Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 96817, Honolulu, Hawaii

535 Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a large, detailed review base, with dozens of reviewers specifically praising technician punctuality, courteous communication, and technical competence on complex jobs like pipe lining, water heater replacement, and sewer diagnostics. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by recurring complaints about scheduling failures, no-shows, office miscommunication, and at least one report of a technician using profanity and bullying a coworker on the job. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers call costs fair or reasonable, a notable cluster of negative reviews describes charges that escalated unexpectedly, incomplete work billed at full price, double emergency fees, and one instance of a duplicate invoice sent to an HOA — patterns that suggest inconsistent pricing integrity rather than isolated incidents. Project completion scores reflect a solid majority of jobs finished correctly and on time, offset by several documented cases of incomplete repairs requiring return visits, a mishandled water heater wiring job, and at least two instances where the company failed to show up at all. Overall, 535 Plumbing performs well when the right technician is dispatched but shows systemic weaknesses in office coordination and pricing transparency that prevent a higher score.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers describe unexpected cost escalation, charges for incomplete work, double emergency fees, and one duplicate invoice sent to an HOA — this is a recurring pattern, not isolated complaints.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: At least three reviews describe jobs that were not completed correctly on the first visit, including a water heater wired incorrectly and a kitchen sink leak that required three service calls without resolution.
• SCHEDULING/OFFICE FAILURES: Multiple reviews (1-star and 2-star) describe technicians arriving hours late with no proactive communication, a no-show requiring cancellation, and one reviewer who called three times and was never served.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: One detailed review reports a technician using excessive profanity and visibly bullying a coworker during a job visit — this is a serious conduct flag.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW VOLUME SKEW: The review set is heavily weighted toward 5-star ratings with named technicians and specific job details, which is generally a positive authenticity signal. However, a small number of generic 5-star reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Great work and cares about the client. Best plumbing company out there.') were treated as low-weight data points.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews analyzed fall within the 2022–2024 window. The most recent negative reviews (October and July 2024) indicate that pricing and professionalism issues are not historical — they are ongoing.

This WW Score is based on 80 reviews spanning approximately two years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable representation of 535 Plumbing's current service quality — though prospective customers should weigh the documented pricing inconsistencies and scheduling failures seriously before booking.

535 Plumbing (formerly or also known as Creative Plumbing) has a strongly bifurcated review profile: the vast majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) are glowing, praising punctuality, friendliness, communication, and job completion, while older reviews (2008–2020) contain serious complaints about overbilling, unprofessional conduct, missed appointments, incomplete work, and poor workmanship. Professionalism scores well in recent years but is dragged down by multiple older reviews citing rudeness, a plumber urinating with the door open, workers disclosing confidential information to tenants, and no-shows. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple explicit complaints about overcharging, billing for time not worked, and rates described as three times the going rate, though a few reviewers found pricing reasonable. Project completion is generally strong in recent reviews but undermined by older accounts of abandoned jobs, unresolved problems after multiple visits, and a water heater installation that resulted in a closet wall being left open. Experience is similarly mixed, with recent technicians praised for skill and problem-solving, while older reviews describe plumbers who appeared inexperienced, made errors, and repeatedly retrieved wrong parts.

• RECENCY BIAS WARNING: The review set spans from 2008 to 2025. Reviews from 2015 and earlier account for roughly 15 reviews and contain the most severe complaints. Recent 2025 reviews are overwhelmingly positive. The WW Score reflects a blended picture but the older negative reviews meaningfully suppress scores.
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS TRANSITION: The company appears to have operated under the name 'Creative Plumbing' in older reviews and '535 Plumbing' in recent reviews. It is unclear whether this is the same legal entity, a rebrand, or a change in ownership. If ownership changed, older reviews may not reflect current operations and should be weighted accordingly.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: The 2025 reviews are heavily concentrated in a short window (June 2–9, 2025) with many reviews posted on the same dates, all 5-star, with similar praise structures. While they do contain specific technician names and job details (which reduces suspicion), the clustering pattern warrants caution.
• SEVERE HISTORICAL INCIDENT: One review (2015) describes a plumber urinating with the door open in front of a customer's wife and then leaving without completing the repair. The office was contacted and never followed up. This is a serious professionalism and conduct failure.
• BILLING COMPLAINTS: Multiple older reviews cite overbilling — one customer claims they were charged over $900 for a job worth $300, another was billed for 2.5 hours when the plumber was present for under 1.5 hours. These are explicit and specific complaints that reduce the pricing score significantly.
• INCOMPLETE JOB — NOTED: One review describes a water heater replacement where the wrong-sized unit was ordered by the office, resulting in a closet wall being left open permanently. The plumber received praise but the outcome was a failed project completion.
• ONE REVIEW FLAGGED AS UNUSABLE: The review with text 'unknown' and a 5-star rating (2015) contains no usable data and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• UNRESOLVED CALLBACK FAILURE: One 1-star review (2020) describes weeks of ignored phone calls regarding a solar hot water system the company originally installed, with the contact 'Todd' repeatedly failing to respond. This is a direct project completion and professionalism failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large number of reviews, but should be interpreted cautiously given the significant gap between recent glowing reviews and older severe complaints, a possible business rebrand, and clustering of 5-star reviews in a narrow recent window that may reflect review solicitation practices.

This contractor shows mixed performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is inconsistent—while multiple reviews praise Alex's friendliness and responsiveness, one critical review documents a no-show with no follow-up communication, severely damaging trust. Pricing feedback is polarized: some customers report competitive rates and good value, while another claims significant overquoting on a shower repair ($3-5K vs. $50 DIY fix), raising concerns about diagnostic accuracy. Project completion appears solid when work is undertaken, but the no-show incident represents a major failure. Experience is questioned by the shower repair overquote, suggesting possible diagnostic or technical judgment issues. All reviews are from 2019-2020, limiting recency data.

• CRITICAL: One review (2020-05-07) documents a no-show by owner Alex with no response to follow-up communication—this is a severe professionalism failure that contradicts positive reviews.
• PRICING CONCERN: Review from 2019-12-08 alleges significant overquoting ($3-5K estimate for a shower leak that cost $50 in supplies to fix)—suggests potential diagnostic or sales pressure issues.
• RECENCY: All reviews are from 2019-2020; no recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been addressed.
• POLARIZED FEEDBACK: Extreme rating variance (1.0 and 5.0 stars) with contradictory claims about the same owner's professionalism and pricing practices suggests either inconsistent service delivery or selective customer experience.

This score should be treated with caution. While the MODERATE confidence reflects adequate mention counts, the presence of a documented no-show, a credible overquoting allegation, and the absence of recent reviews (all 4+ years old) significantly undermine confidence in the contractor's current reliability. The polarized feedback pattern suggests inconsistent service quality that warrants direct verification before engagement.

Oahu Air Conditioning Service receives strong praise in positive reviews for technical skill, honesty, and professionalism — particularly Gilbert's willingness to spend three hours diagnosing a real problem rather than upselling, and the team's thoroughness on a commercial air handler replacement. However, two reviews from 2015 raise serious concerns about responsiveness and availability, with the company reportedly refusing new customers and deprioritizing existing clients during emergencies. Pricing is noted positively in one review as 'reasonable,' but the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions. The mixed signals between glowing praise and outright service refusals significantly temper the overall score. Most reviews are from 2021 or earlier, with the most recent being over three years old, reducing confidence in current performance.

• Only 5 reviews total — sample size is very small and WW Score should be treated with caution.
• Two reviews (2015) describe the company refusing service to existing and new customers, suggesting possible capacity or management issues at that time.
• The most recent review is from June 2021 — all reviews are over 3 years old. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• One 5-star review from 2011 contains no specific detail ('Best air conditioning service company in the State!') and may not reflect genuine firsthand experience — treated as low-value data.
• The positive reviews are specific and credible, but the negative reviews are also specific and credible, creating a genuinely polarized picture rather than a fake review pattern.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 5 reviews, all dated between 2011 and 2021, with no recent data to confirm whether past service issues or strengths still apply today.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. The single review mentions work quality positively but provides no specific details about professionalism, pricing, or project completion. The review is also from 2012 (over 11 years old), making it outdated.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review date is from May 2012 — extremely outdated (12+ years old), not representative of current service
• Review lacks specific details about the work performed, pricing, timeline, or communication
• Generic praise ('Great Service', 'Great Work') without concrete examples or specifics
• Unclear scope: review mentions both residential (toilet/sink) and commercial (high-rise) work but provides no detail on which was actually performed

This score cannot be trusted and should not be used for decision-making. Insufficient review volume and extreme age of the single review make any scoring unreliable.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review praises Lonopule Junk Removal's professionalism (punctuality, follow-up communication, politeness, thoughtful gestures) and project completion (items removed, area swept). However, pricing is not discussed, and experience/workmanship cannot be assessed from junk removal context. A minimum of 3 reviews is required for meaningful analysis.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review provided; minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is from November 2022 (over 1 year old); recency is limited
• No pricing information mentioned; Price Friendly dimension cannot be scored
• No technical skill or experience details provided; Experience dimension cannot be scored

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; at least 3 reviews are needed to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.