Find Nearby Plumbers In San Luis Obispo, California

Don Leitch's WW Score of 72.8 reflects significant inconsistency across his work history. Three reviews (2022, 2020, 2019) praise his professionalism, speed, and quality workmanship on walk-in tub installations, with customers noting friendly crews and fair pricing. However, a critical 2019 review documents a catastrophic failure: a plumbing fixture installed incorrectly caused house flooding with tens of thousands in damages, followed by complete communication breakdown and non-responsiveness. This severe incident substantially lowers scores across all dimensions, particularly project completion and professionalism. The positive reviews are concentrated on a specific service (walk-in tubs) and may not reflect performance on broader bathroom remodeling work.

• CRITICAL: One review documents severe project failure (house flooding from incorrectly installed plumbing fixture) with subsequent communication breakdown and non-responsiveness. This is a major red flag for reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 4+ years old (2019-2020). Only one review from 2022. Limited recent data to assess current performance.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between glowing reviews of walk-in tub installations and catastrophic bathroom remodel failure suggests performance may vary significantly by project type or complexity.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: The 2019 negative review explicitly states Don became unresponsive after admitting to the flood. This is a serious professionalism concern.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (only 1 review in past 3 years) and a documented catastrophic failure with communication breakdown that contradicts positive reviews. The contractor's reliability appears highly dependent on project type and complexity.

Mission Plumbing has a large and deeply divided review base. The majority of reviews praise responsiveness, friendliness, and professional conduct from individual technicians, which drives the professionalism score upward. However, a significant cluster of serious negative reviews — including multiple allegations of taking deposits and abandoning jobs, ghosting clients mid-project, and installing equipment without required components (e.g., missing gas regulators on tankless heaters) — substantially drags down project completion and pricing scores. Pricing is mixed: many reviewers cite fair or reasonable costs, but several explicitly describe being overcharged, bait-and-switch pricing tactics, or double-billing relative to quoted amounts. Experience scores are moderate-to-good for routine jobs but are undermined by documented technical failures on more complex installations. The overall WW Score of 68.4 reflects a company with genuine strengths in day-to-day service but serious, recurring reliability and integrity concerns on larger or multi-stage projects.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A cluster of 10+ reviews all dated 2024-07-29 with no timestamps, many referencing 'Dan' or 'Daniel', using similarly enthusiastic but vague language ('Amazing Company!!!', 'Defiantly worth checking out', '5 stars isn't high enough'). Several lack any specific job detail. This pattern is consistent with a coordinated review campaign and these reviews were treated with reduced individual weight.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A large batch of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, and 2020-06-10 with no timestamps suggests bulk importing or fabrication of review dates. Many of these are blank (no text) or extremely generic.
• ABANDONED WORK / FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods (2024-2025) allege that owner Randy Wood accepted deposits ranging from $2,250 to $5,000 and either never started work or abandoned jobs mid-project without refund or communication. This is a serious and recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• GHOSTING PATTERN: At least 4 separate reviews explicitly describe Randy Wood or the company going silent after partial payment or partial work completion, including trade agreements, new construction additions, and boiler/tankless installations.
• TECHNICAL FAILURE: One review documents tankless water heaters installed without required gas regulators, causing error codes. The owner reportedly showed indifference and avoided paying for the corrective work done by another company.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW: The negative review describing a wife being dismissed and the boss cussing loudly appears to have been submitted twice (2022-06-10 and 2021-12-30) with nearly identical text, suggesting the reviewer reposted. Counted once for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most serious fraud and abandonment allegations are concentrated in the 2024-2025 period, suggesting a possible deterioration in business conduct in recent years. Older reviews (2013-2020) are more consistently positive.
• 9 reviews contained no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 9 reviews had no text content and could not contribute to any dimension score.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (130 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically meaningful; however, the presence of a suspected coordinated positive review campaign on 2024-07-29, combined with serious and credible fraud allegations from multiple independent reviewers in 2024-2025, means prospective customers should treat this score with caution and conduct additional due diligence — particularly for large or multi-stage projects involving upfront deposits.

Floyd's Plumbing shows mixed performance across reviews spanning 2015–2022. Positive reviews consistently praise professionalism, fair pricing, and quick response times, with customers noting courteous technicians and timely arrivals. However, a detailed 2017 review documents serious project completion failures: missed appointments, no-shows, and complete lack of follow-up communication despite multiple contact attempts. This critical failure significantly impacts the overall score. The company's reliability appears inconsistent, with strong performance in some cases undermined by a documented instance of abandonment and poor accountability.

• One review (2015-12-15) contains only a period and no substantive content—excluded from analysis.
• Significant recency gap: most positive reviews are 3–7 years old (2019–2022), while the most detailed negative review is from 2017. Limited recent data to assess current performance.
• One detailed negative review (2017) documents critical failures in project completion and professionalism (no-show, no callback, appointment abandonment). This single incident carries substantial weight due to its specificity and severity.
• Positive reviews lack specific technical detail and are somewhat generic in praise, though they do mention concrete actions (timely callbacks, fair pricing, quick response).
• Small sample size (5 usable reviews) limits confidence in overall score reliability.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, significant age of most reviews, and one documented critical failure that contradicts the positive pattern. The WW Score reflects genuine inconsistency in service delivery rather than reliable quality.

This company demonstrates inconsistent performance across dimensions. Professionalism scores reasonably well (72) based on positive mentions of punctuality, politeness, and responsiveness in smaller jobs, though offset by serious concerns about owner conduct and communication failures on larger projects. Pricing is a significant weakness (45), with multiple reviews citing misleading quotes, undisclosed charges, and what appears to be overpricing relative to actual work quality. Project completion (62) is hampered by a major contract project that took 2 months with poor workmanship and unmet promises, though smaller jobs show better follow-through. Experience (65) reflects mixed technical competency—excellent work on some jobs but documented errors (incorrect toilet flange placement, improper concrete work, wrong drain diagnosis) on others. The company appears more reliable for small maintenance calls but problematic for larger contract work.

• MAJOR RED FLAG: Two reviews (2022-01-24 and 2016-04-12) reference owner Paul's unprofessional behavior, including rudeness on phone, showing up unannounced on Sunday evening, and poor project management. These are not isolated complaints.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE: Multiple documented technical errors on larger projects (incorrect toilet flange distance, improper concrete work, wrong drain diagnosis) suggest lack of quality oversight.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY PROBLEM: Review from 2020-05-02 explicitly states promised 'free callback' but then charged $200+ for additional work without clear upfront disclosure. This pattern suggests deceptive quoting practices.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2015-2018 (older than 6 years). More recent reviews (2020-2022) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality has declined or company has grown beyond its management capacity.
• COMPANY STRUCTURE CONCERN: Multiple reviews reference 'North County Plumbing' (NCP) as related entity with same owner Paul, and one review explicitly warns about poor service from NCP, raising questions about quality consistency across operations.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to significant recency issues (most positive reviews are 6+ years old) and documented patterns of owner misconduct and technical errors on larger projects. The score reflects a company that may perform adequately on small emergency calls but has serious reliability and quality concerns for larger work. Recent reviews suggest declining service quality.

Robert receives consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and being easy to work with across multiple reviews, which supports a moderate professionalism score. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, with one reviewer specifically noting he fixed a problem for a fraction of a competitor's quote. However, a detailed and credible 1-star review from 2020 describes a serious workmanship failure — a sewer line installed incorrectly causing approximately $6,000 in additional costs — which significantly drags down both the project completion and experience scores. Critically, that same review documents Robert abandoning the job mid-project via text and accepting no responsibility, which is a severe project completion failure that cannot be offset by positive reviews alone. The overall score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in customer relations but a documented, serious technical and professional failure on record.

• Two reviews ('unknown' and 'It went great! Such a brilliant solution!!') contain no usable detail and were excluded from scoring. These appear to be placeholder or low-effort entries.
• The two oldest reviews (2013 and 2017) are significantly dated — over 6 years old at minimum — and carry reduced weight in this analysis.
• The 1-star review (2020) is highly specific, detailed, and credible. It describes a $6,000 sewer line error confirmed by three independent plumbing companies, contract abandonment via text, and zero accountability from Robert. This is a serious flag for project completion and experience.
• Most positive reviews lack granular technical detail, which limits confidence in the experience dimension score.
• Only 7 total reviews span a 10-year period, indicating a very thin review base. Scores should be treated with caution.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a small review pool spanning a decade, two uninformative reviews, and a single but highly credible negative review documenting a major project failure that meaningfully offsets the otherwise positive sentiment.

This contractor shows a stark divide between positive and negative feedback. Older reviews (2011–2018) consistently praise technical expertise, problem-solving ability, and honest pricing. However, two recent negative reviews (2019, 2022) allege failure to service work, non-responsiveness to callbacks, and unavailability for maintenance—directly contradicting the earlier narrative of reliability. The recency and specificity of the negative reviews suggest a potential decline in service quality or business practices. The contractor's experience and pricing remain strong where documented, but project completion and professionalism are severely undermined by the recent complaints about non-responsiveness and warranty service.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 5–13 years old (2011–2018). The two most recent reviews (2019, 2022) are strongly negative and allege serious service failures.
• CONTRADICTION: Positive reviews emphasize reliability and standing behind work; negative reviews explicitly state the contractor will not service work or return calls. This suggests a material change in business conduct over time.
• GENERIC REVIEW: One review marked 'unknown' with 5-star rating (2015) provides no usable data and may be placeholder or fake.
• SMALL SAMPLE: Only 6 reviews total limits statistical confidence. The two negative reviews carry disproportionate weight due to recency and specificity.

This score should be treated with caution. While the contractor demonstrates strong technical expertise and honest pricing historically, the recent negative reviews alleging non-responsiveness and failure to honor warranty work are serious red flags that suggest current business practices may not match the positive reputation from 10+ years ago. Recommend requesting recent references and clarifying service/warranty policies before engaging.