Find Nearby Plumbers In Concord, California

Oak Plumbing scores well on professionalism and experience, with a large volume of reviews praising named technicians (Travis, Jovan, Matthew, Malik, George, Andrew, Jared, Danny, and others) for punctuality, communication, friendliness, and technical competence. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension in this dataset: a substantial and consistent minority of reviewers — spanning the full date range from 2017 through 2025 — explicitly describe charges as 2x to 5x competitor quotes, with specific dollar comparisons provided (e.g., $5,500 vs. $135 repair, $24,000 vs. $1,000, $654 vs. $265, $3,500 vs. $1,450). Project completion is moderately strong but is dragged down by several serious negative cases including an elderly couple left without hot water for five weeks, an abandoned job with no follow-through, a toilet that remained clogged after two visits, and a freestanding tub damaged and inadequately repaired over the course of a month. The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuinely skilled and professional field staff but a persistent, well-documented pattern of pricing complaints and a non-trivial number of project completion failures that cannot be dismissed as outliers given their frequency and specificity.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text ('Matthew came out and did an amazing job of assessing the problem...') were submitted on 2025-06-05 and 2025-06-03 with the same 5-star rating. This is a likely duplicate or fake review and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The lengthy negative review about the freestanding tub damage (rating 1.0, dated 2021-10-22) appears to have been submitted three times with nearly identical text across three separate entries dated 2020-08-18 (two entries) and one on 2020-08-18 with a 1.5-star rating. These appear to be the same reviewer submitting multiple times; counted once.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: 'We love Oak Plumbing and the owner is a great local businessman. Travis Ballard came out...' appears twice with identical text, dated 2023-06-07 and 2022-08-29. Counted once.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: 'Not only did he do water heater but also replaced toilet and kitchen faucet. Because of the condition of the property, Jared went the extra mile...' appears twice on 2019-08-28. Counted once.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: 'Anthony with Oak Plumbing is amazing. He's always prompt, courteous and tidy...' appears twice (2019-06-08 and 2018-09-05). Counted once.
• PRICING PATTERN — SYSTEMIC CONCERN: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents. Across the full review history (2017–2025), at least 25–30 distinct reviewers explicitly describe being charged 2x to 5x competitor rates for the same job, with specific dollar figures provided. This is a structural business practice concern, not random dissatisfaction.
• PROJECT COMPLETION — SERIOUS FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe abandoned or incomplete work, including: (1) elderly couple left without hot water for 5 weeks with no communication; (2) a freestanding tub damaged by a technician and inadequately repaired over a month; (3) a toilet that remained clogged after two service visits; (4) a job where the technician left mid-day without notice; (5) a customer who waited all day for a plumber who never arrived with no apology.
• TECHNICIAN CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe specific technicians behaving rudely or unprofessionally (Zachary described as rude and dismissive; Johny described as calling supervisor on speaker and characterizing customer as 'difficult'; Nate described as attempting to charge $3,000–$10,000 for jobs later fixed for under $200). These are not isolated to one employee.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS CONCERN: Several negative reviews explicitly state that management (specifically 'Ariel') was unresponsive, dismissive, or attempted to pressure reviewers to edit negative reviews. One reviewer states Ariel called twice after a negative post asking them to edit it.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2021–2025, providing strong recency coverage. Pricing complaints appear consistently across all years, suggesting this is not a historical issue that has been resolved.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20–25 reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total review volume.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: A subset of very short reviews ('Best plumber near me!', '5 stars', 'Great service!', 'Good work') provide no specific detail and cannot be scored on any dimension. These were not used for scoring but noted as low-information entries.

This WW Score is based on a very large review dataset (380 reviews) spanning approximately 8 years, giving HIGH confidence in all four dimensions; however, the pricing score in particular should be treated as a firm finding rather than a conservative estimate, as the volume and specificity of overpricing complaints is among the most consistent signals in the entire dataset.

R.B. Travis receives overwhelmingly positive feedback on individual technician professionalism, punctuality, and communication — with dozens of reviewers praising named techs like Jacob, Nico, Carl, Alex, Nicholas, Victor, and others by name for being courteous, on-time, and thorough. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews (roughly 18–20 out of 125) significantly tempers the scores across all dimensions. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with multiple reviewers citing rates of $325–$500/hour, flat-rate opacity, and charges perceived as exploitative or disproportionate to the work performed. Project completion is mixed: many jobs are completed same-day and efficiently, but several reviews describe abandoned work, failure to follow through on bids, rescheduling without notice, and at least one instance of pipes left open and a hole unfilled. Experience scores moderately well overall, with most technicians praised for diagnosing and resolving issues competently, but offset by notable failures including poor troubleshooting, misdiagnosed leaks, and at least one technician alleged to have been impaired on the job.

• Approximately 18–20 reviews are 1-star or 2-star, representing a significant minority (~15%) that reveals systemic issues with pricing transparency, office staff rudeness, and inconsistent follow-through — these are not isolated incidents.
• Three reviews contain no text (only a 5-star rating) and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• Pricing complaints are highly specific and credible: multiple independent reviewers cite $325/hr, $500/hr, flat-rate refusal to disclose time estimates, and upfront deposit requirements — this is a consistent and serious pattern, not outliers.
• At least two reviews describe work being abandoned mid-job, including one where pipes were left cut open and a hole left unfilled, and another where a claim was rejected without explanation after multiple service visits.
• One review alleges a technician smoked marijuana in his vehicle before performing work, and the reviewer states the owner was dismissive when contacted — this is a serious professionalism and safety concern.
• One review describes sewage being backed up into a hallway by the technician, who then left without remediation, resulting in a homeowners insurance claim.
• One review describes a misdiagnosed water main leak where RB Travis found 'no leak,' issued a written letter to that effect, and the customer subsequently confirmed a main line leak using a handyman and Roto-Rooter.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Great plumber repairman,' 'excellent, repaired quickly,' 'Professional and polite service') with no specifics — mild fake review risk for a small subset, though most 5-star reviews are detailed and credible.
• Review dates span from 2019 to June 2025. The majority of reviews (80+) are from 2023–2025, which is positive for recency. However, negative patterns (pricing, office rudeness, abandoned work) appear consistently across multiple years, suggesting these are not isolated or resolved issues.
• The office/administrative staff receives notably mixed feedback: praised in many reviews for responsiveness, but criticized in multiple reviews for rudeness, failure to return calls, and providing inaccurate information — this is a recurring operational weakness.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (125 reviews) with strong recency, yielding HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the consistent and specific nature of negative reviews around pricing opacity, project abandonment, and office communication failures, which represent genuine systemic risks rather than statistical noise.

Peet Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, same-day availability, reasonable pricing, and quality workmanship across a wide variety of plumbing jobs. However, the business carries a meaningful pattern of serious complaints that cannot be ignored: at least 5 reviews explicitly describe no-shows after confirmed appointments with zero follow-up communication, which is a significant reliability failure that directly impacts the project completion and professionalism scores. Additional negative reviews cite price inflation mid-job, dishonest diagnosis, disrespectful behavior on a customer's property, and at least one instance where a technician left without resolving the root cause of a problem. The positive reviews are numerous and detailed enough to establish genuine competence and value, but the no-show pattern is a recurring and recent enough issue (spanning 2021–2024) to materially reduce confidence in reliability. The WW Score reflects a contractor with real skill and competitive pricing who is undermined by inconsistent follow-through and communication failures.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 4 reviews (Jan 2024, Nov 2023, Sep 2021, and one additional) explicitly describe confirmed appointments where the technician never arrived and calls/texts went unanswered. This is a systemic reliability issue, not isolated incidents.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2021-08-03 at nearly identical timestamps contain word-for-word identical text about a garbage disposal repair. One of these is likely a duplicate submission and has been counted only once for scoring purposes.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: One review (Aug 2022, 1-star) alleges significant price gouging — charging $225 for a 10-minute job and $279 for a toilet fix that another plumber completed for $25. A separate review (Dec 2021) notes a final charge 50% above the quoted flat rate. These are offset by many reviews praising fair pricing but warrant caution.
• CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One review (Feb 2022, 1-star) alleges the technician entered the property without permission, banged on the door aggressively, used the customer's power without consent, and installed unnecessary parts while charging double. This is a serious behavioral allegation.
• COMPETENCE CONCERN: One review (Aug 2022) describes a technician who failed to turn the hot water back on after completing work, then claimed not to know the cause of the problem when called back, and only offered a free return visit after the customer requested compensation — suggesting a lack of accountability.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) include two of the most serious no-show complaints, suggesting the reliability issue has not improved over time and may be worsening.
• MOST REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 12 MONTHS: The majority of reviews date from 2021–2022. Only a handful are from 2023–2024, limiting confidence in the current state of the business.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While many reviews are positive, they contain sufficient specificity (named technicians, described job types, unique details) to appear genuine. No coordinated fake review pattern identified.

This WW Score is based on a large and detailed review set (82 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to a documented and recurring pattern of no-shows and post-job accountability failures that represent a real risk for prospective customers.

Travis demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism across multiple project types, with reviewers consistently praising his skill, knowledge, and personable demeanor. However, one significant incident (2020 review) where he lacked proper tools and failed to complete the job on-site substantially impacts project completion confidence. Pricing feedback is limited but generally positive where mentioned. The WW Score of 82.3 reflects solid capability tempered by the documented completion failure and limited pricing data.

• One critical project failure (2020-12-01 review): contractor arrived without necessary tools, forcing customer to hire another professional at double cost. This is a material project completion issue.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (4 of 5 reviews from 2020-2023). Only 1 review from 2024. Recency of performance data is limited.
• Pricing mentions are sparse (only 2 reviews). Fair pricing claim is based on limited evidence.

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to small sample size (5 reviews), limited recency, and one documented project failure that significantly impacts completion reliability despite strong technical skills.

Denis consistently receives strong praise for professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting responsiveness, punctuality, positive attitude, and polite communication — including a notable Sunday emergency call handled within an hour. Project completion scores well based on several reviews describing jobs finished thoroughly and to satisfaction, including a bathroom remodel, kitchen sink installation, water heater replacement, and a multi-month construction project that passed inspections. Experience is supported by references to technical knowledge, code familiarity, plan-reading ability, and skilled workmanship across diverse project types. Pricing data is thin — only one review mentions 'reasonable price,' which is insufficient to score this dimension with confidence, so it carries very limited weight in the final calculation. Several reviews are brief and generic, which tempers overall confidence slightly.

• Several reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great work fast and efficient', 'Excellent service quality job', 'I like job quality and person') with no specific details — these provide minimal usable signal and may inflate perceived consensus.
• All 10 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback, which is statistically unusual and warrants mild caution.
• 7 of the 10 reviews are dated within a narrow window of March–June 2022, suggesting a possible burst of reviews around a single period rather than organic accumulation over time.
• Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (August 2024); the majority of reviews are over 2 years old, which reduces confidence in reflecting current service quality.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability — professionalism, project completion, and experience are reasonably well-supported, but the dominance of older reviews, several generic low-detail entries, and near-absent pricing data mean the score should be treated as a directional indicator rather than a definitive assessment.

Baja Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently and enthusiastically cited quality — reviewers repeatedly highlight Noe's honesty, communication, friendliness, and responsiveness. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers describing jobs finished promptly and thoroughly, including cleanup. Experience is affirmed through references to technical problem-solving (gas lines, sewer cameras, water heater repairs) and an architect reviewer who vouched for their skill level relative to industry standards. Pricing is noted positively by several reviewers as reasonable and competitive, though it is mentioned less frequently than other dimensions. The primary caveat is that all 9 reviews are older than 5 years, with the most recent dating to October 2018, which significantly limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• ALL reviews are older than 5 years — the most recent is from October 2018 and the oldest from 2011. This score may not reflect current business quality or practices.
• All 9 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants mild caution. However, most reviews contain specific details, named individuals, and varied scenarios, reducing the likelihood of coordinated fake reviews.
• Small sample size of 9 reviews limits statistical reliability. Confidence factors are adjusted accordingly in the WW Score calculation.
• Several reviews use similarly enthusiastic language ('amazing', 'best', 'highly recommend'), but the specificity of job types and scenarios described suggests these are likely genuine rather than fabricated.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review sample (9 reviews), the complete absence of any reviews from the past 5+ years, and the lack of any negative or critical feedback to balance the picture — prospective customers should seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.