Find Nearby Plumbers In Torrance, California

Fix All Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2012–2019. Professionalism scores well (72) based on positive mentions of responsiveness, courtesy, and same-day service, though marred by serious driver conduct complaints. Pricing is a major weakness (45), with explicit complaints of overcharging ($4,800 for a two-day job) and unfair pricing practices, despite some positive mentions of competitive rates. Project completion is below average (58) due to documented failures (gas line installation with leaks, drain clearing that required customer intervention) offset by successful major jobs. Experience is solid (75), with skilled technicians like John praised for problem-solving, though undermined by the gas line quality failure. The company appears to have performed better in earlier years (2012–2014) but deteriorated by 2016–2019.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2012–2016 (7+ years old). Recent reviews (2016–2019) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality decline.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Explicit overcharging complaint ($4,800 for two-day job) and accusation of unfair pricing practices. This is a serious trust issue.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Gas line installation (2019) was defective with wrong parts, no thread sealant, and gas leaks—contradicts claims of skilled workmanship.
• DRIVER CONDUCT: Two separate complaints about reckless driving (2016, 2017) suggest professionalism issues beyond plumbing work.
• INCOMPLETE PROJECT: Drain clearing job (2009) failed after 2 hours; customer resolved it themselves with $30 product.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2012–2014 use very similar phrasing ('John is awesome,' 'Carol is sweet,' 'call Fix All you will not be disappointed') with generic praise and no specific technical details. This may inflate older scores artificially.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While the overall score of 62.8 reflects mixed data, the company shows a clear negative trend over time, with recent reviews (2016–2019) revealing serious pricing and quality issues that contradict earlier testimonials. The older positive reviews may contain fabricated or incentivized content. Customers should prioritize recent negative feedback about overcharging and defective work over older praise.

Al demonstrates solid technical knowledge and is praised across multiple reviews for being knowledgeable, versatile, and delivering quality workmanship. Pricing is generally viewed as reasonable and fair by those who completed jobs with him. However, professionalism and project completion scores are significantly dragged down by a 1-star review describing Al accepting a job, going silent for three days, and then abandoning the project via text — a serious follow-through failure. The review base is very small (4 reviews) and spans 15 years, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions about current performance.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and not statistically reliable.
• Extreme recency imbalance: 3 of 4 reviews are from 2009, 2016, and 2019 — only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2024). Current performance is largely unknown.
• The 2019 1-star review describes a clear professionalism and project abandonment incident — Al accepted a job, gave a quote, went silent for 3 days, then rejected the job by text. This is a significant negative signal.
• The oldest review (2009) uses vague superlatives ('expertise seems to be unlimited', 'always guaranteed') with no specific job details — this review carries low evidentiary weight.
• Small sample size prevents fake review detection analysis from being conclusive, but the 2009 review's generic phrasing is noted.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 15 years, with just 1 recent review, making it insufficient to reliably assess Al's current quality or consistency — treat this score with significant caution.

Reback's Plumbing N' Things presents a deeply polarized customer experience. A core group of staff — particularly Henri, Carlos, Oly, Herb, and John — receive consistent and specific praise for deep product knowledge, patience, and problem-solving ability, which drives the experience score upward. However, professionalism is severely undermined by a large and consistent pattern of complaints about dismissive, condescending, and outright rude behavior from counter staff, with multiple reviewers describing being ignored, belittled, or spoken to aggressively. Pricing is a significant weakness: numerous reviewers explicitly cite prices 20–200% above competitors, a punishing 25% restocking fee, and instances of alleged overcharging, pulling the pricing score down substantially. Project completion scores moderately, with several complaints about incorrect parts being sold, unfulfilled orders, and poor follow-through on warranties and refunds, though many customers did successfully find hard-to-find parts and resolve their issues.

• POLARIZED REVIEW PATTERN: The review set is sharply split between detailed 5-star praise and detailed 1-star complaints. This is not indicative of fake reviews but rather a genuinely inconsistent service experience depending on which staff member assists the customer.
• STAFF INCONSISTENCY: Multiple named employees (Henri, Carlos, Oly, Herb, John) receive strong individual praise, while other unnamed or differently named staff (Alex, one described as 'shaved head') receive repeated severe criticism. Scores reflect the aggregate, not any individual.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2024. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to show the same mixed pattern — both strong praise and strong criticism — suggesting no meaningful improvement in consistency over time. Reviews older than 3 years were weighted slightly less but the pattern is so consistent across all years that recency adjustment had minimal impact.
• RESTOCKING FEE CONCERN: At least 4 independent reviewers explicitly complained about a 25% restocking fee being applied in disputed or unfair circumstances. This is a notable business practice risk flag.
• RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2019) explicitly reported a staff member made a racially derogatory comment referencing Chinese customers. This is a serious flag and was factored into the professionalism score.
• GENDER BIAS ALLEGATION: At least two reviewers independently noted that staff appeared dismissive specifically toward women, suggesting a possible systemic bias pattern.
• POSSIBLE UPSELLING / WRONG PARTS PATTERN: Multiple reviewers reported being sold incorrect parts or being pressured into purchasing items they did not need, with restocking fees then applied on returns. This pattern across independent reviews is a credibility and ethics concern.

This WW Score is based on 72 reviews spanning 13 years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable as a representation of the aggregate customer experience; however, the extreme variance in individual experiences means the score reflects an average that may not predict any single customer's visit.

Rooter Hero presents a deeply polarized review profile: a large cohort of positive reviews praising individual technicians for punctuality, friendliness, and effective work, offset by an equally large and highly detailed body of 1-star reviews documenting systematic bait-and-switch pricing, fraudulent upselling, no-shows, and work left incomplete or made worse. The pricing dimension is the most severely penalized, with dozens of independent reviewers reporting that advertised $77 specials routinely escalated to hundreds or thousands of dollars, and multiple reviewers confirmed via second opinions that recommended repairs costing $5,000–$40,000 were entirely unnecessary. Project completion suffers significantly from recurring patterns of technicians failing to clear drains they were called to clear, abandoning job sites, and returning visits that still did not resolve the original issue. Professionalism and experience scores are dragged down by widespread reports of no-shows, rude managers, technicians lacking proper equipment, and deliberate misdiagnosis, though a genuine subset of skilled and courteous individual technicians prevents these scores from being lower.

• STRONG FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A significant number of 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, or name-only (e.g., 'Good', 'Honest and capable', 'Wonderful firm', 'unknown', blank text with 5 stars). Several appear to be submitted in clusters on the same date (e.g., multiple reviews dated 2025-06-08, 2025-05-09) with no specific detail, which is a common pattern for incentivized or fabricated reviews.
• SYSTEMATIC FRAUD PATTERN: Dozens of independently written 1-star reviews from different geographic areas and time periods describe an identical operational pattern: low advertised price ($77) used to gain entry, technician fails to complete simple job, supervisor called in to quote $5,000–$40,000 in unnecessary work, second opinion from another plumber resolves the issue for under $500. This pattern is too consistent and widespread to be coincidental.
• LEGAL AND REGULATORY FLAGS: Multiple reviewers reference active lawsuits, BBB complaints (D- rating cited), a reported 5-year probation, and news coverage of fraudulent practices. One reviewer links to a KCRA news story about a $50k contract dispute. These are serious external red flags beyond individual review sentiment.
• ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE TARGETING: Multiple reviewers explicitly state the company targets seniors, women, and first-time homeowners with high-pressure sales tactics and inflated quotes, which constitutes a pattern of predatory behavior.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from approximately 2013 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2025) continue to show the same split pattern of brief 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star fraud complaints, indicating no meaningful improvement in business practices over time.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCTION APPLIED: Due to the high volume of suspected fake or incentivized 5-star reviews, all dimension scores have been conservatively weighted toward the detailed negative evidence. The WW Score should be treated as an upper bound given this concern.

This WW Score has HIGH data confidence due to the very large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution as a ceiling estimate — the systematic fraud patterns, suspected fake positive reviews, external legal/regulatory flags, and consistent second-opinion evidence strongly suggest the true service quality for an average customer is likely worse than the blended score indicates.

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.

Mitigation Inc. presents a deeply polarized review profile: a substantial bloc of positive reviews praising responsiveness, technical knowledge, and thoroughness is counterbalanced by a large and detailed set of negative reviews alleging fraud, inflated billing, harassment, unauthorized work, and failure to complete jobs. The negative reviews are notably specific and credible — multiple independent reviewers describe nearly identical patterns including late-night unannounced visits, refusal to provide invoices, scare tactics, billing for work not performed, and aggressive collection behavior, which significantly suppresses scores across all dimensions. Professionalism and pricing scores are particularly damaged, as misconduct allegations in these areas are both numerous and highly consistent across unrelated reviewers spanning multiple years. Project completion scores reflect a mixed record: some customers report full, satisfactory job completion while others describe abandoned work, missed deadlines, and incomplete repairs. Experience scores are modestly higher because several reviewers — including a city inspector reference — affirm technical competence, but this is undermined by accounts of unnecessary demolition, improper repairs, and a sewage leak left with uncapped pipes.

• SERIOUS FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe nearly identical misconduct — inflated invoices, billing for unused materials, unauthorized work commencement, refusal to provide documentation, and late-night harassment calls. This is not coincidental and represents a systemic behavioral pattern.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Travis is a very reliable and experienced contractor,' 'Great service,' 'Very knowledgeable people'). One reviewer explicitly alleges that a 'Mike H' profile used in company responses is a fabricated identity.
• SOLICITATION OF REVIEWS ALLEGED: At least one detailed negative reviewer explicitly states that Mitigation Inc. called and solicited positive reviews on Google and Yelp after a disputed job, raising the possibility that some 5-star reviews are not organic.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) include both a detailed positive review and a highly alarming 1-star review alleging attempted property liens, police involvement, and extortion. The negative pattern has not abated over time.
• BILLING FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers allege charges for materials not used (e.g., 100 boxes billed vs. 30 used), double-billing insurance companies, and billing for work performed in areas where no work was done. These are serious legal allegations repeated by unrelated parties.
• HARASSMENT PATTERN: At least 5 separate reviewers across different years report receiving calls at 10–11pm, unannounced home visits, and aggressive pressure tactics — a consistent and credible pattern of boundary violations.
• PRIVACY BREACH ALLEGATION: One reviewer alleges Mitigation intercepted a private insurance call to obtain lead information and then misrepresented themselves as being from the homeowner's insurance company — a potentially criminal act.
• RECENCY WEIGHT APPLIED: Reviews from 2023–2024 (past 12 months from most recent) were given elevated weight. The negative pattern persists into the most recent period with no evidence of improvement.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with serious caution — the volume and specificity of fraud, harassment, and billing misconduct allegations from clearly independent reviewers represent material risk that prospective customers should weigh heavily before engaging this contractor.