Find Nearby Plumbers In Daly City, California

Kadir demonstrates strong technical competence and professionalism when actively engaged, with two recent positive reviews (Feb-Apr 2023) praising his responsiveness, reliability, and problem-solving ability. However, a critical September 2023 review documents a significant project abandonment—he failed to show up on an agreed date, did not return communications, and did not return supplied materials. This represents a serious breach of project completion and professionalism. The WW Score reflects the tension between demonstrated skill and a recent pattern of non-responsiveness that undermines trust.

• CRITICAL: Most recent review (Sept 2023) documents project abandonment and complete communication breakdown after previously positive history—suggests possible operational or personal crisis affecting reliability
• All reviews are from 2023; no recent data available to assess current status or whether issues have been resolved
• Limited sample size (3 reviews) reduces confidence in overall assessment
• Positive reviews may not reflect current operational capacity or willingness to take on work

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size and conflicting signals; the recent abandonment is a serious red flag that outweighs earlier positive performance, and current status is unknown.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2013–2023. Older reviews (2013–2016) consistently praise professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, with multiple mentions of responsive service and reasonable estimates. However, four nearly identical 1-star reviews from 2023 and early 2023 describe the owner as 'extremely rude and unprofessional' with property damage claims. A 2021 review criticizes pricing as 'ridiculous' ($495 for 2 hours work). The professionalism score is heavily depressed by the recent negative cluster, while project completion and experience scores remain solid based on older positive feedback. The dramatic shift in tone and the suspicious repetition of identical negative language raise concerns about review authenticity or a significant operational change.

• FAKE REVIEW ALERT: Four reviews (2023-06-10, 2023-01-05 x2) contain nearly identical text ('Extremely rude and unprofessional. The owner caused damage to my things and went ahead and said that it was an accident didn't matter.') with identical or near-identical timestamps. This pattern is highly suspicious and suggests coordinated negative reviews or copy-paste complaints.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 7–10 years old (2013–2016). Recent reviews (2021–2023) are predominantly negative or critical. This suggests a significant decline in service quality or operational changes.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Reviews show conflicting pricing narratives—older reviews praise 'fair' and 'reasonable' pricing; 2021 review calls pricing 'ridiculous'; 2014–2015 reviews highlight competitive pricing. Current pricing perception is unclear.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Three reviews have no text (ratings only: 4.0, 5.0, 5.0 from 2022, 2019, 2017). These provide no actionable data.

This score should be treated with caution. The presence of suspicious duplicate negative reviews from 2023 and the stark contrast between older positive feedback and recent criticism suggest either review manipulation or a genuine operational decline. Scores are inflated by older reviews that may not reflect current service levels. Recommend direct contact with recent clients before engaging this contractor.

This contractor profile is deeply mixed, with a substantial volume of serious negative reviews counterbalancing a cluster of enthusiastic positive ones. Professionalism is heavily penalized by repeated, credible complaints of no-shows, failure to call back, rude behavior, and hanging up on customers — patterns that appear across multiple reviewers and multiple named individuals (Dan, John, Tino), suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. Project completion is similarly damaged by multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, unresolved work after payment, and appointments that were rescheduled and then missed entirely with no follow-up. Pricing drew explicit complaints of charges nearly double the quoted amount, no receipts provided, and one reviewer citing a quote nearly triple what a competitor charged — though a handful of positive reviewers praised affordability. Experience scores somewhat higher because several positive reviewers described skilled diagnosis and effective problem-solving, but the volume of negative completion and professionalism data pulls the overall WW Score down significantly.

• MULTIPLE BUSINESS NAMES DETECTED: Reviews reference 'Nor Cal Plumbing,' 'Henderson Plumbing,' and multiple individual operators (Dan, John, Tino). This may represent a aggregated or incorrectly merged business profile. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may reflect more than one business entity.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Two 1-star reviews posted on the exact same date (2018-02-16) targeting 'Henderson Plumbing' with very similar grievances and language patterns. Additionally, several 5-star reviews are generic in phrasing and lack specific job details, which may indicate solicited or inauthentic reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The single most recent review (2024-01-02) is a 1-star complaint. The majority of positive reviews are from 2016–2018, now 6–8 years old. Recent review data skews negative, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time.
• UNINSURED WORKER ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor used a worker not covered under workers' compensation insurance while claiming to be a one-person business — a potential legal and liability red flag.
• NO RECEIPT / DOCUMENTATION CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly noted receiving no receipt or documentation after payment, which is a consumer protection red flag.
• BILLING IRREGULARITY: One reviewer documented being charged nearly double the quoted price with no explanation provided by the owner, and another cited a quote 70% higher than a competing licensed plumber for identical work.

The WW Score of 52.1 is based on a substantial review set (30 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but should be treated with caution due to the likely merged business profile across multiple operators, the age of most positive reviews, credible and specific negative complaints about billing, no-shows, and abandoned work, and possible inauthentic positive reviews.

DLB Plumbing shows severe inconsistency across reviews, with critical failures in professionalism and project completion offsetting some positive experiences. Two recent reviews (2022) document serious issues: major installation errors causing water damage and property loss, plus unlicensed operation, extreme unprofessionalism, and failure to honor callbacks. Three older reviews (2019–2020) praise timely service, fair pricing, and quality work. The company demonstrates technical capability when executing straightforward jobs but has failed catastrophically on complex projects and shows concerning patterns of unprofessionalism, licensing violations, and non-responsiveness to damage claims. The stark contrast between positive and negative reviews suggests inconsistent quality and reliability.

• CRITICAL: Two 2022 reviews document serious legal/insurance disputes, unlicensed operation, and failure to honor callbacks—these are disqualifying issues for contractor trust
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2019–2020; most recent reviews (2022) are severely negative, suggesting deterioration in service quality or business practices
• LICENSING VIOLATION: Review explicitly states plumber was working under father's retired license—this is a regulatory red flag and suggests fraudulent practice
• PATTERN OF NON-RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple instances of failure to return calls/texts and broken commitments to remedy damage
• MAJOR PROPERTY DAMAGE: Steam oven installation errors caused water damage, floor replacement, cabinet damage, and kitchen loss of use—unresolved after legal settlement

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization between older positive reviews and recent severe negative reviews involving legal disputes, licensing violations, and catastrophic project failures; the company's current reliability is highly questionable despite some demonstrated technical competence on routine jobs.

Serviz demonstrates catastrophic failure across all measured dimensions. Project completion is the most critical failure point, with 44 reviews documenting systematic no-shows, last-minute cancellations, and broken commitments despite confirmed appointments. Professionalism is severely compromised with 42 mentions of rude staff, poor communication, unreliable contractors, and lack of accountability. Pricing concerns appear in 8 reviews, with customers reporting overcharges, hidden markups, and poor value relative to work quality. Experience/workmanship issues in 6 reviews include incomplete repairs, incorrect diagnoses, and refusal to honor warranties. The single positive review (3.0 rating) acknowledges this is 'luck of the draw.' All other 44 reviews are 1.0 or 2.0 ratings, indicating systemic operational failure.

• CRITICAL: 44 of 45 reviews are 1-star ratings. This represents near-universal customer dissatisfaction and suggests fundamental business model failure.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Systematic overbooking followed by last-minute cancellations appears in 25+ reviews. Company confirms appointments before securing contractor availability.
• CONTRACTOR RELIABILITY: Multiple reviews document contractors not showing up, calling hours late, or abandoning jobs mid-work. One contractor admitted he was home without pants and didn't want to work due to heat.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews document company refusing to honor 30-day warranties or callback commitments.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE HOSTILITY: Several reviews describe rude, dismissive, or mocking customer service representatives. One supervisor allegedly 'shouted' and 'hissed' at a customer.
• FALSE ADVERTISING: Multiple reviews note company advertises services as 'OPEN' in areas where they have no available contractors.
• PRICING STRUCTURE CONCERNS: One detailed contractor review explains company's 40% markup on materials makes jobs economically unviable for contractors, explaining low completion rates.
• CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT: One review mentions company is 'now being sued in a class action lawsuit.'
• RECENCY: All reviews are from 2017-2020 (3-8 years old). No recent reviews provided. This may indicate company has ceased operations or reviews are no longer being collected.
• CONSISTENCY: No fake review patterns detected. Reviews are detailed, specific, emotionally authentic, and consistent in describing systematic failures. This is NOT a case of fake negative reviews—it reflects genuine widespread customer harm.

This WW Score of 8.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 45 reviews with overwhelming consensus (98% one-star ratings) across all four dimensions, particularly project completion (44 mentions) and professionalism (42 mentions). The company exhibits systemic operational failure with no meaningful positive evidence. However, note that all reviews are 3-8 years old; current operational status is unknown.

Both reviews are highly positive and explicitly praise Laureano's professionalism, experience, and project completion. Review 1 details exceptional problem-solving with a sewer backup, creative solutions, and pricing significantly below market rate. Review 2 emphasizes consistent on-time, on-budget delivery and professional demeanor. However, with only 2 reviews total, all from 2015 (9+ years old), the sample size is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The reviews lack sufficient recency and volume to establish confidence in overall performance trends.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2015 (9+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance or consistency.
• SAMPLE SIZE: With only 2 reviews, each dimension is based on LIMITED mentions (1-2 each). Confidence in any individual score is low.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback. Unable to assess balance or authenticity with such a small sample.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews) and complete lack of recency (all reviews from 2015). Any scoring would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.