Find Nearby Plumbers In Livermore, California

3D Remodeling has a strong base of positive reviews praising skilled craftsmanship, cleanliness, punctuality, and responsive communication from key staff members like Kurt, Jose, and Paul. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — consistently cite unprofessional conduct from ownership and office staff, project delays well beyond original timelines, failed city inspections, and billing disputes with unexpected added costs. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by repeated, credible complaints about the owner Jim's attitude, an unprofessional office staff member named Patty, and poor on-site conduct from at least one crew member. Project completion is similarly penalized by multiple accounts of projects running 2–4x their estimated duration, city inspection failures, and at least one case of a refrigerator installation causing floor damage that went unresolved. Experience scores remain relatively strong because the quality of physical workmanship is praised even in some negative reviews, and skilled individuals like Kurt, Paul, and Jose are repeatedly highlighted.

• Two reviews (2023-06-10 and 2022-12-10) are near-identical in text, differing only in date — this is a likely duplicate or fake review submission and has been counted as one unique data point.
• One review (2012-06-12) contains no text and only a 1-star rating — it was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable evidence.
• Several 5-star reviews are generic and lack specific detail (e.g., 'We just used 3D Remodeling and they were fantastic. Our kitchen turned out awesome'), which slightly reduces confidence in the positive signal.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2024-06-05). Only 1–2 reviews fall within the past 12 months, meaning the score reflects a historical pattern more than current performance.
• Negative reviews are spread across multiple years (2013, 2015, 2017, 2020) and describe consistent recurring issues — rude ownership, billing surprises, and project delays — suggesting these are systemic rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on a reasonably large review set with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but reliability is moderated by the age of most reviews, one confirmed duplicate review, and a consistent pattern of serious complaints about ownership conduct and project management that cannot be dismissed as outliers.

Luke at Norfab Plumbing receives strong praise for technical skill, fair pricing, and willingness to go above and beyond — including holiday calls and after-hours emergency visits. However, a serious and recurring pattern of abandoning incomplete work and failing to respond to follow-up communications significantly drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. At least three separate reviewers explicitly describe being ignored or left with unfinished jobs, one of whom waited three and a half years for a callback. Pricing is consistently praised as reasonable and transparent, which is a genuine strength. The overall picture is of a highly capable plumber whose reliability and follow-through are deeply inconsistent, making him a risky hire for multi-phase or ongoing projects.

• SERIOUS PATTERN — Incomplete work: At least 3 independent reviews (2021, 2019, 2018) describe Luke failing to return to finish jobs or respond to follow-up communications. This is not isolated and represents a systemic reliability issue.
• RECENCY CONCERN — The most recent review is from April 2021, and the majority of reviews are from 2018–2019. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to 2024) are present. Current reliability cannot be assessed.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE — One reviewer (2018) reported two calls and a text with no response for a quote. Another (2019) was dropped mid-communication after referring new clients. The 2021 reviewer received no reply to a recent email. This pattern is consistent and credible.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS — Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and outcome. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No artificial inflation pattern detected.
• SCORE CONSERVATISM APPLIED — Professionalism and project completion scores were deliberately reduced below what positive reviews alone would suggest, due to the weight and specificity of the abandonment complaints.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews with high mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution due to a documented and recurring pattern of job abandonment and non-responsiveness, and the fact that all reviews are more than 3 years old.

Greg demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship, with consistent praise for his skill level, attention to detail, and problem-solving ability across multiple reviews. However, professionalism is a significant concern—while most reviews highlight responsiveness and timeliness, one detailed 1-star review from 2020 documents serious unprofessional conduct including abandoning a bathroom remodel mid-project after an argument and poor collaboration with other professionals. Project completion shows mixed results: three reviews confirm timely, quality work, but the 2020 review represents a major project abandonment. The score reflects strong technical capability offset by documented interpersonal and follow-through failures.

• One highly negative review (1-star, 2020) describes project abandonment and unprofessional behavior—this is a material red flag that significantly impacts the professionalism score despite positive reviews elsewhere.
• Four of five reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise language ('great service,' 'very competent,' 'high quality work'), which could suggest selection bias or review curation, though the 1-star review provides credible counterbalance.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (3 of 5 from 2019-2022); only one review from 2024 provides recent performance data.
• Limited pricing data—no reviews mention cost, value, or transparency of quotes, making it impossible to assess price-friendliness dimension.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 1 review in past 12 months) and the presence of a serious documented project abandonment that contradicts the majority positive sentiment; the MODERATE overall confidence reflects genuine uncertainty about current reliability and whether past interpersonal issues have been resolved.

Seth receives consistent praise for professionalism — punctuality, communication, and responsiveness are mentioned across multiple reviews, including a notably fast emergency response. His technical knowledge and problem-solving ability are also well-regarded, with reviewers across several years affirming his skill. However, pricing is a mixed signal: one reviewer explicitly called him overpriced, while another praised him for honoring his quoted price; this pulls the pricing score down meaningfully. Project completion is the most concerning dimension — one reviewer reported a defective shower valve installation and Seth refused to return without charging his hourly rate, which is a significant warranty/callback failure that suppresses the completion score. The oldest reviews date to 2015 and 2017, meaning much of the data is 6–9 years old, which limits confidence in current performance.

• Most reviews are older than 1 year — four of five reviews are from 2015–2020, with the most recent being August 2020. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• One review (2-star, 2017) explicitly flags a warranty/callback refusal — Seth declined to return to fix a moaning shower valve he installed without charging his hourly rate. This is a material project completion concern.
• One review (2017) explicitly states Seth is overpriced relative to competitors, which is factored into the pricing score.
• Review volume is very low (5 reviews). Scores should be treated as directional only and not definitive.

This WW Score carries limited reliability due to a very small review sample (5 reviews), significant age of the data (most reviews are 4–9 years old), and one substantive negative review flagging both pricing and a warranty refusal that meaningfully impacts two dimensions.

Peterson Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across its review history. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension: multiple reviews praise individual plumbers like Chris as courteous and prompt, but serious complaints about the owner Dave — including outright rudeness, a no-show without notice, and one reviewer being called racist when raising a legitimate complaint — drag the score down significantly. Pricing is a concern, with one reviewer citing a $170 charge for a 15-minute job, another noting the contractor charged more than quoted without doing extra work, and a third praising Dave for undercharging fairly — resulting in a middling and inconsistent picture. Project completion is moderately positive, with most jobs described as finished on time and thoroughly, but one job required two visits to complete and one reviewer reported incomplete work (missing pipe insulation) and a refusal to return. Experience scores reasonably well overall, with multiple reviewers noting skilled, careful workmanship, though the substitution of a plastic valve for brass while claiming heavy-duty materials is a notable red flag.

• Most reviews are from 2012–2017, with only one review from 2019 and one from 2021. The majority of data is more than 5 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• The most recent review (2021) is a detailed 1-star complaint describing overcharging, incomplete work, material substitution, and the contractor calling the customer racist — a serious professionalism red flag.
• Multiple reviewers reference different plumbers (Chris, Dave, Stuart) under the Peterson Plumbing brand, making it difficult to assess consistency across the team as a whole.
• No suspected fake reviews detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences, which supports authenticity.
• The 2014 no-show with no courtesy call is a notable reliability incident that was never addressed in subsequent reviews.

This WW Score is based on 16 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution given that most reviews are significantly outdated and the most recent review raises serious unresolved concerns about honesty, workmanship, and professionalism.

VIP Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and competitive pricing, with many customers praising knowledge and fair quotes. However, the business is significantly hampered by severe project completion issues, with multiple customers reporting no-shows, ghosting after partial work, and failure to honor callbacks. Professionalism is mixed—while some customers report punctuality and courtesy, others describe being stood up and ignored. The pattern of incomplete projects and follow-up failures is the primary driver of the lower overall score, despite genuine strengths in workmanship and pricing.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pattern of no-shows and ghosting detected across multiple independent reviews (at least 6 reviews explicitly mention no-shows, ghosting, or failure to return for promised follow-up work). This is not isolated incidents but a recurring business practice.
• SERIOUS: Multiple customers report being charged upfront or partially, then abandoned mid-project with no response to calls/texts. This suggests potential predatory billing practices.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between positive reviews (praising professionalism, punctuality, knowledge) and negative reviews (describing no-shows and ghosting). This suggests highly inconsistent service delivery, possibly dependent on workload or customer type.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2020-2021 period. More recent reviews (2022) show mixed results. Unclear if business practices have improved or if negative customers simply stopped leaving reviews.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW RISK: Some positive reviews use very similar phrasing ('definitely recommend Konrad', 'will call again for all plumbing needs', 'master of plumbing'). However, negative reviews are detailed and specific enough to appear credible, so overall fake review risk is LOW rather than HIGH.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the technical expertise and pricing dimensions are well-supported by consistent evidence, the project completion score is heavily influenced by a documented pattern of no-shows and ghosting that represents a fundamental business reliability issue. Customers should be aware that even if initial work quality is good, follow-up work and callbacks are at significant risk of non-completion.