Find Nearby Plumbers In Redondo Beach, California

KC Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is the standout strength (88.5), with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, courtesy, and respectful service across 62 reviews. Experience scores well at 86.0, with customers frequently noting technician skill, knowledge, and problem-solving ability. Project completion (81.5) is solid but slightly lower, with some callbacks and follow-up visits mentioned. Pricing (82.0) is generally viewed favorably as fair and reasonable, though some customers note the company is not always the cheapest option. The company shows particular strength in emergency response and same-day service availability.

• Seven reviews contain no text content (only ratings), limiting ability to verify claims. These were excluded from scoring.
• One review from 2021 (1-star) describes a completely different company (K and C plumbing from Leland, IA, owner Bill Kirschbaum) and appears to be misattributed. This review was excluded as it does not pertain to KC Plumbing & Air Conditioning.
• Majority of reviews (70+ out of 89) are dated 2025 (recent), with a secondary cluster from 2016-2019. Only 2 reviews predate 2010. Recent reviews show consistently high ratings with detailed positive feedback.
• One detailed 2011 review (2-star) describes multiple service failures, poor workmanship, and unprofessional behavior by owner Keith. This represents a significant historical quality issue but is now 14 years old.
• One 2025 review (4-star) mentions one technician (Cliff) was 'difficult and not customer friendly,' though Dana Gold's management resolved the issue satisfactorily. This is the only recent negative interpersonal comment.
• Several reviews from 2019-2025 mention the same technicians repeatedly (Dana Gold, Giancarlo, Abraham, Ricardo, Chris), suggesting consistent staffing and customer preference for specific individuals.
• No evidence of fake review patterns detected. Reviews contain specific details, varied language, and realistic problem descriptions across different time periods.

This WW Score of 84.2 is highly reliable, based on 82 usable reviews with strong data density across all dimensions. The HIGH overall confidence reflects substantial mention counts (18-62 per dimension) and consistency of positive feedback across recent reviews. However, the historical 2011 quality failure and one recent interpersonal complaint suggest occasional service inconsistency, and the score should be understood as reflecting current performance (2025) rather than guaranteed consistency. Customers should note that service quality appears to correlate with specific technician assignment.

DDS Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with a WW Score of 82.1. The company excels in professionalism (85.2), with consistent praise for punctuality, courteous staff, and responsive communication across 98 reviews. Project completion is solid at 82.8 with 89 mentions, though some older reviews note occasional follow-up issues. Pricing scores 81.5 across 67 mentions, reflecting generally fair and transparent pricing, though a handful of customers report overcharging or unnecessary upsells. Experience is rated 83.3 with strong technical knowledge demonstrated by named technicians like Scott, Garrett, and Don. However, the company shows inconsistency: while most reviews are highly positive, a notable minority (approximately 8-10 negative reviews) report serious issues including poor communication, misdiagnosis, and billing disputes, suggesting quality control variability.

• INCONSISTENCY ALERT: Stark contrast between majority 5-star reviews and minority 1-star reviews suggests either highly variable service quality or potential selection bias in review platform. Negative reviews cite specific failures (miscommunication, overcharging, misdiagnosis) that are not generic complaints.
• COMMUNICATION GAPS: Multiple reviews (2018-2020 era) report difficulty reaching the company by phone, with customers unable to get callbacks despite multiple attempts. This pattern appears in at least 4-5 reviews spanning several years.
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERNS: Several reviews mention that work had to be redone or that other plumbers found DDS's diagnoses incorrect (e.g., 2016-02-01 review claiming $10,000 unnecessary estimate; 2014-03-21 review claiming misdiagnosis of drain issue). This suggests inconsistent technician expertise.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2014-2018 period. Only ~20% of reviews are from 2023-2024, limiting confidence in current service quality. Recent reviews (2024) are uniformly positive, but sample size is small.
• NAMED TECHNICIAN DEPENDENCY: Positive reviews frequently mention specific technicians (Scott, Garrett, Don, Sean) by name with high praise, while negative reviews sometimes reference unnamed or different technicians. This suggests service quality may be heavily dependent on which technician is assigned.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: While not conclusive, some reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('exceeded expectations,' 'honest and dependable,' 'highly recommend') and lack specific detail. However, most reviews contain sufficient specificity to appear genuine.

This WW Score of 82.1 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution: while the score reflects genuinely strong average performance supported by 150 reviews and high mention counts across all dimensions, the significant minority of serious negative reviews (8-10 one-star ratings citing misdiagnosis, overcharging, and communication failures) indicates that customer experience is inconsistent and may depend heavily on which technician is assigned and current operational capacity. The company appears capable of excellent work but has documented quality control and communication issues that warrant careful consideration before hiring.

All three reviews explicitly praise professionalism (punctuality, cleanliness, politeness, communication), fair pricing, and project completion (work finished efficiently and on time). Technical skill and experience are highlighted across all reviews with descriptions of 'surgical' work, expertise, and problem-solving ability. The WW Score of 88.3 reflects consistently strong performance across all four dimensions, though confidence is moderate due to the small sample size of only 3 reviews.

• All reviews are from 2014 (9-10 years old); no recent reviews provided to assess current service quality
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; no negative feedback or balanced perspectives present
• Small sample size (n=3) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting more recent reviews for robust assessment

This score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size and age of reviews; while the data present is consistently positive, a minimum of 5-8 recent reviews would be needed to establish high confidence in the WW Score.

Remarkable Rooter has a strong base of loyal, long-term customers who consistently praise Frank and his team for honesty, fair pricing, and technical skill — with multiple reviewers citing savings of thousands of dollars compared to competitor quotes. Responsiveness and promptness are frequently highlighted positives across many reviews spanning over a decade. However, professionalism and project completion scores are meaningfully dragged down by several credible negative reviews: one describing a botched garbage disposal install, a subsequent flood, a promised refund that was never honored, and the owner hanging up on the customer; another describing sewer waste left on a customer's lawn without notice; a billing dispute where an invoice with added interest arrived two years late with no prior communication; and a separate incident where a company vehicle was parked illegally and the driver was verbally abusive to a bystander. These are not minor complaints — they reflect real failures in accountability, follow-through, and conduct. The review base spans 2012–2024, meaning many high-praise reviews are quite old and may not reflect current service quality; only a handful of reviews are from the past 12–24 months, and two of the three most recent reviews are negative or mixed.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2012–2020. Only 4 reviews are from 2022 or later, and 2 of those 4 are negative or mixed (1-star and 2-star). Recent trend is concerning.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENT — PROFESSIONALISM: A 1-star review (2017) describes a botched garbage disposal installation causing a kitchen flood, a promised refund that was never delivered, and the owner hanging up on the customer when confronted. This is a significant accountability failure.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENT — PROJECT COMPLETION: A 2-star review (2022) describes sewer waste being left on a customer's lawn without notification, causing a pet to become ill. This reflects a failure in job site cleanup and customer communication.
• BILLING MALPRACTICE FLAG: A 2-star review (2023) describes an invoice being sent two years after work was completed, with interest added, and no prior invoice ever having been sent. This is a serious business practice concern.
• CONDUCT INCIDENT: A 1-star review (2024) describes a company vehicle parked illegally in a fire lane and in front of a garage, and the driver being verbally abusive ('touched in the head') to a bystander who reported it. While not a service review, it reflects on company culture and professionalism.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW POOL FRAGMENTATION: Reviews mention multiple technicians (Frank, Mark, John, David, Chris), suggesting this may be a family operation or franchise with variable service quality depending on who performs the work.
• PHONE NUMBER SOLICITATION: Two reviews (2022, 2023) include the owner's personal cell phone number, which may suggest the business is prompting customers to post this information — a minor flag for review authenticity, though not conclusive.
• NO CONFIRMED FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While most positive reviews are enthusiastic, they contain specific details, named technicians, and varied scenarios. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, but the volume of older 5-star reviews with no negatives warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on 29 reviews with sufficient detail across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence in the scoring math, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given that recent reviews skew negative, at least three credible serious complaints involve accountability failures, and the strongest positive reviews are largely from 2012–2020.

Access Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising professionalism, punctuality, and friendly technicians across many years of service. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including an abandoned job with live electrical wires left exposed, a technician who left black sludge water and loose connections, a customer hung up on by office staff, a suspected fraudulent water heater installation with a blacked-out serial number, broken pipes and a technician fleeing the scene, and a faucet bait-and-switch with subsequent refusal to return calls — significantly tempers the overall score. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and competitive, but several reviewers noted feeling overcharged or surprised by additional fees after the initial quote. Project completion is a notable concern, with multiple reviews describing incomplete work, return visits required, or jobs left in worse condition than found. The experience dimension shows genuine skill in complex jobs like slab leaks and re-piping, but is undermined by incidents of clear technical incompetence.

• Multiple reviews with no text content beyond 'unknown' (3 reviews dated 2015) provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Several very short generic reviews ('they were wonderful', 'these guys were just perfect', 'good advice', 'Went well!', 'Fantastic job!', 'Great folks to work with!') contain no specific detail and contribute minimal signal; they were counted toward overall sentiment but not toward specific dimension scores.
• The review corpus spans approximately 11 years (2013–2024). A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years. The most recent negative reviews (October 2024, October 2023) suggest quality and customer service issues may be ongoing or worsening, not historical anomalies.
• At least 6 clearly negative reviews describe serious failures: abandoned work with safety hazards (live wire, uncapped water line), office staff hanging up on a customer, a suspected fraudulent or stolen water heater with a blacked-out serial number, a technician who broke pipes and fled, a faucet bait-and-switch with no follow-up, and a sewer job that required a second charge to complete what should have been included.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, though the volume of short, undetailed 5-star reviews is notable. These are not scored as fake but are treated as low-information data points.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (107 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in volume terms, but the presence of serious, specific, and recent negative incidents — including safety failures, billing disputes, and poor customer service — means the score should be interpreted cautiously; the contractor performs well in routine jobs but has documented patterns of failure in more complex or disputed situations.

Robert demonstrates strong technical expertise and responsiveness across multiple reviews, with explicit praise for problem-solving ability and diverse skill sets (plumbing, masonry, carpentry). Professionalism is supported by mentions of kindness, communication, and quick response times. However, a single 2-star review raises serious concerns about pricing transparency and customer service attitude—specifically regarding advance payment expectations and dismissive communication when a customer sought preliminary advice. Project completion appears solid based on multiple completed jobs, though the sample size is small. The pricing dimension is heavily weighted down by one explicitly negative experience, creating a notable reliability concern.

• RECENCY BIAS: Three of five reviews are from 2021 or earlier (2+ years old). Only two reviews from 2023 provide current service quality data.
• PRICING CONCERN: One detailed 2-star review explicitly criticizes advance payment demands and dismissive attitude toward customer inquiry. This directly contradicts the overwhelmingly positive tone of other reviews and suggests potential service inconsistency or customer selection bias.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total limits statistical reliability. Confidence levels are constrained by low mention counts across all dimensions.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: Four of five reviews are 5-star with generic praise language ('fantastic,' 'highly recommend,' 'can't do anything'). The single negative review is highly detailed and specific, suggesting positive reviews may be from satisfied customers while dissatisfied customers provide substantive feedback.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, significant recency gaps, and a notable contradiction between overwhelmingly positive reviews and one detailed complaint about pricing practices and customer service attitude. The score reflects available data but lacks sufficient volume and currency to be considered highly reliable.