Find Nearby Plumbers In Torrance, California

Roger's Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising courteous, knowledgeable technicians — particularly Orlando, Jim, Marcus, Eddie, and Chris — who communicate clearly, arrive on time, and go above and beyond on the job. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a substantial and consistent pattern of negative reviews explicitly calls out charges that reviewers describe as 2–4x competitor rates, surprise fees, upselling of unnecessary work, and in one case an unauthorized membership charge. Project completion is generally solid but is meaningfully dragged down by multiple reviews citing no-shows, missed appointments without callbacks, and at least one case of work that had to be redone. The combination of excellent field technicians and a problematic pricing model creates a bifurcated reputation that is clearly reflected across hundreds of reviews spanning over a decade.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two nearly identical reviews from the same reviewer (dated 2024-09-09 and 2024-08-22) describing the same rental property experience with the $53 drain special and hydro-jetting comparison. These appear to be the same person posting twice. Only counted once for scoring purposes.
• GENERIC/THIN REVIEWS: Approximately 18 reviews consist solely of a star rating with no text, and several others contain only 2–4 words (e.g., 'Professional. Detailed. Polite.' appearing twice on different dates with identical wording — possible duplicate or templated review). These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• IDENTICAL PHRASING FLAG: The review 'Professional. Detailed. Polite.' appears on both 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-02 with identical text and 5-star ratings. This is suspicious and may indicate a fake or duplicated review.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2024–2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, a meaningful cluster of negative pricing reviews spans 2010–2024, suggesting the overpricing concern is a long-standing and persistent issue rather than an isolated incident.
• PRICING CONCERN IS SYSTEMIC: At least 15 distinct reviews across multiple years explicitly cite overcharging, price gouging, or quotes 2–4x competitor rates. This is not noise — it is a consistent pattern that materially suppresses the pricing score.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least 5 reviews describe technicians who never arrived, did not call, or failed to reschedule appropriately. One review describes 7 return visits for the same unresolved dripping faucet issue, raising a project completion concern.
• OLDER REVIEWS (pre-2020): A significant number of reviews date back to 2010–2019. These were given reduced weight in scoring relative to 2023–2025 reviews, per recency rules.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 15+ years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; the score is considered reliable, and the pricing dimension in particular reflects a well-documented and persistent pattern that prospective customers should weigh carefully before engaging this contractor.

Bob and Marc Plumbing has a large and genuinely mixed review history spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a recurring pattern of no-shows, missed appointments without notification, and multiple reports of rude office staff — particularly a scheduler — despite many individual technicians (Spencer, Shiloh, Danny, Justin, Daniel) receiving strong personal praise for courtesy and responsiveness. Pricing is the most contested dimension: while many reviewers praise fair and reasonable rates, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews describe significant overcharging, undisclosed charges, and bills that far exceeded quoted amounts. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with several credible accounts of abandoned work, jobs left incomplete after multiple visits, and a particularly serious case of a customer waiting over six months for a callback on defective work they had already paid for in full. Experience scores are moderate-to-positive overall, with skilled technicians praised for problem-solving, but offset by documented cases of failed repairs that made problems worse and work that required other plumbers to correct.

• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY CONCERN: At least 6 independent reviews across multiple years (2009, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2021) describe no-shows or last-minute cancellations with no notification or apology. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: One detailed 2022 review describes a customer who paid in full for sink installation, was promised repairs for over 6 months, and was ultimately ignored after dozens of contact attempts. This is a serious project completion failure.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews describe bills that significantly exceeded quoted amounts without prior authorization, including a $300 charge on a $150 estimate and a $1,400+ sump pump job. One reviewer noted the company was suspended from Angie's List for suspected fraudulent reviews.
• OFFICE STAFF CONDUCT: Rude or dismissive behavior by office/scheduling staff is mentioned in at least 5 separate reviews across different years, suggesting a persistent staffing or management issue rather than a one-off incident.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans 2009–2023. Reviews from 2009–2015 are more than 8 years old and carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2022–2023) include both strong positives and serious negatives, indicating the company's quality remains inconsistent as of the most recent data.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A cluster of reviews from 2020–2021 specifically praise technician 'Shiloh' in very similar terms across multiple accounts with no other review history context. While not conclusive, this warrants mild skepticism. The Angie's List suspension noted by one reviewer for suspected fraudulent reviews adds additional concern.
• BUSINESS FOCUS SHIFT WARNING: A 2022 review credibly describes the company shifting focus to large commercial jobs, deprioritizing residential customers. This may explain some of the scheduling and follow-through failures seen in recent residential reviews.

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews spanning 14 years and carries HIGH data confidence due to volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given documented patterns of scheduling failures, abandoned work, pricing disputes, and a credible third-party report of suspected review manipulation — the true performance floor may be lower than the score reflects.

Curtis Watanabe Plumbing has a deeply split review profile. The majority of positive reviews — many dating from 2012 to 2021 — consistently praise technical expertise (especially with Noritz tankless water heaters), fair pricing, and responsive communication. However, a significant cluster of 1-star reviews, including several from 2023, describe a recurring and serious pattern: missed appointments, unreturned calls, abandoned follow-up work, and in some cases shoddy workmanship that required third-party remediation. The project completion dimension is the most heavily penalized, as multiple reviewers explicitly describe unfinished work, ignored callbacks, and ongoing damage discovered after job completion. Pricing scores moderately well due to consistent positive mentions, but is tempered by one review alleging overcharging and refusal to provide itemized receipts. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with genuine technical skill but unreliable follow-through and deteriorating responsiveness, particularly in recent years.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2023) are predominantly 1-star and describe systemic failures in follow-up and job completion. Positive reviews are largely concentrated in 2018-2021, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: At least 5 independent reviews (2016, 2017, 2019, 2023 x2) explicitly describe the same pattern — Curtis schedules follow-up visits, fails to appear, stops returning calls, and leaves work incomplete. This is a structural reliability concern, not isolated incidents.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One detailed 2023 review describes mold growth, wall damage, multiple leaks found at job completion, and two subsequent plumbers commenting on shoddy work. A 2019 review describes suspected hidden leak damage causing thousands in unreported wall damage.
• PRICING INTEGRITY FLAG: One reviewer (2017) alleges refusal to provide itemized receipt or receipt for purchased unit, suspected overcharging, and unfulfilled promise of a cash discount. This is an isolated but notable integrity concern.
• VOICEMAIL/COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Multiple reviews across different years (2016, 2017, 2021, 2023) mention full voicemail boxes, unreturned calls, and inability to reach the business — suggesting a persistent operational issue rather than a one-time problem.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Positive reviews contain specific details (names of crew members, specific equipment models, job descriptions) that suggest authenticity. Negative reviews are similarly detailed and independently corroborated. No artificial inflation pattern identified.

This WW Score is based on 44 reviews with high mention counts across all dimensions and is statistically reliable, but the score should be interpreted with caution given the clear temporal decline in service quality — recent 2023 reviews suggest the contractor's current reliability is materially worse than the historical average reflected in this score.

Pete Fer Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence across plumbing and HVAC work. However, the score is meaningfully pulled down by a recurring and serious pattern of unanswered calls and no-shows, including failures on advertised 24-hour emergency service, which directly undermines professionalism and project completion reliability. Pricing received mixed signals — several reviewers praised fair or below-expectation costs, but two credible negative reviews described undisclosed charges, overbilling for time, and refusal to honor warranty work. Project completion was also dinged by one review where a plumber declined a job that a competitor completed easily, and another where completed work damaged a sprinkler system and led to a billing dispute and threatened litigation. The experience dimension scores highest, as technical skill and workmanship are praised across many reviews spanning years, but the volume of operational and communication failures prevents a high overall score.

• Three reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating of 5.0, dated 2020-06-10). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Review dated 2020-06-10 with text 'Your the best we love you all' and another with 'I don't try to rip you off like a lot of places do' are suspiciously vague and generic with no specifics — treated with low evidentiary weight.
• Cluster of 5-star reviews all dated exactly 2020-06-10 with no text or minimal text raises a fake review concern. Confidence in the pricing and professionalism scores from that period is reduced.
• Multiple reviews (2024-04-29, 2024-06-09, 2022-06-10, 2019-01-31) explicitly describe unanswered calls, no-shows, and failure to return emergency calls despite advertised 24-hour service — this is a significant and recurring operational failure.
• One review (2019-09-17) describes completed work that damaged a sprinkler system, disputed billing, management refusing to speak with the customer, and a subsequent lawsuit threat — a serious project completion and professionalism red flag.
• One review (2009-02-27) describes undisclosed charges, overbilling, and refusal to honor a 30-day warranty. While old, it aligns with more recent billing complaints and is noted as a pattern.
• Majority of reviews are older than 12 months (pre-2024). Only 4 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024), limiting recency confidence. The most recent reviews include two no-response complaints, which is concerning for current service quality.
• Review dated 2020-05-25 describes a technician billing for time he was absent from the job site and management failing to respond to a billing dispute — consistent with the overbilling pattern seen in other reviews.

This WW Score is based on 41 reviews spanning 17 years with sufficient data volume for HIGH confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to a documented pattern of communication failures, billing disputes, and a cluster of suspicious no-text 5-star reviews that may inflate the raw rating average.

Cesar receives strong praise across professionalism, responsiveness, and same-day availability from the large majority of reviewers, with many highlighting his punctuality, friendly demeanor, and clear communication. Pricing is generally regarded as fair and reasonable, with no hidden fees cited by most customers. However, two detailed and credible 1- and 2-star reviews describe a troubling pattern: Cesar allegedly made drain problems worse upon arrival, then used the worsened condition as a pressure tactic to upsell expensive hydro-jetting or mainline replacement services, and in both cases the jobs were ultimately completed successfully by other plumbers or the homeowners themselves for far less money. These negative reviews are specific, plausible, and consistent with each other, which meaningfully drags down project completion and experience scores. The volume of positive reviews is high, but the fake review risk flag below tempers confidence in the aggregate positivity.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant number of 5-star reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Best service!', 'Amazing work plus great guy!'). Several use nearly identical phrasing around responsiveness and friendliness without describing the actual work performed. This pattern is consistent with potentially inflated or solicited reviews and reduces confidence in the upper end of positive scores.
• UPSELL / PRESSURE TACTIC PATTERN: Two independent, detailed negative reviews (1-star dated 2024-06-02 and 2-star dated 2023-07-09) describe a consistent pattern where Cesar allegedly made drain conditions worse during the service visit, then refused to complete the original job unless the customer agreed to a significantly more expensive service. In both cases, the original problem was resolved cheaply by others shortly after. This is a serious workmanship and ethics concern.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: In at least two documented cases, Cesar left the job site with the problem in a worse state than when he arrived and did not complete the originally requested service. This materially impacts the project completion score.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative review is from June 2024, making it the most current data point. The bulk of positive reviews are from 2021–2023. The negative pattern may represent a more recent decline in service quality or an ongoing issue that was underreported in earlier reviews.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large review set (35 reviews) and carries HIGH data confidence by volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to a credible upsell-and-abandon pattern documented in multiple negative reviews and a moderate risk of generic or solicited 5-star reviews inflating the positive signal.

Carter's Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising George Carter's punctuality, fair pricing, and technical skill across a wide range of plumbing jobs. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by several serious negative reviews: two instances of no-shows with poor customer service handling, one case of an abandoned job where the technician's snake got stuck and he still demanded full payment, and one review stating the work had to be redone by another company. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with multiple reviewers calling rates fair or reasonable, though one reviewer felt a $200 charge to light a pilot light was excessive. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to the no-show incidents and the failed sewer job, which represent significant failures in follow-through. The review base spans from 2010 to 2023, meaning many positive reviews are quite old and may not reflect current service quality.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2010–2022. Only two reviews are from the past 12 months (2023), and one of those is a 1-star no-show complaint. Recent performance signals may be declining.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Two separate reviews (2023-12-21 and 2020-08-18) describe scheduling failures where the company did not arrive as promised and handled customer complaints poorly. This is a recurring operational issue.
• ABANDONED JOB: The 2013 review describes a technician whose snake got stuck in the sewer line, who failed to retrieve his own equipment promptly, and who still demanded full payment despite not completing the job. This is a significant project completion failure.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: The 2015 review states another company had to be called to redo Carter's work, indicating at least one instance of substandard workmanship.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW — Reviews vary in detail, tone, writing style, and rating. No strong pattern of fake reviews detected. Most positive reviews include specific job details and named technicians.

This WW Score is based on 24 reviews spanning 13 years and carries HIGH statistical confidence due to mention volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given that recent reviews skew negative and several serious failures in professionalism and project completion are documented.