Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 96819, Honolulu, Hawaii

Hawaii Plumbing Group demonstrates strong technical expertise and pricing fairness, with many customers praising skilled workmanship and reasonable rates. However, professionalism and project completion scores are significantly dragged down by multiple serious complaints regarding cleanliness, attention to detail, property damage, and follow-through on corrections. While many reviews highlight excellent communication and courteous crews, a consistent pattern of complaints about daily mess left in units, incomplete repairs, and dismissive responses to damage claims indicates systemic execution issues. The company shows capability but inconsistent delivery, particularly in large-scale building projects.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple independent reviews (2018, 2016, 2016) describe identical problems—workers leaving daily mess, requiring customers to clean up after them, and failing to address damages. This consistency suggests systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.
• DAMAGE & COMPENSATION ISSUES: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention property damage (countertop backsplash, bathroom mirror, vanity misalignment, bathroom mirror again) with inadequate or refused compensation. This is a recurring red flag.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between highly positive reviews praising specific named managers (Peter, Kimo, Aaron) and negative reviews citing poor communication, rudeness, and dismissive office staff (Tiana). Suggests quality depends heavily on which crew/manager is assigned.
• REVIEW DATE DISTRIBUTION: Most 5-star reviews are from 2015-2023 (older); most 1-star reviews are from 2016-2025 (more recent). Recency favors negative reviews, suggesting potential decline in service quality or increased scrutiny.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: One review (2017-05-11) about finding a lost wallet reads as character-building narrative rather than service evaluation. While not definitively fake, it is tangential to plumbing services.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Two reviews (2025-05-10) contain only ratings (1.0 and 5.0) with no text, making them unusable for dimension scoring but included in total count.

This WW Score of 74.2 is reliable but reflects a company with significant operational inconsistencies. The HIGH overall confidence is justified by substantial mention counts across dimensions, but the score itself is conservative due to serious, recurring complaints about execution quality and customer service follow-through that offset strong technical and pricing feedback. Prospective customers should expect variable experiences depending on assigned crew and project manager.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

This review set covers two distinct entities — Robert's Plumbing (a small independent plumber with largely positive reviews spanning 2008–2025) and Chas Roberts HVAC (a larger contractor with predominantly negative reviews concentrated in 2023–2025). When analyzed together, professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by Chas Roberts' repeated failures: missed appointments, poor communication, and unresponsive customer service, though Robert's Plumbing earns strong marks for punctuality and friendliness. Pricing is a major concern, with multiple explicit complaints about Chas Roberts' opaque 'block pricing' model charging hundreds of dollars per hour effectively, and at least two negative pricing reviews for Robert's Plumbing as well, offsetting the many positive affordability mentions. Project completion is the weakest dimension overall, driven by Chas Roberts' pattern of recurring HVAC failures, abandoned repairs, no-shows, and work that required third-party correction — including dangerous wiring errors and improper installations. Experience scores are mixed: Robert's Plumbing technicians are frequently praised for skill and problem-solving, while Chas Roberts technicians are repeatedly cited for shoddy workmanship, incorrect wiring, poor-quality parts, and installations requiring remediation by other companies.

• MIXED ENTITY WARNING: Reviews appear to cover at least two distinct businesses — 'Robert's Plumbing' (independent plumber, primarily West Sacramento/Tucson area) and 'Chas Roberts' (large HVAC contractor, Arizona). Scores are blended across these entities, which significantly reduces the usefulness of a single composite score. Scores should ideally be calculated separately per entity.
• RECENCY BIAS — CHAS ROBERTS: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) are overwhelmingly negative and relate almost exclusively to Chas Roberts HVAC. This pulls all dimension scores downward and reflects a current operational quality concern.
• SAFETY FLAGS — CHAS ROBERTS: Multiple reviews cite potentially dangerous workmanship including improper electrical wiring (fire hazard with burn marks), aluminum-to-copper line failures, and damper systems wired backwards. One review mentions an ROC license complaint filing.
• NO-SHOW / ABANDONMENT PATTERN — ROBERT'S PLUMBING: At least 5 reviews across different years describe Robert's Plumbing failing to show up for scheduled appointments, not returning calls, or abandoning incomplete jobs. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Approximately 15–20 reviews contained no text (only a star rating). These were counted in total_reviews_analyzed but excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — ROBERT'S PLUMBING (MODERATE): A large cluster of 5-star reviews for Robert's Plumbing share very similar structure: same-day service praise, mention of 'Robert' by name, short job descriptions, and near-identical sentiment. While many appear genuine and span years, the density and uniformity of positive reviews warrants moderate caution. No single review was definitively flagged as fake, but the pattern is noted.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEWS PRESENT: Several reviews appear entirely unrelated to plumbing or HVAC (e.g., a pest control business owner commentary, a review about a dangerous driver, a review about a spraying technician named Randy/Leah). These were excluded from dimension scoring.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states Robert is not a licensed plumber and operates as an unlicensed handyman, which is a significant professional and legal concern if accurate.

This WW Score carries HIGH data volume confidence due to the large number of reviews, but LOW entity reliability because the dataset blends at least two distinct businesses with very different performance profiles — the score should not be used to evaluate either entity in isolation without separating the review sets.

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.

PS Plumbing earns strong marks across all four dimensions based on consistent positive feedback from multiple reviewers. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with six reviews explicitly noting promptness, courtesy, and responsiveness — including showing up on New Year's Eve with 30-minute notice. Project completion is well-supported by accounts of jobs being finished effectively and repeat usage over many years. Pricing received favorable mentions in three reviews, with one reviewer specifically noting that PS Plumbing found a cost-saving solution over a more expensive alternative and another comparing them favorably to competitors charging exorbitant rates. Experience is backed by four reviews referencing skilled workmanship, problem-solving ability, and handling complex jobs on older properties.

• Most reviews are significantly older than 12 months — only one review is from 2021, with the majority dating from 2014 to 2020. Recency is a concern and the score should be interpreted with that in mind.
• The two oldest reviews (2014 and 2016) are very brief and lack specific detail, which limits their evidentiary value. They were counted but weighted conservatively.
• 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 uniformity warrants mild caution.
• Total review count is low (7 reviews). The WW Score is directionally useful but should be treated as preliminary until more recent reviews are available.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given the specificity of several reviews, but confidence is tempered by the small total review count, the age of most reviews, and the absence of any critical or mixed feedback.

This contractor demonstrates solid professionalism with courteous, responsive service and timely job execution across multiple reviews. Pricing is generally perceived as fair and honest, though some customers report unexpected quote increases or material fees that undermine trust. Project completion is mostly reliable, but one review explicitly documents incomplete work (toilet still running after repair) and poor cleanup practices. Technical skill is evident in complex jobs like mainline backups and water heater installations, but the incomplete toilet repair and material fee controversy suggest inconsistency in quality control and transparency.

• PRICING CONCERN: Two reviews (2023 and 2014) report unexpected charges or quote discrepancies that contradict the 'honest pricing' narrative in other reviews. The $25 material fee for snake use and the $100→$125 quote jump suggest potential hidden charges or unclear pricing communication.
• PROJECT COMPLETION ISSUE: 2013 review explicitly states incomplete work—toilet still running after repair—and poor cleanup practices. This is a direct contradiction to the 'job done right' claims in other reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2017–2021 (older than 12 months). The two most recent reviews (2023 and 2013) are negative or mixed, suggesting possible service quality decline or inconsistency over time.
• REVIEWER SPECIFICITY: Positive reviews name specific technicians (Matt, Stephen Strong, Elton, Vernon), which adds credibility. However, the negative reviews do not name technicians, making it unclear if quality varies by individual.

This score should be treated with caution. While the contractor shows genuine strengths in responsiveness and professionalism, the explicit evidence of incomplete work, cleanup failures, and pricing discrepancies in recent reviews undermines confidence. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects solid average performance, but the MODERATE overall confidence reflects real inconsistency in execution and transparency that customers should be aware of.