Find Nearby Plumbers In Las Vegas, Nevada

Rants Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and also the most damaging: numerous reviews across multiple years describe rude technicians, failure to return calls, no-call no-shows, and dismissive or hostile behavior toward female homeowners and elderly customers — dragging the score well below average despite a meaningful number of positive mentions praising responsiveness and courtesy. Pricing scores moderately, with several reviewers praising fair and honest pricing, but offset by credible complaints of overbilling, charging for work not performed, and hidden labor charges. Project completion is mixed: many positive reviews describe same-day or next-day service and completed jobs, but recurring complaints about no-shows, abandoned appointments, unresolved callbacks, and at least one serious safety/code violation incident lower the score significantly. Experience similarly splits between genuine praise for skilled, knowledgeable technicians like Michael and Danny, and serious negative accounts including a dropped and broken toilet, an improperly installed disposal, and a dangerous electrical disconnect wiring failure. The volume and specificity of negative reviews across a long time span prevent this contractor from scoring in the upper range on any dimension.

• 10 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One review (2024-06-09, 1-star) explicitly states the reviewer has never used the business and is complaining about a personal confrontation in a park. This review was excluded from all dimension scoring as it does not reflect service quality.
• One review (2017-09-21, 5-star) consists entirely of dots/periods with no content. Excluded from scoring.
• One review (2014-02-03, 5-star) states 'I know the Rants Family' — this may reflect a personal relationship rather than an objective customer experience and should be treated with caution.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2022-2024 are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Honest!!!', 'Quick and efficient', 'Michael was great! Very nice and tidy') with no specific detail. While not conclusively fake, their low specificity limits their evidentiary weight.
• A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 includes both strongly positive and strongly negative reviews, suggesting a possible review solicitation or review bombing event around that date.
• The majority of reviews older than 2020 carry reduced weight per recency rules. However, negative patterns (rudeness, no-shows, overbilling) appear consistently across all time periods including 2024 and 2025, indicating these are not isolated historical issues.
• The most recent reviews (2025) are both 1-star complaints about attitude and unprofessionalism, which is a concerning recency signal.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the persistent and specific nature of negative reviews spanning over a decade through to 2025, suggesting systemic rather than isolated service quality issues.

The majority of reviews are highly positive, praising individual technicians by name for punctuality, friendliness, and competence across plumbing and HVAC services. However, a significant cluster of 1-star reviews — nearly all from 2023–2024 — describes a consistent and serious pattern of predatory 'modification' upselling through home warranty jobs, with quoted out-of-pocket costs ranging from $675 to $860 for items reviewers allege were unnecessary or never performed. Multiple negative reviewers also report complete failure to return calls, being charged in advance without service delivery, and one reviewer filed a complaint with the Nevada Contractors Board. These negative reviews substantially drag down the Pricing and Project Completion scores. The positive reviews, while numerous, show several red flags including duplicate entries and generic phrasing that reduce their reliability.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two pairs of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates — 'Aaron' review (2022-08-09) and 'Chance' review (2022-06-30) each appear twice with identical text. These duplicates were counted only once per unique review for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A large number of 5-star reviews are very brief, generic, or contain no specific detail (e.g., 'He was Great!', 'Excellent Service', 'Robert is excellent!'). Several blank reviews with 5-star ratings were also submitted. This pattern is consistent with inflated review profiles.
• SYSTEMATIC PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: At least 8 independent 1-star reviews describe an identical scheme — contractors assigned via home warranty companies quote $675–$860 in 'modifications' for water heater replacements that reviewers and independent plumbers confirm were unnecessary or not performed. This is a recurring, documented business practice, not isolated incidents.
• NON-PAYMENT AND ABANDONMENT COMPLAINTS: At least two reviewers report being charged in advance with no service delivered, phones going unanswered, and one reviewer had to hire a separate contractor to complete the job. One reviewer filed a formal complaint with the Nevada Contractors Board.
• RECENCY NOTE: All negative reviews are dated between April 2023 and August 2024. The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) are exclusively 5-star. This could indicate a genuine improvement in service, or it may reflect suppression of negative reviews or an influx of solicited positive reviews.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS with 5-star ratings were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable data.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-low reliability due to a clear bifurcation in the review pool: a large volume of generic or potentially solicited 5-star reviews conflicts sharply with a well-documented pattern of pricing misconduct and service failures described in detail across multiple independent 1-star reviews — consumers should weigh the negative reviews heavily given their specificity and consistency.

This contractor shows mixed signals across a very small sample. Professionalism is supported by positive customer service recovery and willingness to travel for work, but pricing is a significant concern with one review citing rates substantially above market ($475 vs. $75-$100 for faucet service). Project completion data is minimal with only one explicit mention of work being completed. The sample size of 3 reviews is insufficient to establish reliable patterns, and no technical skill or workmanship quality is discussed in any review.

• Sample size is very small (n=3) — confidence in any score is inherently limited
• No reviews mention technical skill, workmanship quality, or experience level
• Pricing complaint is specific and detailed, suggesting legitimate concern rather than fake review
• One review (Danny/Las Vegas) lacks specifics about actual work performed — only mentions 'great price' without context
• All reviews are from 2024 (recent), which is positive for recency

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews). The score reflects mixed feedback on pricing and customer service, but insufficient data exists to assess technical competence or project completion reliability. Additional reviews are needed before making a confident contractor selection decision.

OSP Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile. Positive reviews frequently praise individual technicians — particularly Matt, Danny, Jason, and Jeremy — for punctuality, courtesy, and technical competence, driving scores upward in professionalism and experience. However, a substantial volume of negative reviews documents serious recurring issues: misdiagnosis across multiple visits, abandoned or incomplete work, rude staff interactions (including one incident involving a racial slur and another involving profanity directed at a customer), and opaque or inflated pricing practices. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing jobs left unfinished, repeated return visits that failed to resolve issues, and at least two cases where the company refused to complete work after payment disputes. Pricing concerns are significant, with multiple reviewers citing overquoting, demands for upfront cash payment, refusal to provide itemized invoices, and at least one case where a quoted repair was completed by another plumber for a fraction of the cost.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A notable cluster of 5-star reviews use generic, non-specific praise with no job details, technician names, or unique circumstances. Several are very short and formulaic. This pattern is consistent with potential review padding and reduces confidence in the upper end of positive scores.
• STAFF CONDUCT — SEVERE: One review credibly describes a technician using a racial slur ('f***ing Hispanics') upon leaving a customer's home. Another review describes a staff member on the phone using profanity ('stop f***ing calling') directed at a customer. A third describes a technician aggressively charging toward a customer's daughter in a threatening manner. These are serious conduct flags.
• REPEATED MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe technicians misdiagnosing plumbing issues, requiring 2–4 return visits, and in several cases still failing to resolve the problem. This is a systemic quality concern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 3 reviews explicitly describe OSP leaving jobs unfinished — including a water heater installation abandoned mid-job, pipe repair with holes left unpatched, and a toilet repair requiring a month and multiple visits with no resolution.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews cite demands for upfront cash payment, refusal to provide itemized invoices ('blanket invoice only'), and quotes significantly higher than competitors for identical work. One reviewer was quoted $750 for a repair completed by another plumber for $150.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Several negative reviewers report being unable to reach management, being told the owner never takes customer calls, and receiving dismissive or combative responses from office staff when raising legitimate complaints.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2018 to October 2024. The most recent reviews (2024) include both strong positives and a highly detailed, severe negative (the James B. review from October 2024), suggesting the mixed pattern is ongoing and not improving significantly over time.
• REVIEW DATE WEIGHTING: Reviews from the past 12 months (October 2023 – October 2024) include 8 five-star reviews and 5 one-star reviews, indicating the polarized pattern persists into the most recent period.

This WW Score of 58.7 is based on a large review set (72 reviews) and carries HIGH data confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible evidence of fake review inflation among 5-star submissions, a documented pattern of misdiagnosis and incomplete work, and multiple serious staff conduct incidents that suggest systemic rather than isolated service failures.

5 Star Home Services presents a deeply polarized review profile: a substantial cluster of glowing 5-star reviews praising individual technicians like Art, Argo, Enrique, Rafi, and Robert by name, contrasted sharply with a large volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing rude office staff, abandoned jobs, dishonest diagnoses, inflated pricing, and failure to complete work. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by repeated complaints about rude receptionists, dismissive technicians, and poor communication — even as many positive reviews cite friendly and courteous techs. Project completion is a major liability, with multiple reviewers describing jobs left unfinished, technicians who failed to return, incorrect diagnoses repeated across multiple visits, and paperwork deliberately withheld from home warranty companies. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous explicit accounts of inflated out-of-pocket charges, refusal to refund overcharges, and pressure tactics — offset only modestly by a handful of reviews calling pricing fair or reasonable. Experience scores reflect a split between genuinely skilled technicians praised for solving difficult problems and technicians described as incompetent, uneducated, or deliberately negligent.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A notable cluster of 5-star reviews from April 2025 share near-identical posting dates (2025-04-09), are extremely brief, and lack specific detail — multiple one-liners like 'Rafi did an excellent job' and 'Thank you! You fixed it right!' posted on the same date raise suspicion of coordinated or incentivized reviews. Confidence in the positive review cluster is reduced accordingly.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 5 reviews contained no text and only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2020 through 2024 and are well-represented in recent months, indicating persistent systemic issues rather than isolated historical problems. Positive reviews are also recent, suggesting the company may have improved individual technician quality while office and business practice issues remain unresolved.
• PATTERN OF HOME WARRANTY MANIPULATION: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly allege that 5 Star Home Services misrepresents findings to home warranty companies (AHS, Fidelity National, Choice Warranty) to deny claims, collect service fees without completing work, or upsell out-of-pocket charges. This is a serious and recurring pattern that materially impacts trustworthiness.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least 3 reviews describe technicians or the company failing to return after an initial visit, with no follow-up communication — a direct and severe project completion failure.
• RUDE OFFICE STAFF: At least 6 independent reviews specifically call out the receptionist or office coordinator as rude, dismissive, or unprofessional — this is a consistent and credible pattern.
• PRICING PRESSURE TACTICS: One reviewer describes a technician using high-pressure language ('if you don't fix it today it'll cost three times as much tomorrow') and submitting an inflated estimate. Another describes being told a repair would require extensive work when a competitor fixed it for $60 in parts. These are red flags for predatory pricing practices.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (110 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given strong evidence of fake or coordinated positive reviews, a persistent pattern of alleged dishonest business practices, and a bimodal distribution that suggests the company's quality is highly dependent on which technician is assigned and whether the job involves home warranty billing.

American Leak Detection presents a deeply polarized review profile: a core of highly positive experiences centered on specific named technicians (Rob, Juan, Matua, Joey, Clint) contrasted sharply with a substantial volume of negative reviews citing misdiagnosis, no-shows, rude office staff, and billing disputes. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by repeated complaints about technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments without timely notification, rude office staff interactions, and unprofessional conduct in the field. Pricing scores are among the lowest dimensions, with multiple reviewers describing bait-and-switch tactics, inflated quotes, charges for failed detections, and fees jumping well above phone estimates. Project completion is severely impacted by recurring reports of incorrect leak diagnoses leading to costly unnecessary work, repairs that failed within days or weeks, abandoned follow-through, and a notably short 30-day warranty that several customers found inadequate. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are offset by a meaningful number of reviews where technicians failed to locate leaks that were subsequently found by others, applied incorrect fixes, or lacked the equipment needed for the job.

• One review carries a 5-star rating but contains entirely negative content describing a technician who arrived briefly, gave no useful service, and left without completing basic steps — this rating is inconsistent with the review text and was treated as a 1-star negative review for scoring purposes.
• One review (2024-09-09) contains no text whatsoever and was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data.
• A notable cluster of 5-star reviews from 2015–2019 are heavily focused on a single technician named Rob, with very similar praise patterns (professional, found leak quickly, honest, no charge or low charge). While individually plausible, the concentration and similarity of language warrants mild caution, though these were not excluded.
• Several reviews reference the company potentially having been bought out or under new ownership, with one reviewer explicitly stating the company 'used to have a good reputation but they got bought out.' This suggests possible quality degradation over time and reduces the reliability of older positive reviews.
• Recency note: The majority of strongly positive reviews are from 2015–2019. Reviews from 2022 onward skew significantly more negative, suggesting a meaningful decline in service quality in recent years. More recent reviews (2022–2025) were weighted more heavily in scoring.
• Multiple reviews describe a pattern of charging for leak detection even when no leak is found, quoting low prices by phone then significantly increasing fees on-site, and withholding reports — this constitutes a systemic business practice concern beyond individual technician performance.
• At least two reviews describe forged signatures or threats of liens without ever sending a bill, which if accurate represent serious legal and ethical violations.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 2014–2025 and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but the score should be interpreted with caution given the strong recency trend toward negative experiences, credible allegations of systemic billing misconduct, and significant variance in quality that appears heavily dependent on which specific technician is assigned.