reviews documenting no-shows, missed appointments, poor phone communication, and unprofessional staff behavior (particularly complaints about a female staff member). While positive reviews praise technical competence and responsiveness in emergency situations, the overwhelming pattern of broken commitments, rude customer interactions, and failure to complete scheduled work significantly undermines overall reliability. Pricing appears reasonable when service is delivered, but this is overshadowed by fundamental service failures. The company's score is dragged down by a 5+ year pattern of complaints that remain largely unresolved.

• CRITICAL: Severe pattern of no-shows and missed appointments documented across 6+ reviews spanning 2010-2022, indicating systemic operational failure
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews cite unprofessional phone communication and rude staff behavior, with specific complaints about a female staff member (named variously as Sarah, Cecilia, or 'the owner') across multiple years
• CRITICAL: One review (2022-03-04) alleges the company reports competitors to health department—serious ethical concern requiring verification
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 4-8 years old (2016-2022), but recent positive review (2023-11-26) uses suspicious language ('Ask for Vanessa,' 'Don't forget to ask for Vanessa or Niko') that mirrors promotional phrasing, suggesting possible fake review
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark polarization between 5-star reviews praising reliability and 1-star reviews documenting repeated no-shows suggests either two different operational periods or review authenticity issues
• QUALITY CONTROL: Technical work quality appears competent when completed, but operational execution (scheduling, communication, follow-through) is severely deficient

This WW Score of 42.3 should be trusted as a reliable indicator of significant business risk; the HIGH confidence is based on substantial corroborating evidence across 11+ reviews documenting professionalism failures and 10+ reviews documenting project completion failures, though the most recent positive review warrants skepticism regarding authenticity.

This contractor shows a stark divide between older positive reviews (2014–2015) and recent negative experiences (2017–2018). The two most recent reviews document serious failures: no-show with unresponsiveness and unprofessional phone behavior. While older reviews praise his experience, pricing, and professionalism, the recent pattern suggests significant deterioration in reliability and project completion. The 3–4 year gap between positive and negative reviews is a critical red flag indicating the contractor may no longer operate at the standard described in older testimonials.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All positive reviews are 3–4 years old (2014–2015); all recent reviews (2017–2018) are 1-star with serious complaints about no-show and unprofessional conduct.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: 2018 review documents material delivery failure, non-responsiveness, and incomplete work requiring rehire of another contractor.
• PROFESSIONALISM FAILURE: 2017 review reports unprofessional phone behavior (offensive language from person answering business line).
• POTENTIAL BUSINESS DECLINE: The temporal pattern suggests the contractor may have ceased reliable operations or significantly degraded service quality between 2015 and 2017.
• LIMITED RECENT DATA: Only 2 reviews from past 6 years; cannot reliably assess current state of business.

This score should be treated with caution and interpreted as a historical average heavily skewed by outdated positive reviews; the recent 1-star reviews suggest the contractor's current reliability is substantially lower than the overall WW Score indicates, and potential customers should prioritize the 2017–2018 feedback as more representative of current service quality.

The review set is small (4 reviews) and spans several years, limiting reliability significantly. Professionalism scores poorly overall: two reviews explicitly describe unhelpful, dismissive, or misleading staff behavior, while one review praises prompt service and another commends great service from a named salesman. Project completion is dragged down heavily by a detailed account of a failed parts order where a customer was misled for over a month, offset only partially by a positive water heater replacement mention. Experience and pricing each have only one positive data point, making those scores conservative by rule. The mixed-to-negative pattern across multiple dimensions prevents a higher WW Score.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with caution.
• Review dates range from 2017 to 2022 — no reviews from the past 12 months are present, meaning recent performance cannot be assessed.
• Two of four reviews are 1-star with specific, detailed negative experiences, representing 50% of the review set — this is a significant negative signal.
• The positive reviews lack operational detail (e.g., 'Never disappointed by the prompt service' is brief and generic), which limits their evidentiary weight.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews appear authentic with varied language, specific names, and plausible scenarios.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all older than 12 months, and should be considered LOW RELIABILITY — do not use this score as a primary basis for hiring decisions without seeking more current and numerous reviews.

This contractor's review profile is dominated by serious, recurring complaints that drag scores down across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely impacted by multiple independent reviewers reporting that the plumber failed to return calls, went a day late without notice, and in one case a company representative verbally abused a customer on the phone. Project completion is similarly damaged by at least two reviews describing abandoned follow-through — work that either failed and was never remedied, or appointments that were promised and never scheduled. Pricing drew a mixed picture: one reviewer praised the honesty of a free estimate and no unnecessary upselling, while another described a $275 minimum charge for a job a competitor completed for $137, with no estimate provided upfront. Experience scores modestly higher because one reviewer praised Lenny's honest and knowledgeable assessment that saved them from an unnecessary re-pipe, and another described him as a specialist in commercial and restaurant plumbing — but these positives are outweighed by a failed faucet repair that began leaking again within four months.

• Most reviews are older than 12 months; the most recent review is from August 2022 but the majority cluster between 2012 and 2019, significantly reducing recency confidence.
• A clear and consistent pattern of non-responsiveness appears across at least three independent reviews spanning multiple years (2012, 2014, 2016), suggesting this is a systemic behavioral issue rather than an isolated incident.
• One review documents a company representative using abusive language ('asshole') and hanging up on a customer — a serious professionalism red flag.
• The two 5-star reviews are notably positive but lack the specificity and corroboration needed to offset the volume and consistency of negative experiences; no fake review pattern detected, but the positive reviews are heavily outweighed.
• A failed repair that recurred within four months and was never remedied constitutes a project completion failure and potential workmanship concern.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review pool of only 6 reviews, significant recency gaps, and the fact that negative patterns are consistent and independently corroborated across multiple reviewers and years — making the low scores credible despite the limited sample size.