Find Nearby Plumbers In Honolulu, Hawaii

This contractor presents a deeply split profile: a cluster of positive reviews from 2010–2011 praising punctuality, professionalism, and fair pricing is sharply counterbalanced by a series of serious negative reviews citing overcharging, hidden fees, incomplete work, wrong parts installed, and a near-total failure to return calls. The pricing dimension is particularly damaged by multiple detailed accounts of bait-and-switch billing, undisclosed charges, and invoices that far exceeded quoted amounts. Project completion suffers significantly due to documented instances of abandoned work, missing fixture components, and refusal to honor callbacks or warranty repairs. The experience dimension is mixed — early reviewers praised his skill and knowledge, but later reviewers had work fail shortly after completion due to incorrect parts, undermining confidence in workmanship quality. The overall trajectory of reviews is strongly negative, with the most detailed and credible complaints concentrated in 2011–2014.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are from 2010–2014, making this data over 10 years old. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this dataset.
• PATTERN — BILLING MISCONDUCT: Multiple independent reviewers (at least 4) describe a consistent pattern of quotes being ignored, surprise charges added at job completion, and invoices significantly exceeding agreed amounts. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• PATTERN — UNRESPONSIVENESS: At least 3 separate reviewers in late 2011 independently reported that Rik stopped answering or returning calls, including for warranty/callback situations. This suggests a possible business disruption or deliberate avoidance.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: Two reviewers reported that plumbing work failed within months of completion and a subsequent plumber confirmed wrong or missing parts were installed. This is a serious quality and liability concern.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW RISK: The positive reviews (2010–2011) are generally specific and varied in detail, reducing suspicion of fabrication. However, the sharp contrast between early glowing reviews and later serious complaints may suggest early reviews reflect a different operational period.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least one reviewer was left with kitchen pipes disassembled and water still running after the contractor departed mid-job following a payment dispute.
• PERSONAL CHECK REQUEST: Multiple reviewers noted being asked to make checks out to the individual (Rik) rather than the company, which is a red flag for business legitimacy and accountability.
• AKA ALIASES: This contractor operates under multiple business names (Save-More Hawaii Plumbing, Save-More Plumbing and Solar, Da Hawaiian Plumber), which may complicate accountability and dispute resolution.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the volume of detailed, specific reviews, but the score itself should be treated with caution given the age of all reviews (2010–2014) and the severity of documented misconduct patterns across billing, workmanship, and responsiveness.

Service AC & Plumbing exhibits severe and consistent professionalism deficits, with 8 reviews explicitly documenting rude, aggressive, and unprofessional behavior—particularly from owner/manager Nick. Pricing is a major complaint across 7 reviews, with customers reporting inflated labor rates, unexplained truck charges, and lack of transparent pre-work estimates. Project completion shows mixed results: some jobs were completed successfully, but communication failures and lack of follow-through on callbacks are documented. Technical experience appears adequate when work is performed, but the company's refusal to provide warranties and unclear troubleshooting practices undermine confidence. The stark polarization between 5-star and 1-star reviews, combined with detailed negative accounts spanning multiple years, suggests systemic operational and interpersonal issues.

• SEVERE PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Multiple independent reviews (2017–2023) document identical patterns of rudeness, aggression, and unprofessional behavior from Nick (owner/manager), including name-calling, threats of small claims court, and refusal to discuss disputes. This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: 6 of 7 pricing mentions cite unexplained charges, inflated rates, or refusal to provide pre-work estimates. The 'Truck Charge' ($30–$60) is repeatedly flagged as unjustified and appears to be a standard add-on with no clear explanation.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews (2019, 2017, 2016) report unreturned calls and messages, contradicting the 2023 positive review's claim of responsiveness. This suggests either inconsistent service or deterioration over time.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2015–2017 (older than 6 years), but a detailed negative review from 2017 and a 1-star from 2023 show the pattern persists. The two most recent reviews (2023, 2021) are both 5-star, but the 2023 negative review is highly detailed and credible.
• POLARIZATION PATTERN: 6 one-star reviews vs. 4 five-star reviews with no middle ground. Positive reviews praise Glenn and Nick's communication in specific instances, but negative reviews document systematic failures. This suggests inconsistent service quality or that positive reviews may reflect exceptional cases rather than standard practice.
• WARRANTY/GUARANTEE ABSENCE: Multiple reviews note the company does not provide warranties or guarantees on work, which is non-standard in the AC repair industry and raises quality concerns.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust. While the data volume is adequate (10 reviews), the extreme polarization, documented pattern of unprofessional behavior spanning 8 years, and consistent pricing complaints across independent reviews suggest real operational problems. However, the presence of credible 5-star reviews from satisfied customers (including a property manager who uses the company at multiple buildings) indicates the company is capable of delivering acceptable work in some circumstances. The score reflects a company with serious interpersonal and transparency issues that significantly outweigh technical competence.

The review set for this contractor is deeply mixed, with significant red flags pulling scores down across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is heavily damaged by one detailed 1-star review describing four cancellations and a no-callback in an emergency, partially offset by positive mentions of responsiveness and helpfulness in other reviews. Pricing received a severe negative signal from a reviewer who considered a $761 estimate for a minor hose bib repair a ripoff, with only one positive pricing mention to counterbalance it. Project completion is similarly split — one reviewer explicitly described cancelled appointments, wrong parts ordered, and an unresolved urgent leak, while others reported quick, clean, complete work. Experience scores moderately, with a few reviewers noting competent repairs and helpful suggestions, but the wrong-parts incident in the most recent detailed negative review is a meaningful deduction. The overall picture is an inconsistent contractor with some capable technicians but serious reliability and responsiveness problems documented across multiple reviews.

• Several older positive reviews (2015, 2017, 2018) are vague and lack specific detail, which raises mild concern about authenticity or relevance to current service quality.
• The most recent and most detailed reviews (2023) skew negative, suggesting possible service quality decline over time. Recency weighting significantly impacts confidence in positive scores.
• One 2018 review notes the technician was actually from a different company (Shaka Plumbing), meaning that positive experience may not reflect Aloha Plumbing's own workforce quality.
• The 2015 review reads as generic and anecdotal with no specifics about technician skill or pricing, limiting its scoring value.
• With only 8 total reviews spanning 8 years, the sample size is too small for high-confidence scoring. All dimension confidence levels should be treated with caution despite formula outputs.

This WW Score should be treated with low-to-moderate trust due to the small review sample (8 reviews over 8 years), significant recency concerns showing a negative trend in 2023, and several vague older positive reviews that provide limited evidentiary weight.

Professionalism is the most heavily evidenced dimension and paints a troubling picture: three of five reviews explicitly describe failures in communication, missed appointments, broken promises of callbacks, and no-shows, dragging the score down significantly. Project completion is similarly damaged, with one review describing a leaking toilet after initial repair requiring a return visit, another describing a full cancellation after a no-show, and a third describing an abandoned appointment. Pricing received only one mention, where a customer noted a lack of transparency about additional fees beyond the initial call-out charge, though the fees were ultimately credited toward the repair. Experience received limited positive signals from two reviews praising competent and efficient workmanship, but this is insufficient to offset the operational failures documented elsewhere.

• Small sample size of only 5 reviews — WW Score should be treated as directional only, not definitive.
• Most reviews are from 2017–2019, meaning all data is more than 5 years old. Current performance may differ significantly and cannot be assessed from this data.
• No reviews from the past 12 months were provided. Recency weighting cannot be applied favorably.
• The single 5-star review is brief, generic, and lacks specific detail beyond naming one technician. It cannot be ruled out as inflated or unrepresentative.
• A pattern of communication failures appears across multiple independent reviews (missed callbacks, no-shows, broken promises), suggesting a systemic operational issue rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review sample, the age of all reviews (2017–2019), and the absence of any recent data — treat this score as a historical signal only and seek current references before making a hiring decision.

Alaka'i Mechanical's review corpus is overwhelmingly negative, with the vast majority of reviews citing serious and recurring failures across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is the lowest-scoring dimension, driven by pervasive complaints about no-shows, missed appointments without notification, unresponsive staff, rude customer service representatives, and technicians behaving inappropriately on-site. Pricing is nearly as damaging, with dozens of reviewers explicitly calling out fraudulent billing practices, inflated invoices, charges for work never performed, unauthorized credit card charges, and prices far exceeding competitors. Project completion scores marginally higher only because a small number of positive reviews describe jobs that were finished satisfactorily, but the dominant pattern is abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, misdiagnosed problems billed to the customer, and warranty refusals. Experience scores the highest of the four dimensions, reflecting a genuine split: several positive reviews praise specific named technicians (Doc, Joe, Eric, Darren, Jordan, Kamae) as skilled and knowledgeable, while a comparable number of negative reviews describe incompetent workmanship, incorrect diagnoses, and sloppy execution. The WW Score of 28.1 reflects a company with serious, systemic operational and ethical problems that far outweigh the quality of its best individual technicians.

• BILLING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2017–2024) describe nearly identical fraudulent billing behaviors — charges for work not performed, inflated hours, unauthorized credit card charges weeks after service, and invoices that do not match signed work orders. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW / APPOINTMENT FAILURE PATTERN: At least 8 reviews explicitly describe scheduled appointments where no technician arrived and no proactive communication was made by the company. This pattern spans from 2015 to 2024.
• UNRESPONSIVE BILLING DEPARTMENT: At least 7 reviews describe being unable to reach billing staff to dispute charges, with calls dropped, voicemails ignored, and emails unanswered for months. This appears to be a deliberate or structurally broken process.
• POSITIVE REVIEW QUALITY NOTE: The 10 positive reviews are generally specific (naming individual technicians, describing particular jobs), which reduces the likelihood they are fake. However, they represent a small minority and are concentrated in older date ranges (2009–2019), suggesting service quality may have declined in recent years.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are exclusively 1-star and describe billing fraud, overcharging, and unresponsiveness. The positive reviews are predominantly from 2015–2019 or earlier. This trend strongly suggests deteriorating service quality over time.
• TECHNICIAN QUALITY VARIANCE: Multiple reviews note that individual technician quality varies dramatically. Named technicians Doc, Joe, Eric, Darren, and Jordan received specific praise, while unnamed or other named technicians (Travis, Taka, Alexander/Kaleo Blatwell, Jeremy) received serious complaints. The company appears unable to maintain consistent standards.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH REFUSAL: At least 3 reviews describe the company refusing to honor warranty work or stand behind installed equipment, including a central AC system and a new hot water heater.
• SMALL CLAIMS / LEGAL THREATS: At least 2 reviewers explicitly stated they pursued or planned to pursue small claims court action against the company, and 1 described receiving a collection email at 4:42am, which they characterized as harassment.

This WW Score is based on 44 reviews spanning 2009–2024 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; the score should be trusted as an accurate reflection of this contractor's overall performance, with the strong caveat that recent reviews (2023–2024) are uniformly negative and suggest the score may even overstate current service quality.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by documented communication failures, no-shows, rude staff behavior, and refusal to follow up on permitted work. Project completion is undermined by incomplete repairs, abandoned callbacks, and failure to honor commitments over extended periods. Pricing shows poor value with customers paying for incomplete work. Only two older reviews (2004, 2007) mention positive workmanship, but these are heavily outweighed by three recent negative reviews (2024, 2019, 2016) documenting systemic operational failures. The WW Score reflects a contractor with fundamental business and customer service problems.

• CRITICAL: Three recent reviews (2024, 2019, 2016) document severe professionalism failures including no-shows, refusal to return calls, rude staff, and abandonment of permitted work for over 1 year
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are extremely old (2004, 2007 — 17-20 years old) and lack detail. Three negative reviews are recent (2024, 2019, 2016), suggesting deterioration in service quality over time
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Review from 2019 documents refusal to complete inspection callback on a permit for over 1 year, indicating systemic follow-through failure
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews cite failure to call customers, no-shows despite scheduled appointments, and staff rudeness — core professionalism failures
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total limits statistical confidence, though consistency of negative patterns is concerning

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews), but the consistency and severity of documented failures across recent reviews (2024, 2019, 2016) strongly suggest genuine operational and customer service problems that warrant serious concern. The contractor appears to have significant issues with communication, follow-through, and professional conduct.