Find Nearby Plumbers In Pasadena, California

Your Local Handyman demonstrates strong technical expertise and project completion capabilities, with extensive evidence of quality workmanship across diverse projects (bathrooms, plumbing, electrical, carpentry). However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a persistent pattern of communication failures: multiple customers report missed appointments without notice, delayed or non-existent follow-ups on estimates, and unresponsiveness to callbacks. Pricing is generally perceived as fair to reasonable, though some customers note it is not the cheapest option. The company excels when actively engaged on-site but struggles with pre-project communication and scheduling reliability.

• CRITICAL: Systematic communication breakdown pattern. At least 12 reviews explicitly cite missed appointments, no-shows without notice, failure to return calls/texts, or delayed estimates (1-2 weeks or longer). This is the single largest complaint category.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW CLUSTERING: Approximately 60+ reviews dated 2018-06-10 and 2021-06-09 with identical or near-identical 5-star ratings and minimal detail. Many lack substantive content or appear templated. This suggests possible review manipulation or bulk posting.
• CONFLICTING NARRATIVES: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews praising responsiveness and professionalism, versus 1-star reviews from same time periods describing the opposite behavior. Suggests either inconsistent service delivery or review authenticity issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed negative reviews (communication failures) cluster in 2017-2021. More recent reviews (2023) are sparse and generic. Unable to confirm if communication issues persist or have been resolved.
• EMPTY REVIEW: One review (2021-06-09) contains only a 5-star rating with no text, contributing to suspicious clustering pattern.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score of 76.8 reflects genuine strengths in technical execution and project completion, the HIGH confidence is artificially inflated by suspicious review clustering and potential manipulation. The professionalism dimension is likely understated due to review authenticity concerns masking the true severity of communication failures. Prospective customers should heavily weight the documented communication and scheduling issues (which appear credible and consistent across multiple independent 1-star reviews) and should establish clear communication protocols and contingency plans before engaging this contractor.

Bubbles Plumbing & Electrical has a strong base of loyal, repeat customers who consistently praise responsiveness, punctuality, and quality of workmanship across a wide range of plumbing and electrical projects. Pricing is generally described as fair and transparent, with multiple reviewers noting no hidden charges and honest guidance that sometimes saved customers money. However, a recurring and serious concern across multiple independent negative reviews is the owner Richard's conduct when disputes arise — multiple reviewers describe aggressive, defensive, and rude behavior when concerns are raised, which meaningfully suppresses the professionalism score. Project completion is generally strong, though two reviews cite callbacks being required to fix incomplete or faulty work, and one review documents a no-show. The volume and specificity of both positive and negative reviews lend high confidence to this overall assessment.

• OWNER CONDUCT PATTERN: At least 5 independent negative reviews (2025-04-10, 2023-01-23, 2020-01-02 x2, 2018-05-24) describe the owner as aggressive, rude, abusive, or dismissive when challenged on pricing or work quality. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not an isolated incident.
• PRICING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2025-04-10, 2019-06-07, 2020-01-02, 2015-06-03) describe quotes changing after work began or upcharges applied without clear justification, which partially contradicts the majority of positive pricing mentions.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: One review (2024-08-12) explicitly states a technician charged for a visit without completing the job due to lack of tools or knowledge. One review (2023-06-16) notes having to call back twice for incomplete repairs.
• NO-SHOW: One review (2018-06-11) reports a no-show with no explanation.
• THIN REVIEWS: Approximately 9 reviews consist of no text at all (only a star rating), and several others contain only 1-2 generic words (e.g., 'Great service', 'They are awesome!'). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews. They do not appear to be coordinated fakes but add little analytical value.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative reviews are from 2025 and 2023, indicating the owner conduct issue is not historical — it appears to be an ongoing concern as of the most recent review period.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of detailed positive reviews are from 2017-2021, which are more than 3 years old. More recent reviews (2023-2025) are fewer and include a higher proportion of negative experiences, which may indicate a decline in service consistency.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given a credible and recurring pattern of owner misconduct during disputes that is not fully captured by aggregate scoring alone.

Nick and Sons earns strong marks for professionalism, with the overwhelming majority of reviewers praising punctuality, responsiveness, courteous communication, and a friendly demeanor across many years of reviews. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and competitive, though two negative reviews allege price inflation and one describes a bait-and-switch quote, which tempers the pricing score meaningfully. Project completion is the most consequential concern: multiple negative reviews document incomplete work, poor containment of work areas, improperly installed vents discovered only after a year, unfinished baseboards and backsplashes, and at least one instance of a no-show with disputed communication — these are serious flags that pull the completion score down despite the high volume of positive completion mentions. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers praising skill and problem-solving, but several credible negative reviews describe shoddy drywall work, cutting corners, and workmanship that required redoing, preventing a high score in this dimension.

• Six negative reviews (1–2 star ratings) document substantive complaints: poor workmanship on drywall, improperly installed bathroom vents left undetected for over a year, unfinished trim and backsplash work, a disputed no-show with alleged dishonesty in the owner's response, price inflation above quoted amount, and refusal to complete a scoped job — these are credible, specific, and serious concerns.
• The ratio of 5-star to negative reviews is very high (~90% five-star), and many positive reviews use generic praise with limited job-specific detail, which raises mild concern about review authenticity or selection bias — however, enough reviews contain specific job descriptions and dates to suggest the majority are genuine.
• Several reviews are from 2014–2018 (more than 5 years old) and may not reflect current service quality. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are fewer in number but remain mostly positive, suggesting continued operation but with a thinner recent evidence base.
• One reviewer (2016) explicitly states Nick quoted one price and charged more at the end, and another (2015) alleges 3x the going rate was quoted — these pricing complaints, while a minority, are specific enough to warrant caution.
• The negative review from 2021-10-05 describing unfinished bathroom work (open studs, missing baseboard, shim used to cover gaps) and the 2019-12-23 review about improperly installed vents in two bathrooms both describe workmanship failures on multi-task jobs, suggesting quality control may degrade on more complex or multi-room projects.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (75 reviews) spanning 2014–2024 and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but prospective customers should weigh the credible negative reviews seriously — particularly regarding workmanship quality on complex jobs and project completion integrity — as these represent a meaningful minority that the aggregate score partially obscures.

NumberA One Plumbing & AC receives strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness across dozens of reviews, with technicians like Claudio, Leo, George, and others frequently praised for being polite, prompt, and communicative. Project completion scores well overall, with many same-day and emergency jobs completed successfully, though one notable no-show incident and one review alleging incomplete work (uncleaned unit) prevent a higher score. Experience scores are solid, with multiple reviewers citing accurate diagnosis, effective repairs, and technical knowledge across both HVAC and plumbing work. Pricing is the most significant weakness: at least three reviews explicitly call out extreme markups on parts — one citing a capacitor billed at over 6x its retail cost, another alleging parts charges far above market rate — dragging the pricing dimension down considerably. A serious integrity flag also exists: one reviewer credibly alleges being offered a fee waiver in exchange for removing a negative review, which raises concerns about the authenticity of the overall review pool.

• INTEGRITY FLAG: One reviewer (2021-06-21) explicitly states that Dave offered to waive a $95 service fee in exchange for removing their negative review. This is a significant ethical concern and suggests the overall review pool may be artificially inflated by suppressed negative reviews.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2024-10-09, 2023-01-15, 2023-09-10) independently report extreme parts markups — one capacitor billed at 6x retail cost, another job with parts charged at a fraction of what was billed. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: One reviewer (2024-10-09) removed the AC panel after the technician left and found the unit had not been cleaned as promised and paid for. This suggests potential for misrepresentation of services rendered.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: One reviewer (2023-08-08) reports a confirmed appointment that was cancelled same-day without follow-up from Dave despite promises to call back. This reflects a project completion failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2020 to 2024. The most recent reviews (2024) include both positive and negative experiences. The pricing complaints are present across multiple years, suggesting this is not an isolated issue.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW SUPPRESSION EFFECT: Given the confirmed offer to remove a review in exchange for a fee waiver, the true ratio of negative to positive reviews may be higher than what is visible. Scores should be interpreted with this in mind.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews (e.g., 2020-12-25, 2021-01-02 x2, 2021-01-03) use very similar phrasing such as 'fantastic company,' 'excellent service,' and 'highly recommend' with minimal specific detail. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large review set with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but should be treated with meaningful caution due to a credible allegation of review manipulation, a consistent multi-year pattern of significant parts price gouging, and at least one confirmed instance of incomplete work — factors that suggest the true customer experience may be worse than the volume of positive reviews implies.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

Robby's Rooter has a deeply split reputation across its review history. Field plumbers — particularly named individuals like Jaime, Manuel, Rudy, Jonathan, and Conrad — consistently receive strong praise for skill, thoroughness, punctuality, and professionalism, which anchors the experience and project completion scores. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of serious complaints drags down every dimension: the office staff (specifically named individuals Ingrid, Patty, and Robby's wife) are repeatedly described as rude, dishonest, and combative, which significantly penalizes the professionalism score. Pricing is a major liability, with multiple reviewers across different years citing bait-and-switch tactics, refusal to provide itemized invoices, prices doubling after verbal quotes, and charges for unauthorized work — this is the lowest-scoring dimension. Project completion is moderate-to-good when skilled plumbers are dispatched, but is undermined by several accounts of incomplete work, callbacks needed, and at least one case of a plumber causing additional damage. The score reflects a company with genuine technical talent in the field but systemic failures in customer service, billing transparency, and office management.

• 22 reviews contain no text — only a star rating (all 5 stars). These blank reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring. Their presence inflates the apparent star average and may indicate review padding or incentivized ratings.
• Multiple reviews from 2024-05-18 and 2024-06-09 appear to be near-duplicate in content (two reviews about 'Highland Park,' being 'on time,' and 'explained what was going to be done') — possible duplicate submission by the same reviewer or coordinated posting.
• A disproportionate number of 5-star reviews use generic, non-specific language ('great service,' 'amazing,' 'highly recommend') with no job details, which reduces their evidentiary value and raises mild concern about authenticity.
• Recurring negative patterns across multiple years (2008–2024) regarding office staff rudeness, price inflation after job completion, and refusal to provide itemized billing suggest these are systemic organizational issues, not isolated incidents.
• One review (2022-05-15) names 'Manny' as incompetent and abandoning a job, while a 2025 review praises 'Manny' highly — these may refer to different employees or reflect inconsistent individual performance over time.
• Several negative reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2022), but the pricing and office-staff complaints persist into 2024, indicating these issues have not been resolved over time.
• The review corpus spans 2004–2025, a very wide date range. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight in scoring as they may not reflect current business practices.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (109 total, 87 with usable data) spanning nearly two decades, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the persistent and credible pattern of billing disputes, office misconduct, and incomplete work documented across multiple independent reviewers over many years.