Find Nearby Plumbers In Rancho Palos Verdes, California

Daniel Stednitz Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, repeat customers who consistently praise punctuality, responsiveness, and professional attitude, driving solid professionalism scores. However, two notable negative reviews describe poor attitude from workers and the owner, including dismissive behavior toward a senior customer and failure to correct substandard work across multiple visits, which meaningfully depresses the professionalism score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers call pricing fair and transparent, three negative reviews explicitly describe overcharging, a disputed $405 bill for unresolved work, and a 'ripoff' characterization, creating genuine concern about pricing consistency. Project completion scores are tempered by one review detailing three failed attempts to seat a toilet tank correctly and another describing a $700 drain jetting that failed within two weeks with the guarantee not honored. Experience scores are generally positive, with multiple large jobs like full re-pipes and slab leak repairs completed successfully and passing city inspection, but the repeated failures on smaller jobs suggest inconsistency in workmanship quality across the team.

• Three negative reviews (ratings 1–2 stars) explicitly describe pricing disputes, unresolved work, and poor attitude — these are substantive complaints, not vague dissatisfaction, and carry significant weight.
• The 2-star review from 2023-10-10 describes a pattern of repeated failed attempts on a simple toilet tank job and dismissive attitude toward the customer, including a worker saying 'I hope we are done here' — this is a concrete professionalism and project completion failure.
• The 1-star review from 2020-07-30 describes a broken 60-day guarantee on a $700 drain jetting job, with the company subsequently proposing an additional $800 charge rather than honoring the guarantee — this is a serious project completion and pricing integrity concern.
• The 1-star review from 2018-03-28 describes charging $405 for 3 hours of unsuccessful work and refusing to adjust the bill — corroborating a pattern of pricing disputes across multiple years.
• Several positive reviews are older than 5 years (2014–2016 range) and carry reduced weight under recency rules. The most recent reviews (2021–2024) are mixed, with the most recent negative review dated 2023, suggesting the pricing and attitude issues are not fully historical.
• No clear fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, specificity, and rating, and negative reviews include specific details that indicate genuine experiences.

This WW Score is based on 22 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable, but the presence of multiple detailed negative reviews spanning pricing, project completion, and professionalism introduces meaningful uncertainty and suggests the contractor's quality is inconsistent depending on job size, crew assigned, and customer type.

This contractor has a large and deeply mixed review record spanning many years and what appears to be multiple operating entities or franchise locations (Plumbing Express, Total Tech, GMR Plumbing) reviewed together. The majority of positive reviews praise specific technicians — Rod, Dave, Daniel, Antonio, Austin, and others — for punctuality, communication, and quality workmanship on jobs ranging from repiping to water heater installation. However, a significant and consistent pattern of serious negative reviews exists, particularly from customers dispatched via home warranty companies, who report technicians refusing to do work, misrepresenting findings to warranty companies, rude office staff, property damage left unaddressed, and warranty non-compliance. Pricing complaints are notable and recurring, with multiple reviewers citing charges far above competitors and a $39–$69 service call fee that is not credited toward work. Project completion failures — including no-shows, abandoned jobs, and unresolved callbacks — appear in enough reviews to meaningfully suppress the completion score. The overall picture is a company with genuinely skilled and professional individual technicians whose performance is undermined by inconsistent office management, pricing transparency issues, and a troubling pattern of behavior specifically in home warranty contexts.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Several reviews appear verbatim or near-verbatim across multiple dates (e.g., 'Excellent work and expertise' on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; 'My experience was excellent. No complaints.' on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; the full sewer line review on both 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-06; the Richard Dalton/Matthew review duplicated across platforms). These duplicates inflate the positive review count and reduce confidence in the authenticity of the review pool.
• MULTIPLE BUSINESS ENTITIES: Reviews reference at least three distinct business names — Plumbing Express, Total Tech (Arizona), and GMR Plumbing — suggesting this profile aggregates reviews for related but potentially distinct operations. Scores may not reflect a single consistent business.
• HOME WARRANTY PATTERN: A statistically significant cluster of 1-star reviews specifically involves customers dispatched via home warranty companies (Fidelity National, Old Republic, First American). Complaints include technicians misrepresenting findings to deny claims, refusing to perform work, and collecting service fees without completing jobs. This pattern is too consistent to be coincidental and represents a systemic risk.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 25–30 reviews contain no text, only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring but may artificially inflate the average star rating.
• WARRANTY NON-COMPLIANCE: One review (Oct 2024) describes a $9,000+ job where the company allegedly left an 80-year-old part in the wall, causing flooding, and then refused to honor a purchased 3-year warranty. Another review describes a failed permit inspection that was never scheduled. These are serious flags for project completion integrity.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe property damage caused by technicians (chipped porcelain, drywall dust throughout home, damaged floors) with the company denying responsibility. One reviewer pursued small claims court.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2004 to 2025. Reviews from 2013 and earlier are given minimal weight. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show predominantly positive reviews, but the home warranty and pricing complaints persist into 2024–2025.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and locations describe pricing as significantly above market rate, with one reviewer documenting a $700 quote for a job completed by a competitor for $98. The service call fee policy ($39–$69, non-refundable) is a recurring complaint.

This WW Score of 72.1 should be treated with moderate-to-low trust: while the HIGH confidence label reflects the large volume of reviews, the score is significantly complicated by duplicate reviews, multi-entity aggregation, a persistent and credible pattern of home warranty misconduct, and pricing transparency issues that collectively suggest the true customer experience is more variable than the score alone conveys — customers hiring directly for straightforward jobs are likely to have good experiences, while those using home warranty dispatch or undertaking large projects face meaningfully higher risk.

Peninsula Septic receives consistently strong praise across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and explicitly mentioned quality — every single review references friendly, courteous, prompt, or communicative behavior from both office staff and field technicians. Pricing is described as fair and reasonable in three reviews, supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score. Project completion is well-supported by references to meeting deadlines, honoring commitments, and following through on repairs, though only four reviews speak to this directly. Experience is evidenced by specific mentions of quality workmanship, competent subcontractors, and the ability to quickly locate and assess septic systems, lending confidence to that dimension. The overall picture is of a reliable, family-run business with genuine strengths, though the small review pool and age of most reviews temper full confidence.

• 5 of 7 reviews are older than 1 year, and 4 of 7 are more than 5 years old (dating back to 2016–2018). Recency is a concern — the business's current performance may differ from what is reflected here.
• All 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• No negative experiences, complaints, or constructive criticism appear in any review. This is statistically unusual and slightly reduces overall confidence, though specificity of individual reviews partially offsets this concern.
• One review (2023-12-07) explicitly notes it was written years after the actual service, which may affect the reliability of recalled details.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the small sample size of 7 reviews and the fact that the majority are over 5 years old, though the presence of specific, detailed feedback across multiple dimensions adds credibility to the scores assigned.

Charlie and A-One Ware Plumbing receive consistently strong marks across professionalism and project completion, with all five reviewers describing responsive communication, punctuality, and jobs that were seen through to resolution. Standout examples include a same-day gas leak cap, a water heater repair with parts already on the truck, and a post-Christmas emergency resolved within two days despite supplier closures. Pricing is mentioned in only two reviews and only in vague positive terms ('reasonable price'), so that dimension carries limited confidence and a conservative score. Experience is supported by four reviews referencing technical competence and effective problem-solving, earning a solid but not exceptional score given the modest sample size.

• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback whatsoever — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details and varied writing styles that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Review recency is a significant concern: only one review is from 2021, one from 2018, one from 2017, one from 2014, and one from 2011. Four of five reviews are more than five years old and none are within the past 12 months. The WW Score may not reflect current service quality.
• Sample size is very small (5 reviews total), which limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while the qualitative signals are positive and reviews appear genuine, the extremely small sample size and the age of most reviews (the majority dating from 2011–2018) mean this score cannot be considered a reliable indicator of current service quality.

Brian at BRD Plumbing receives consistently strong marks across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and enthusiastically cited quality — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, politeness, responsiveness, and courteous behavior including mask and shoe cover use. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers confirming jobs were finished promptly, same-day service was provided, and follow-through was thorough including post-job written summaries. Experience and technical knowledge are affirmed across several reviews referencing skilled diagnostics, problem-solving, and quality workmanship. Pricing is mentioned positively by four reviewers who describe quotes as reasonable, fair, and honest, though this dimension has fewer data points than the others. The overall picture is of a reliable, customer-focused solo plumber with a strong track record, though all 11 reviews are 5-star ratings and the most recent is from mid-2022, which warrants some caution.

• ALL 11 reviews are 5-star ratings with zero negative or mixed feedback — this is statistically unusual and warrants mild skepticism, though the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review likelihood.
• Several reviews use similar phrasing around 'professional,' 'fair,' and 'on time' — while this may reflect genuine shared experience, the pattern is worth noting.
• Most recent review is from June 2022 — all reviews are over 1 year old as of 2024, meaning recency weighting is reduced and current performance cannot be confirmed.
• Small sample size of 11 reviews limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores despite HIGH confidence labels on some dimensions.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given consistent and specific reviewer feedback across all dimensions, but should be treated with some caution due to the all-5-star rating pattern, the small total review count, and the fact that no reviews are from within the past 12 months.

South Shore Plumbing shows strong technical expertise and generally professional service delivery, but is significantly hampered by serious pricing and project management issues. While most reviews praise workmanship quality and punctuality, multiple recent reviews (2024, 2015) document deceptive billing practices, hidden charges, incomplete work requiring callbacks, and poor communication. The company appears to have inconsistent service quality depending on which technician is assigned, with some staff showing poor customer service attitudes. The 2024 review detailing unpaid invoices arriving months after work and incomplete repairs is particularly concerning for project completion reliability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document deceptive pricing practices including bait-and-switch hourly rates ($125 quoted, $250 charged), undisclosed service charges, and surprise invoices months after work completion. This pattern suggests systemic billing issues.
• CRITICAL: 2024 review (most recent) reports incomplete work (unfixed tub problem), new damage created (water shutoff left leaking), multiple trips to store, and unprofessional invoice delivery 2 months post-job. This is the most recent data point and indicates current operational problems.
• CRITICAL: 2015 review documents severe customer service failure including rude behavior, lack of accountability for property damage (chipped tub), failure to follow customer instructions (left door open endangering pets), and poor communication. Another 2015 review reports $30k+ project abandoned mid-way with subcontractor from Mexico disappearing at critical times.
• PATTERN: Negative reviews cluster around 2015-2024 period with specific complaints about billing, communication, and project management. Positive reviews are older (2010-2014 mostly) or generic without detail.
• INCONSISTENCY: Reviews mention multiple technicians (Bob, Sean, Ray, Ismael, Larry) with vastly different customer experiences, suggesting quality control issues or different business entities/subcontractors operating under same name.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review (Nov 2024) is 1-star with serious allegations. This significantly outweighs older 5-star reviews in reliability assessment.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 72.8 appears moderate, the most recent review (November 2024) documents serious current operational failures including incomplete work, new damage, and deceptive billing practices. The pattern of negative reviews around billing and project completion, combined with inconsistent service quality across different technicians, suggests the company's reliability has deteriorated significantly. Potential customers should heavily weight the 2024 and 2015 detailed negative reviews over older positive reviews when making hiring decisions.