Find Nearby Plumbers In Santa Monica, California

The majority of positive reviews highlight responsive communication, honest assessments, and solid technical problem-solving — particularly from named technicians Robert and Mikey. Pricing feedback is mixed: one reviewer praised transparent, competitive pricing and a risk-free approach, while another felt the advertised emergency pricing was misleading and inconsistent with the ad. Professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by two 1-star reviews: one describing a serious incident of aggressive, threatening behavior by a company van driver in public, and another citing deceptive advertising around emergency service availability. Project completion is generally strong among customers who received service, with crews returning the next day when initial attempts failed. However, the small review pool and the severity of the conduct complaint limit overall confidence in this score.

• One 1-star review describes an extremely serious incident of physical aggression, threatening behavior, and verbal abuse by an employee driving a company van in public. While the reviewer did not use the company's services, this is a significant professionalism and character flag that materially impacts the professionalism score.
• One 1-star review alleges misleading advertising — the company advertised 24-hour emergency service and fast response but quoted a 2-day wait and a $249 emergency surcharge when contacted. This is a transparency and pricing concern.
• Several positive reviews are older than 12 months (2015–2021), with only one review from the past 12 months (2024). Recency weighting has been applied; the older reviews carry reduced influence on current reliability.
• Total review count is low (7 reviews). Scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive. More reviews are needed for a reliable WW Score.
• No clear fake review patterns detected. Positive reviews contain specific names, details, and varied language, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on a small and temporally spread review set with only one recent review; the score is directionally useful but should not be treated as a high-confidence assessment of current service quality.

Bill West Plumbing shows a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately — many individual technicians (Alex, Adan, Julio, Mike D, Eddie, Cisco, etc.) are praised for punctuality, courtesy, and communication, but the company-level record is dragged down by repeated no-shows, missed appointment windows, canceled appointments without notice, and poor follow-up on estimates and refunds. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far: a large number of reviewers explicitly describe being shocked by quotes, experiencing hidden or inconsistent charges, extreme parts markups (500–600% above retail), and high-pressure upselling — with multiple reviewers finding the same job done elsewhere for a fraction of the price. Project completion is middling — most jobs that were started appear to have been finished, but there are notable failures including a technician who could not diagnose or fix a water heater, a drain that was made worse before an upsell attempt, a misdiagnosis that nearly cost a customer $2,000, and multiple instances of promised follow-up work that was never delivered. Experience scores slightly higher than pricing and completion, as many technicians demonstrate genuine skill and problem-solving ability, though there are clear outliers involving misdiagnosis and use of incorrect equipment. The overall WW Score of 68.4 reflects a company with talented individual technicians undermined by systemic pricing, scheduling, and follow-through failures.

• OWNERSHIP CHANGE FLAG: Multiple reviewers explicitly note that Bill West Plumbing was acquired by Adeedo (also referenced as Addoo). Several reviewers warn that positive reviews predate the acquisition and may not reflect current ownership or practices. Scores from pre-acquisition reviews should be treated with caution.
• PRICING PATTERN — POTENTIAL PREDATORY UPSELLING: A statistically significant number of negative reviews describe the same pattern: technician arrives, diagnoses a minor issue, then quotes an extremely high price for unnecessary or inflated work. Multiple reviewers confirmed via second opinions that the original diagnosis or quote was inaccurate or grossly overpriced. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS — LOW RISK: Some 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Hands down best plumbers', 'Technician did a great job. Will use again.'). However, the majority of positive reviews name specific technicians and describe specific jobs, which reduces the likelihood of coordinated fake reviews. Brief reviews are noted but not flagged as definitively fake.
• RECENCY NOTE: The reviews span from 2014 to 2021. The most recent review (2021) is a 1-star describing the post-acquisition company. A significant portion of 5-star reviews are from 2017–2018 and may reflect a different operational period. Reviews from 2019 onward skew more negative, suggesting a decline in service quality over time.
• HAPPY HOME CLUB SUBSCRIPTION FLAG: At least one reviewer reports being unknowingly enrolled in a recurring monthly membership charge ('Happy Home Club') without clear consent, and experienced difficulty canceling. This is a potential deceptive billing practice.
• INCONSISTENT QUOTING FLAG: Multiple reviewers report being given one price over the phone and a significantly different (higher) price when the technician arrived. This pattern of bait-and-switch pricing is mentioned across several independent reviews and represents a systemic trust issue.

This WW Score of 68.4 is based on a large review set (80 reviews) with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the score should be interpreted with caution given the confirmed ownership change to Adeedo, a clear post-acquisition decline in pricing transparency and scheduling reliability, and a recurring pattern of predatory upselling that suggests the current business may perform materially worse than the historical average reflected in older 5-star reviews.

R&D Plumbing has a loyal base of long-term customers who consistently praise responsiveness, same-day availability, and fair pricing, which drives positive scores across all dimensions. However, a significant cluster of detailed negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious issues including incomplete work, abandoned jobs, dishonest billing practices, rude office staff (particularly 'Donna'), and technicians (particularly 'Miguel') who behaved unprofessionally or performed substandard work. Pricing complaints are notable and specific: multiple reviewers allege overcharging, inconsistent quoting, and a cash/check-only payment policy that was never disclosed upfront. Project completion is materially dragged down by at least three reviews describing jobs that were left unfinished or required a callback that was never honored. The breadth and specificity of negative reviews across many years prevents this contractor from scoring in the upper tier despite genuine positive feedback.

• Several positive reviews are generic and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Great service, reliable, and honest' with no job description), which slightly raises fake review concern for a subset of 5-star reviews.
• A disproportionate number of highly detailed negative reviews describe the same named individuals (Donna, Miguel, Ruben) across multiple years, suggesting systemic rather than isolated issues.
• Cash/check-only payment policy flagged by two separate reviewers as undisclosed — this is a transparency and professionalism concern.
• At least two reviews describe jobs that were explicitly left incomplete with no follow-up from the company, which is a serious project completion red flag.
• One review (2019) describes a contractor entering a home while the owner was out of the country, leaving it dirty, disconnecting water valves without reattaching them, and then misrepresenting the agreed scope of work — this is a significant integrity concern.
• Most reviews with high detail and negative content are from 2014–2019; the most recent reviews (2022–2024) skew positive, which may indicate improvement or survivorship bias in recent review volume.
• Review from 2017 by 'Richard Battaglia, John Aaroe Group' references work done 'in the early 90s' — this is not a recent experience and carries very low evidentiary weight for current performance.
• Recency note: Only 4 reviews are from the past 12 months (mid-2023 to mid-2024), limiting confidence in current operational quality.

This WW Score is based on 34 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH data confidence by volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the recurring, specific, and credible negative reviews describing billing disputes, incomplete work, and poor customer service from named staff members across multiple years.

Campos Plumbing shows a genuinely mixed track record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, many reviewers praise their honesty, technical knowledge, and ability to solve difficult problems — including one notable case where they succeeded after four other plumbers failed. However, serious and recurring complaints significantly drag down every dimension: multiple reviewers report no-shows or extreme lateness, billing disputes involving charges for time not worked or prices never disclosed upfront, incomplete or improperly executed jobs with no follow-up, and rude or dismissive office staff. The pricing dimension is particularly polarized — some reviewers highlight fair and even self-sacrificing pricing, while others describe feeling deceived by undisclosed rates and inflated bills. Project completion is also a concern, with at least two reviews describing jobs left unfinished or done incorrectly with no resolution. The score reflects a contractor with genuine capability but inconsistent execution and accountability.

• Several positive reviews are older than 5 years (2009–2015) and may not reflect current service quality. The most recent reviews (2021–2024) include a higher proportion of negative experiences, suggesting possible decline in service standards over time.
• The most recent review (January 2024) is a 1-star with allegations of dishonesty and financial loss, which is weighted more heavily per recency rules.
• Billing transparency is a recurring complaint across multiple independent reviews (2020, 2021, 2018), indicating a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• At least two reviews describe no-show or extreme lateness incidents (2014, 2018), and one describes a failure to schedule a repair after two follow-up calls (2019), suggesting a pattern of unreliable scheduling.
• One review (2013) describes two improperly completed jobs, no callback after complaints, and a referral to a disreputable remediation company — a serious multi-dimensional failure.
• One review (2018) describes a 10-minute visit where the plumber asked a 90-year-old client to source and order his own part, then left — followed by a $190 bill and five months of no resolution. This is a significant professionalism and project completion failure.
• No strong indicators of fake reviews detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating, and negative reviews include specific names, dates, and details that suggest authenticity.

This WW Score is based on 25 reviews spanning 15 years with high mention counts across all dimensions, making it statistically reliable in coverage, but the significant age spread and apparent decline in recent review sentiment mean the score should be interpreted cautiously — current service quality may be lower than the blended score suggests.

Power Pro Plumbing scores reasonably on professionalism and experience at the individual technician level, with a large volume of reviews praising specific techs as knowledgeable, courteous, and thorough. However, these positives are significantly offset by a substantial and consistent pattern of serious complaints: repeated no-shows or extreme lateness, failure to communicate delays, and a deeply troubling pattern of wildly inflated pricing — with multiple reviewers documenting quotes 5x to 20x higher than what competitors charged for identical work. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with numerous detailed, credible accounts of price gouging, upselling unnecessary work, and targeting elderly or distressed customers. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed well, but there are credible accounts of abandoned work, jobs not fixed on the first visit, and in at least one case, alleged deliberate damage to create additional billable work. The overall score reflects a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues in pricing integrity, scheduling reliability, and office management.

• FAKE REVIEW FLAG — HIGH SUSPICION: At least 6 reviews are exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates (two distinct Emiliano reviews each appear 3 times verbatim across June 6-9 2025; two distinct Ricky Bates reviews and two Julian reviews also appear as exact duplicates). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation. Confidence in the positive review pool is reduced accordingly.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple detailed, specific, credible 1-star reviews document quotes ranging from 5x to 20x what competitors charged for identical work (e.g., $6,700 vs $128 for drain clearing; $2,300 vs under $100 for drain clearing; $7,000 for 13 hours of work; $425 vs $140 for cartridge replacement; $700 vs $135 for gas valve work; $3,200 for 2 toilets and a garbage disposal). This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews across many years document repeated no-shows, extreme lateness (hours beyond appointment windows), and failure to proactively communicate delays. This is a long-standing and recurring operational issue.
• ELDERLY CUSTOMER TARGETING: Multiple reviews explicitly describe technicians pressuring elderly customers into expensive unnecessary work, including one review alleging a technician drilled a hole in a pipe to create a new billable leak.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2005 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) skew heavily positive and include confirmed duplicate/fake reviews. Older reviews (2012-2021) contain the most detailed and credible negative accounts. The score weights all periods but flags that recent positive reviews may be artificially inflated.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10+ reviews contained no text (only a star rating of 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data per scoring rules.
• ONE REVIEW (2017) alleges a technician flooded a home with sewage, behaved erratically, and the company denied the incident occurred — a serious conduct and integrity concern.
• ONE REVIEW (2015) alleges a technician drilled a hole in a cast iron pipe to manufacture a new leak, supported by photographic evidence described in the review. This is an extreme allegation that, if accurate, constitutes fraud.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution given confirmed duplicate/fake positive reviews inflating the recent pool, a systemic and well-documented pattern of price gouging across many years, and serious allegations of deliberate property damage — consumers should seek multiple independent quotes before engaging this company.

Progressive Plumbing and its associated entities receive broadly positive marks for professionalism and technical experience, with many reviewers praising named technicians such as Daniel, Victor, Marcus, Justin, and Roberto for being courteous, knowledgeable, and responsive. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a very large number of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe charges as excessive, arbitrary, or deceptive — including instances of verbal quotes being exceeded, refusal to itemize bills, and charges perceived as exploitative during emergencies. Project completion is mixed: while many jobs are described as completed promptly and well, there are notable failures including no-shows, abandoned work, callbacks that were never honored, and at least one case of a job left incomplete with damage caused. The volume and consistency of pricing complaints across a wide date range significantly suppresses the overall score.

• SUSPECTED MIXED ENTITY PROBLEM: Multiple reviews reference 'San Bruno Plumbing' as the company name, while the majority reference 'Progressive Plumbing' or 'Progressive Service Company.' These may be distinct businesses whose reviews have been aggregated together, which would make the composite score unreliable.
• FAKE OR PADDING REVIEW CONCERN: At least 30+ reviews consist of blank text with only a star rating (all 5-star). These provide zero usable data and inflate the apparent rating volume. They were excluded from dimension scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review for Marcus ('came on time in fact earlier than expected... cost was fair, lower than expected') appears verbatim on both 2025-05-19 and 2025-05-16. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2005 to 2025. A significant portion of negative pricing and project completion reviews date from 2017–2023, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents. Positive reviews are more concentrated in 2024–2025, which may reflect genuine improvement or selection bias.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Overcharging complaints are not isolated — they appear across many years, many technicians, and many job types (water heaters, toilet repairs, faucet installs, drain clearing). This pattern is too consistent to dismiss as outliers.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians performing unauthorized work, billing tenants without owner approval, leaving job sites in disarray, being rude or dismissive, and in one case potentially misusing a credit card. These are serious conduct flags.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 5 reviews describe scheduled appointments where no technician arrived and no follow-up communication was made. This is a recurring project completion failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large number of substantive reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the systemic pricing complaints, suspected entity mixing between 'Progressive Plumbing' and 'San Bruno Plumbing,' a high volume of blank filler reviews, and recurring patterns of no-shows and incomplete work that suggest operational inconsistency rather than isolated incidents.