Find Nearby Plumbers In Whittier, California

Exclusive Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is significantly compromised by a serious 2020 incident involving locked doors, poor communication, and delayed management response, though two other reviews show acceptable professional conduct. Project completion is generally adequate with jobs finished and follow-through on callbacks, but one review documents poor drywall cutting quality. Pricing feedback is mixed—one customer found value compared to competitors, while another noted high costs for minor work. Technical skill appears competent for standard installations but questionable for finishing work. The 2020 incident is severe and recent enough to substantially impact overall trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL SAFETY INCIDENT (2020): Customer locked in basement and locked out of home by plumbers; raises serious concerns about professionalism and safety protocols.
• POOR INCIDENT RESPONSE: Company initially misrepresented customer's account to VP; took 48 hours for management to engage; no proactive investigation or remediation documented.
• WORKMANSHIP QUALITY ISSUE: Photo referenced in 2020 review shows improper drywall cutting, suggesting quality control problems beyond plumbing work.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent positive review is from 2021; serious incident from 2020 is now 4+ years old but reflects systemic issues that may persist.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed; score reliability is constrained by small dataset.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and the presence of a documented serious safety incident that raises questions about company protocols and management responsiveness, despite some positive customer experiences with basic plumbing work.

All Out Plumbing has a deeply polarized review history. A large cluster of positive reviews — many from 2014 to 2019 — praise responsiveness, professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, particularly around a technician named David. However, a significant and credible set of negative reviews from 2019 to 2024 describe serious misconduct including price-switching after arrival, abandoned jobs with drywall holes left open, fraudulent credit card charges, leaking work requiring third-party remediation, and complete ghosting of customers. The negative reviews are specific, detailed, and corroborated across multiple reviewers naming the same individuals (Christian, Andrew, David), which substantially reduces confidence in the positive record. Multiple reviewers and even a 1-star reviewer explicitly flag the 5-star reviews as fake or duplicated across other company profiles, which is a serious credibility concern. Scores across all dimensions are penalized to reflect this documented pattern of misconduct and the credible fake-review allegations.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — HIGH: Multiple independent negative reviewers explicitly state that 5-star reviews appear duplicated across other Yelp company profiles (Knight Plumbing, All Out Plumbing Whittier). One reviewer states the same reviews appear word-for-word on other company pages. Several 5-star reviews from 2018-2019 use nearly identical phrasing ('knowledgeable and professional', 'will definitely be using them for future issues') with no specific job details.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers (2020-2024) describe a technician named Christian abandoning jobs mid-work, leaving drywall holes open, and turning off his phone. One reviewer reports finding the same individual listed under a separate company (Knight Plumbing) with similar scam complaints.
• FRAUDULENT BILLING ALLEGATIONS: At least two reviewers report unauthorized or disputed credit card charges. One reviewer states authorities were notified. Another describes being charged $2,000+ upfront with a promised refund that never materialized over 11+ days.
• PRICE SWITCHING: One reviewer (2024) reports being quoted $2,000 then told $4,000 upon arrival when the contractor knew the customer was in a desperate situation. This is a predatory pricing pattern.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: Multiple negative reviewers describe leaking post-repair work requiring a second plumber, incorrect installation of a tankless water heater, cracked filter housing on a whole-house filtration system, and faulty valves on a washer/dryer relocation.
• NO-SHOW / GHOSTING PATTERN: At least two reviewers describe being given appointment times and then never hearing back, with no call and no show.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2014-2019 and are more than 5 years old. All reviews from 2020 onward are predominantly 1-star with serious allegations. The most recent reviews (2023-2024) continue the negative trend, suggesting a significant deterioration in service quality or a change in personnel/ownership.
• IDENTITY CONFUSION: Multiple negative reviewers reference different named technicians (David, Christian, Andrew, Jesse, Ron, Larry, Matt, Jay, Jason, Steve) suggesting either high staff turnover, multiple operators under one brand, or possible brand name misuse by bad actors.
• TWO REVIEWS CONTAINED NO USABLE TEXT ('unknown') AND WERE EXCLUDED FROM DIMENSION SCORING.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust — the review set contains credible and specific allegations of fraud, fake reviews, abandoned work, and billing misconduct that materially undermine the large volume of older positive reviews, and the most recent reviews consistently reflect serious service failures.

Five of six reviews are positive and highlight punctuality, friendly communication, and fair pricing, with multiple reviewers specifically praising Agustin by name for going above and beyond. However, the one negative review is a serious drag on the Project Completion dimension: the contractor left sprinkler reconnection incomplete, denied responsibility for new leaks caused near the work area, and refused to remedy the situation — a significant failure of follow-through and accountability. Professionalism scores are tempered because the positive reviews are clustered in a narrow two-month window in late 2020, and the negative review raises concerns about how disputes are handled. Pricing scores well across the reviews that mention it, with multiple customers noting charges significantly below competitor quotes. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but a meaningful unresolved complaint that cannot be dismissed.

• Four of the five positive reviews were posted within a 3-week window (Oct 30 – Nov 16, 2020), which is a potential clustering flag and warrants caution.
• The positive reviews share some generic praise patterns ('great job', 'highly recommend', 'fair pricing') though most include specific details that reduce — but do not eliminate — fake review concern.
• All reviews are older than 12 months (most recent is April 2021); no recent data is available to assess current performance.
• The 1-star review describes a serious project completion failure: incomplete work, new damage near the work site, and refusal to accept responsibility — this is a significant red flag for accountability.
• Only 6 total reviews analyzed; sample size is small and limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to the small and aging review sample, a suspicious clustering of positive reviews in a short window, and one serious unresolved complaint that meaningfully offsets the otherwise positive feedback.

Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension across these four reviews and tells a mixed story: two reviewers praised punctuality, friendliness, and communication, while one reviewer reported a complete no-show with no call, no explanation, and no apology — a serious red flag that significantly drags the score down. Pricing received positive mentions in two reviews, with one noting a clear, well-broken-down estimate and another calling pricing fair, but only two data points exist so confidence is limited. Project completion is similarly split: one reviewer described a successful single-story-to-two-story conversion, while the no-show reviewer never got past the appointment stage, representing a total failure of follow-through. Experience scores modestly positive based on the completed conversion project and the detailed estimating process, but again only two reviews provide any signal here.

• Only 4 reviews total — this is a very small sample and the WW Score should be treated as highly provisional.
• The 1-star no-show review (2024-05-03) is the most recent review in the dataset and describes a serious professionalism failure: missed appointment, no communication, no apology. This recency gives it elevated weight.
• Two of the three positive reviews are generic in nature (short bullet points, no specific project details) which slightly reduces their evidentiary value, though they do not appear to be coordinated fake reviews.
• The 5-star review mentioning 'Jose' and the 5-star review mentioning 'Anthony' reference different names — it is unclear if this is the same business or if reviews from multiple contractors have been mixed together. This should be verified before trusting the aggregate score.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 4 reviews, a significant recency-weighted negative event, and multiple dimensions scored on just 1–2 data points each — do not use this score as a strong signal without gathering substantially more review data.

Drainco Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile with severe structural issues across all dimensions. While some technicians (Javier, Jason, David, Art, Leonard) receive consistent praise for friendliness, punctuality, and technical competence, the company suffers from systemic problems: widespread non-responsiveness and no-shows, multiple reports of incomplete or incorrect diagnoses requiring 3-5 return visits, aggressive upselling and price-gouging tactics (particularly with home warranty claims), and poor follow-through on callbacks. The company appears to deliberately misrepresent issues to insurance companies to deny coverage while charging customers inflated fees for 'modifications.' Negative reviews significantly outnumber positive ones and describe patterns of negligence, fraud allegations, and customer abandonment. The few positive reviews lack specificity and show suspicious consistency in phrasing, raising authenticity concerns.

• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews contain nearly identical phrasing ('friendly and knowledgeable,' 'professional and courteous,' 'great service') with minimal detail, suggesting potential fake or incentivized reviews. Examples: reviews from 2024-09-04, 2024-06-21, 2024-02-29, 2023-12-06, 2023-10-05.
• SYSTEMIC FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers (not just one disgruntled customer) allege deliberate misrepresentation to insurance companies, price-gouging, and intentional damage to justify larger claims. This pattern appears across reviews from 2023-08-25, 2023-06-22, 2022-04-23, 2022-02-11, and 2019-10-05.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: At least 12 reviews document technicians failing to show up, not calling back, or abandoning jobs mid-repair with no follow-up. This is not isolated incidents but a recurring operational failure.
• INCONSISTENT TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Named technicians (Javier, Jason, David, Art, Leonard) receive 5-star reviews while unnamed or other technicians receive 1-star reviews for incompetence. This suggests either inconsistent hiring/training or that positive reviews may be concentrated on specific employees.
• INSURANCE COMPANY COLLUSION ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers explicitly state Drainco appears to work in collusion with First American Home Warranty to deny claims and overcharge customers, suggesting potential fraudulent business practices.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2021-2024 (recent), while some positive reviews cluster in mid-2024, potentially indicating recent reputation management attempts.
• INCOMPLETE DIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Numerous reviews document technicians failing to properly diagnose issues on first visit, requiring 2-5 return visits for simple repairs, suggesting either incompetence or deliberate delay tactics to increase billable hours.

This WW Score of 48.2 should be treated with HIGH confidence due to the large sample size (100 reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions, but the score reflects a company in serious operational and ethical distress. The polarized nature of reviews (many 1-star and 5-star with few middle ratings), combined with credible fraud allegations from multiple independent sources and documented patterns of non-responsiveness and incomplete work, indicates this company poses significant risk to customers. The suspicious clustering of generic 5-star reviews raises concerns about review authenticity, but the volume and specificity of negative reviews from 2021-2024 provide strong evidence of systemic problems. Customers should avoid this contractor if alternatives exist, particularly when dealing with home warranty claims.

G&L Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. While technical skill and experience are consistently praised (72/100), the company suffers from severe deficiencies in professionalism (48/100) and project completion (45/100). Critical failures include incomplete work with refusal to follow through, aggressive collection tactics, poor diagnostic practices leading to unnecessary work, and unresponsiveness to customer callbacks. Positive reviews highlight quick service and fair pricing in routine jobs, but major projects reveal problematic decision-making, combative owner behavior, and structural failures (septic/drainfield installations). The company's willingness to abandon customers mid-project and pursue legal threats significantly undermines trust.

• SEVERE PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2021, 2022) document identical systemic failure—faulty septic/drainfield installations causing $8,000+ failures within 2-4 years. Company refuses warranty responsibility. This suggests either incompetence or negligence in complex work.
• OWNER CONDUCT ISSUE: 2018 review documents owner (Greg Luna) using loud, combative tone, denying prior statements, and pressuring customer into unnecessary $3,000+ service after poor diagnostic work. Tone described as 'insistent and combative.'
• INCOMPLETE PROJECT ABANDONMENT: 2025 review alleges owner Omar collected 80% payment for rough plumbing, then refused to answer calls or complete remaining work (faucets, toilets, water heater). Customer threatening legal action.
• AGGRESSIVE COLLECTIONS: 2019 review documents threatening collections action on invoice dated 10/14/19 when customer intended to pay by 10/31/19 (within standard 30-day terms). Described as unprofessional.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most damaging reviews are recent (2025, 2024, 2022, 2021). Positive reviews cluster in 2015-2019, suggesting possible service quality decline or ownership/management change.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark bifurcation—routine drain cleaning and faucet work rated 5-stars; complex projects (septic, main line diagnostics, large renovations) rated 1-star with serious allegations.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on adequate review volume (18 reviews), the extreme polarization and recent pattern of serious allegations (incomplete work, refusal to complete projects, systemic failures on major installations, aggressive owner behavior) suggest the company's current reliability is significantly lower than the overall score indicates. Recent negative reviews (2024-2025) outweigh older positive reviews in assessing current trustworthiness. Recommend avoiding for complex projects and obtaining detailed written contracts with completion guarantees.