Find Nearby Plumbers In Pasadena, California

Keithley Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional field staff, with many customers praising punctuality, knowledge, and quality workmanship on complex jobs. However, the company is significantly undermined by persistent billing disputes, poor communication responsiveness, and documented instances of incomplete work. Multiple reviews cite overcharging, unexpected bills, difficulty obtaining invoices, and confrontational interactions with office staff (particularly regarding billing). Project completion issues include abandoned jobs, work that required redoing by other plumbers, and failure to honor callbacks. The company shows a stark divide: excellent field performance by technicians like Dan, Brian, and Jensen contrasts sharply with office management failures and billing practices that have generated substantial customer dissatisfaction.

• BILLING PATTERN: At least 12 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, unexpected bills, inflated hardware markups (500% above retail), or billing disputes. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• OFFICE STAFF CONDUCT: Multiple customers report rude, condescending, or dismissive behavior from office staff (named as Phyllis in several reviews), including hanging up on customers and refusing to provide paid invoices.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 6 reviews document jobs left unfinished, work that had to be redone by other plumbers, or failure to complete contracted scope (e.g., copper pipe removal, toilet flappers, drain replacement, gas line work).
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite no-shows without notice, failure to return calls, missed appointments, and lack of responsiveness to scheduling requests.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: While many reviews praise field technicians, several document poor workmanship, unsafe installations (gas line wiring), and problems that required professional correction.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2011–2024, indicating this is not a recent problem but a longstanding pattern. Recent negative reviews (2022–2024) suggest issues persist despite company's long history.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Some 5-star reviews are extremely generic ('best plumber', 'highly recommend', 'great service') with minimal specific detail, though most positive reviews do contain specific job descriptions and names, reducing suspicion of coordinated fake reviews.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the technical competence dimension is well-supported (HIGH confidence, 26 mentions), the overall score is significantly dragged down by HIGH-confidence data on billing problems (18 mentions) and project completion issues (28 mentions). The company excels at field-level execution but fails consistently at business operations, customer communication, and billing transparency. Customers should expect quality work but should carefully document all agreements in writing, verify invoices before payment, and be prepared for potential billing disputes.

C&M Plumbing has a mixed track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and shows a split picture: several reviewers praised punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous behavior, but notable complaints include rudeness toward a customer's wife, a plumber dismissing pricing concerns with 'it is what it is,' and one professional plumber flagging unprofessional workmanship on a new construction job. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with two detailed complaints about a $289 charge for a 25-minute gas log swap and a $600 charge for a 90-minute job that was quoted for 6 hours — both reviewers felt ripped off, and no reviews explicitly praised pricing as fair except one older review. Project completion is moderately positive but undermined by one significant failure where a shower connection was left incomplete, causing water damage, and a separate incident involving a billing error sent to the wrong address with no follow-up call. Experience scores moderately, with some reviewers praising quick and effective repairs, while a fellow plumber criticized the quality of workmanship on a new construction build.

• 13 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no usable content — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no verifiable information and may inflate the overall star average.
• Two reviews (dated 2022-02-02 and 2022-02-13) describe the same incident (gas log swap on Jan 26, 2022, $289 charge, 25-minute job) in nearly identical detail. These appear to be duplicate reviews from the same customer posted twice. Only one was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting.
• The majority of substantive reviews are from 2012–2016, with only two usable reviews from the past 12 months (2024 and 2022). The recency of data is poor and the business's current quality cannot be reliably assessed from this review set.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief ('great very pleased', 'very well.', 'Overall call C & M Plumbing you won't be sorry.') with no specific details, limiting their evidentiary value. These were not counted toward any dimension score.
• One reviewer identifies themselves as a fellow plumber and criticizes the quality of workmanship directly — this carries elevated credibility as a professional assessment.

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution: while enough substantive reviews exist to calculate a score, the bulk of usable data is 8–12 years old, 13 reviews were entirely uninformative, and two reviews appear to be duplicates — the score reflects a contractor with genuine service inconsistencies, particularly around pricing transparency and job completion, but the current state of the business cannot be confidently assessed from this dataset.

MVP Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately — multiple reviewers praised punctuality, politeness, and clean presentation, but this is significantly undermined by one no-show incident spanning two days with no communication, and a pattern of high-pressure upselling tactics described by multiple reviewers. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: at least four separate reviews describe egregious overcharging — including a $3,000 quote for an $800 water heater, a near-$2,000 quote for a $33 drain service, and a $2,000 clean-out quote that a competitor resolved for $200 — while a handful of reviews praise fair or below-expected pricing, creating a volatile and unreliable pricing record. Project completion scores moderately, with several reviews confirming jobs were finished well and efficiently, but one review describes active damage caused during service (punctured drain pipes) and a no-show failure. Experience scores similarly mixed — skilled work is documented in complex jobs like sewer bypass surgery and hydro jetting, but the pattern of unnecessary upselling and alleged fabrication of required services raises serious concerns about diagnostic honesty. The overall WW Score of 58.3 reflects a contractor with genuine capability but a documented and recurring pattern of predatory pricing and trust-eroding sales practices.

• PRICING PREDATION PATTERN: At least 4 independent reviews describe dramatically inflated quotes — ranging from 4x to 60x what competitors charged for identical work. This is a strong and consistent signal of systematic overcharging, not isolated incidents.
• ACTIVE DAMAGE CAUSED: One reviewer (2023-05-23) reports that MVP technicians caused physical damage to drain pipes during service, then quoted $2,000 to repair the damage they created. This is a serious workmanship and ethics flag.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY FAILURE: One reviewer (2020-05-21) reports being stood up on two consecutive days with no proactive communication. This directly contradicts the punctuality praise seen in other reviews.
• FEAR-BASED SELLING TACTICS: Multiple reviewers independently describe being told work was impossible or required expensive interventions (clean-outs, full replacements) that competitors resolved cheaply and quickly. This suggests a deliberate upselling strategy rather than honest diagnosis.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2022–2023) contain the most serious complaints about pricing and damage. Older reviews (2011–2018) are more uniformly positive. This may indicate a decline in business practices over time, and recent reviews should be weighted more heavily.
• REVIEW AGE SPREAD: Reviews span from 2011 to 2023 — a 12-year window. Several positive reviews are 5–12 years old and may not reflect current business practices. The scoring has been adjusted to give greater weight to post-2022 reviews.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: While there is a cluster of positive reviews, they contain specific names, details, and varied language. No strong fake review pattern detected. The split between positive and negative reviews appears organic.

This WW Score of 58.3 is based on 16 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable signal of a contractor with inconsistent and potentially predatory pricing practices, despite demonstrated technical capability in some jobs.

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.

Morrow and Holman presents a deeply divided picture across a large review set spanning over a decade. The single most dominant complaint — appearing in well over 20 individual reviews — is failure to show up for scheduled appointments without notice or callback, which catastrophically drags down both professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is a significant secondary concern, with multiple reviewers describing bills that arrived without prior disclosure, charges for time not worked, and rates described as double or more than competitor quotes; this is partially offset by a meaningful cluster of reviewers who praised the company as fair and honest on price. Experience scores are the highest of the four dimensions, driven by consistent praise for specific technicians — particularly Fred — for genuine skill and problem-solving ability, but this is undermined by several reviews describing incorrect installations, abandoned jobs, and work that created new problems. The recency trend is notably negative: the majority of low-rated reviews cluster from 2016 onward, while most glowing reviews are older, suggesting a meaningful decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The overwhelming majority of 1-star reviews are dated 2016–2024, while most 5-star reviews are dated 2011–2014 or are isolated recent outliers. This suggests a significant and sustained decline in service quality over the past 8+ years.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 18–20 individual reviews explicitly describe the company failing to appear for scheduled appointments without calling the customer. This is a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY PATTERN: At least 8 reviews describe receiving unexpectedly high bills with no prior quote, being charged for time not worked, or having credit cards run without authorization. This is a recurring and serious concern.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe plumbers leaving jobs incomplete, failing to return after promising to do so, and in some cases leaving the customer's property in worse condition than before the visit.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW FLAG: A small number of 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Best customer service!!! you can count on your repair being done correctly the first time...' dated 2020-04-11) are extremely generic, contain no specifics, and read as potentially inauthentic. Confidence in those specific reviews is low.
• INDIVIDUAL TECHNICIAN VARIANCE: Reviews strongly suggest that quality is highly dependent on which technician is dispatched. Fred receives both the highest praise and some of the most serious complaints, indicating inconsistency even at the individual level.
• SCORE SUPPRESSION APPLIED: Due to the volume and specificity of negative reviews across all dimensions, scores have been held conservative per Rule 7. The experience dimension score, while the highest, is moderated by credible accounts of incorrect installations and abandoned diagnostic work.

This WW Score of 42.1 is based on 57 reviews with a high volume of detailed, specific feedback across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of the contractor's current service quality, with particular confidence in the professionalism and project completion scores given the sheer number of corroborating negative accounts.

Both reviews describe successful resolution of clogged sink issues, with one reviewer noting the problem has not recurred since the fix, suggesting solid workmanship. Professionalism is consistently praised across both reviews, with mentions of kindness and courteous service. Pricing is only explicitly mentioned in one review as affordable, making that dimension particularly low confidence. Project completion appears positive in both cases, with same-day or next-day service and no indication of unfinished work. Overall, the picture is favorable but based on only two reviews, all scores must be treated with significant caution.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated February 2017, making them over 7 years old. Recency weighting heavily penalizes reliability — current service quality is unknown.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language and limited specific detail, which is a mild pattern flag. However, the reviews do include some specifics (named technicians Jason and Brian, self-repair attempt, recurring clog history) that reduce fake review suspicion.
• With only 2 reviews, no dimension reaches even MODERATE confidence. All scores should be treated as highly speculative.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews from 2017 and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current or consistent service quality — significantly more recent reviews are needed before any meaningful assessment can be made.