Find Nearby Plumbers In Las Vegas, Nevada

RC Handyman has a deeply polarized review profile: roughly half the reviews are glowing 5-star accounts praising quick response times, friendly demeanor, and solid workmanship on smaller jobs like garbage disposal and faucet installs, while the other half describe serious failures including sloppy carpentry, holes left in walls, backwards faucet installation, hidden charges, price changes after agreement, and unprofessional communication. Professionalism scores were dragged down significantly by multiple accounts of yelling at clients over the phone, a spouse hanging up on a customer, and failure to respond to follow-up texts about damage caused. Pricing received the lowest score due to recurring complaints about quotes changing mid-project, charges above quoted amounts, and one instance of a price jumping from $2K to $7K before being revised back down. Project completion suffered from multiple reviews describing unfinished cleanup, damaged walls left unaddressed, misaligned trim, and work that left the property in worse condition than before. Experience scores reflect a split between reviews praising 15 years of knowledge and efficient installs versus reviews documenting fundamental errors such as backwards faucet orientation and poor door frame and trim work.

• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Very nice guy to work with, he has good pricing too') with no specific job details, which may indicate low-effort or potentially inflated reviews.
• The 5-star reviews cluster heavily around mid-2023 and late 2022, while negative reviews are spread across the full date range, suggesting the positive cluster may warrant scrutiny.
• Multiple negative reviews describe the same pattern: work starting well then deteriorating, price changes after agreement, and no response to follow-up complaints — this consistency across unrelated reviewers adds credibility to the negative accounts.
• One reviewer (door frame job) appears to be the same customer referenced in the contractor's response in another review, suggesting a recurring dispute with at least one client over door/frame work quality.
• The contractor's public responses to negative reviews appear defensive and accusatory rather than solution-oriented, which is itself a professionalism concern noted across multiple review threads.

With 17 reviews and strong mention counts across all four dimensions, the WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence, but the extreme polarization of ratings means this score reflects a genuinely inconsistent contractor rather than a reliable average — results may vary significantly depending on job type and scope.

This contractor presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily penalized dimension: multiple reviews describe being ghosted after initial contact, a significant no-show incident that wasted a customer's time, an owner urinating on a customer's property during an estimate visit, and an owner becoming hostile when a customer sought competing quotes — these are severe, specific, and credible complaints that substantially drag the score down despite several positive reviews praising Wayne's communication and responsiveness. Pricing received moderate scores: most positive reviewers praised fair or affordable rates, but one reviewer explicitly accused the company of padding bills, which cannot be ignored. Project completion scores higher because the majority of reviews where work was actually performed describe jobs being seen through to completion, including a notable example of Wayne returning early and working until dark in summer heat to resolve a complicated situation — however, the pattern of ghosting and no-shows before work even begins is factored in as a completion risk. Experience scores well among customers who actually received service, with multiple reviewers citing specialized equipment, technical knowledge, and successful detection of difficult or non-obvious leaks.

• SERIOUS CONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer (1-star, 2021-01-13) explicitly states that owner Wayne urinated on their property during an estimate visit, and that his partner warned him about a camera which he acknowledged and ignored. This is a specific, detailed, and credible allegation of gross unprofessional conduct.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: At least three separate reviews (2021-02-12, 2021-08-23, 2022-06-21) describe being ghosted or receiving no callback after initial contact. This is a consistent and recurring pattern, not an isolated incident.
• HOSTILE CUSTOMER INTERACTION FLAG: One reviewer (2022-06-21) describes the owner becoming hostile and abandoning the job when the customer mentioned getting a competing quote — a significant red flag for consumer trust.
• BILLING CONCERN: One reviewer (2019-09-16) explicitly accuses the company of padding bills. While this is a single mention, it cannot be dismissed.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2021–2022) skew negative, while the strongest positive reviews are from 2016–2020. This suggests a possible decline in service quality or consistency over time. More recent data should be weighted more heavily.
• REVIEW SPREAD: The 14 reviews are split roughly 7 positive and 6 negative (with 1 mixed), which is an unusually high negative ratio and reinforces that the concerns raised are not outliers.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Positive reviews contain specific details (equipment used, meter readings, timelines, named individuals) that suggest authenticity. Negative reviews are similarly specific and credible.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews with a high volume of dimension-specific mentions, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the severity of conduct allegations, a clear pattern of responsiveness failures, and the fact that recent reviews trend more negative than older ones.

The Right Guys HVAC and Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile. While individual technicians (Serge, Edgar, Val, Egor, Ruslan, Jeremy, Louis) frequently demonstrate strong technical expertise and professionalism, systemic failures in project completion and organizational professionalism severely undermine overall reliability. The company suffers from chronic issues: no-shows and missed appointments (mentioned in 25+ reviews), poor communication and unresponsive phone lines (40+ reviews), incomplete repairs requiring multiple callbacks, and inconsistent follow-through on warranty claims. Pricing is generally fair when work is completed, but many customers report being pressured into unnecessary repairs or upsold services. The stark contrast between positive reviews praising individual technicians and overwhelmingly negative reviews citing organizational dysfunction suggests excellent field talent undermined by poor management, dispatch coordination, and customer service infrastructure.

• EXTREME REVIEW POLARIZATION: 40 five-star reviews vs. 45 one-star reviews with minimal middle ground. This pattern is consistent with a company where individual technician quality varies dramatically and organizational systems fail frequently.
• SYSTEMIC NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 25 reviews explicitly mention missed appointments, no-calls, or failure to show within scheduled windows. This is a critical reliability failure.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: 40+ reviews cite unresponsive phone lines, unreturned calls, lack of status updates, and dispatch failures. Multiple reviewers report being unable to reach the company during business hours.
• REPEATED INCOMPLETE REPAIRS: 20+ reviews describe jobs requiring multiple visits, parts not ordered, or repairs that failed shortly after completion, suggesting inadequate diagnostics or quality control.
• HOME WARRANTY CONFLICT PATTERN: Majority of negative reviews involve home warranty claims. Company appears to prioritize cash customers or may have systemic issues with warranty claim processing and communication.
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe improper installations (water heater straps not bolted, drainage pans missing, incorrect wiring, parts installed wrong), suggesting inadequate inspection and training.
• PRESSURE SALES TACTICS: Several reviews describe technicians recommending expensive replacements (compressors, entire units) that other companies later determined were unnecessary, raising concerns about diagnostic integrity.
• LANGUAGE/COMMUNICATION BARRIERS: 5+ reviews mention technicians with poor English proficiency and difficulty communicating, creating service quality and safety concerns.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While recent reviews (2024) show some improvement, the pattern of failures persists across the entire 4-year review period with no clear trend toward resolution.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: The extreme polarization and presence of highly generic praise ('awesome,' 'great job,' minimal detail) in some 5-star reviews alongside detailed negative reviews suggests possible review manipulation, though individual technician names and specific details in positive reviews provide some authenticity markers.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with caution despite HIGH confidence in the data: the score reflects a company in organizational crisis despite having skilled technicians. The HIGH confidence is based on 68-72 mentions per dimension, but the extreme polarization (45% one-star, 40% five-star) indicates this score masks a fundamentally unreliable company where success depends heavily on which technician is assigned and whether the job involves warranty claims. Customers seeking reliability should seek alternatives; those willing to gamble on getting a skilled technician and paying cash may have better outcomes, but the systemic failures in scheduling, communication, and follow-through represent unacceptable risk for most homeowners.

Budd's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is significantly undermined by multiple explicit complaints about unresponsiveness, failure to return calls, leaving job sites dirty with trash and human waste, cutting a sprinkler line without repair, and blaming the customer for plumbing failures — though several positive reviews do praise their friendliness and reliability. Pricing received both praise for fairness and sharp criticism, most notably one review documenting a price that was 50% higher than competitors and another describing a final bill that was triple the quoted estimate, which is a serious red flag. Project completion is similarly split: some customers report fast, complete work, while others describe abandoned cleanup, unrepaired damage caused during the job, and a leaking faucet that was not properly fixed even after a callback. Experience scores are dragged down by the triple-billing incident suggesting sons gave unauthorized estimates, the scratched porcelain, the unrepaired sprinkler line, and the years-long failure to diagnose a tree root blockage.

• Several positive reviews are vague and generic with no job-specific details (e.g., 'Great people to do business with', 'Always nice great company'), which reduces their evidentiary weight.
• One review (2015-06-17) is extremely detailed and describes multiple serious failures: unprofessional conduct, leaving human waste and debris, cutting a sprinkler line without repair, and poor communication — this is a high-credibility negative review.
• The 2018 two-star review documents a final bill that was TRIPLE the quoted estimate with no adequate explanation — this is a significant pricing integrity concern.
• Responsiveness failures are documented in at least two separate reviews (2020-01-02 and 2015-05-24), suggesting a recurring pattern of poor availability and call-back practices.
• Most reviews with strong detail are from 2015–2020. Only two reviews are from 2022 or later, limiting confidence in the current state of the business.
• One review entry (2015-10-30) contains only a period as text and a 3-star rating — this was treated as unusable data.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the cluster of generic 5-star reviews with no specifics warrants mild caution.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability: the review pool is small (13 total), spans nearly a decade with limited recent data, and contains a meaningful number of detailed negative reviews that credibly document recurring issues with professionalism, pricing transparency, and job completion quality.

Ideal Services exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile with significant systemic issues. While individual technicians (particularly Jaquel Powers, Anthony Green, Julio Bravo, Levi, and Dane) receive consistent praise for professionalism and technical competence, the company as a whole is plagued by aggressive upselling tactics, misdiagnosis, poor project follow-through, and unresponsive management. The pricing dimension is particularly problematic, with numerous complaints of inflated quotes, unnecessary modifications, and charges for work not performed. Project completion suffers from no-shows, missed appointments, incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, and failure to honor warranties. The company appears to systematically exploit home warranty customers and seniors through high-pressure sales tactics and dishonest assessments.

• CRITICAL: Pattern of predatory upselling—multiple reviews describe technicians recommending unnecessary replacements (toilets, AC units, water heaters, entire pipe systems) without proper diagnosis, then pressuring customers to pay out-of-pocket when warranty denies inflated claims.
• CRITICAL: Systematic misdiagnosis—numerous independent second opinions revealed technicians' initial assessments were completely wrong (e.g., shower caulking vs. pipe replacement, capacitor vs. new AC unit, loose receptacle vs. rewiring entire house).
• CRITICAL: Exploitation of vulnerable populations—multiple reviews explicitly state technicians targeted seniors and customers with medical emergencies (93-year-old mother, newborn in house, respiratory issues) to pressure quick decisions.
• CRITICAL: No-show and scheduling failures—at least 12 reviews document missed appointments, no-call/no-shows, rescheduling delays of weeks, and poor dispatcher communication.
• CRITICAL: Warranty denial scheme—pattern where company charges customers for 'modifications' or 'non-covered work' that warranty denies, forcing out-of-pocket payments for work that should be covered.
• CRITICAL: Refusal to honor warranties and callbacks—multiple reviews state company refuses to return for warranty work, denies responsibility for failed repairs, or demands additional payment for fixes.
• CRITICAL: Dishonest billing practices—charges for services not rendered, inflated parts costs (e.g., $160 flex line that costs $10, $250 for $15 part), unexplained fees, and refusal to provide itemized invoices.
• CRITICAL: Potential safety hazards—one review documents blower motor wired incorrectly that caught fire in attic; another describes cut wires from previous installation causing electrical arcs.
• CRITICAL: Aggressive pressure tactics—multiple reviews describe technicians pressuring customers to sign blank work orders, demanding payment before work completion, and refusing to leave until payment received.
• CRITICAL: Management unresponsiveness—numerous reviews state management refuses to return calls, emails, or address complaints; one owner allegedly said 'remember this, it's tit for tat' and hung up.
• CRITICAL: Inconsistent quality by technician—stark contrast between highly-rated individual technicians and company-wide systemic failures suggests quality control and management issues rather than isolated bad actors.
• MODERATE: Potential fake review pattern—several 5-star reviews from 2025 are extremely generic ('amazing assistance,' 'great service') with minimal detail, though most positive reviews do contain specific technician names and details.
• MODERATE: Home warranty bias—company appears to operate differently for warranty vs. private-pay customers, with warranty customers receiving worse service and higher pressure to pay out-of-pocket.
• MODERATE: Recency concern—while recent reviews (2025) show same patterns as older reviews, suggesting systemic issues persist, some very old reviews (2016-2017) may reflect different management/operations.

This WW Score of 52.3 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 48-71 mentions each) and reflects a company with severe systemic problems including predatory business practices, chronic misdiagnosis, poor project completion, and unresponsive management, despite occasional excellent individual technician performance. The score should be trusted as an accurate representation of customer risk.

Goettl exhibits a stark divide between individual technician performance and systemic business practices. While technicians frequently demonstrate professionalism, knowledge, and courteous behavior (72.5/100), the company is severely undermined by pervasive pricing concerns (28.0/100), with dozens of reviews documenting egregious overcharges, misleading quotes, and aggressive upselling tactics. Project completion issues (58.5/100) include missed appointments, cancellations, poor follow-through on repairs, and unresolved callbacks. The company's experience level is solid (71.0/100), but this technical competence is overshadowed by business practices that customers perceive as predatory, particularly toward elderly and vulnerable populations.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing abuse pattern — 52 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, with quotes 2-10x higher than competitors for identical work. Examples: $18,000 quote vs. $268.75 competitor fix; $5,000+ water heater quotes vs. $600-900 market rate; $1,234 drain cleaning vs. $200 competitor resolution.
• CRITICAL: Deceptive diagnostic practices — Multiple reviews report technicians recommending unnecessary repairs, providing false information about warranties, and using scare tactics with fabricated photos to justify upsells.
• HIGH: Appointment reliability failure — At least 15 reviews document no-shows, cancellations with minimal notice, rescheduling without customer consent, and failure to honor promised time windows.
• HIGH: Post-sale service breakdown — Numerous reports of unresponsive management, ignored callback requests, ghosting customers, and refusal to honor warranty claims or service agreements.
• HIGH: Quality control inconsistency — Same customer reports vastly different service quality between technicians and locations; some installations have electrical/safety code violations.
• MODERATE: Potential fake review pattern — Approximately 25-30 reviews contain generic praise with minimal specifics, identical phrasing ('very professional,' 'knowledgeable,' 'friendly'), and suspiciously clustered 5-star ratings from June 2025 with no detail. These appear concentrated in recent dates and lack substantive information.
• MODERATE: Commission-driven sales behavior — Multiple reviews describe technicians using high-pressure tactics, standing over customers demanding 5-star reviews, and refusing to disclose labor rate breakdowns.
• MODERATE: Membership/contract entrapment — Reports of $89-$120 cancellation fees not disclosed at signup, automatic billing continuation despite cancellation requests, and promised discounts not applied.
• LOW: Safety/installation defects — Isolated reports of improper electrical work, missing wire nuts, unsealed disconnects, and roof damage from poor installation practices.

This WW Score of 52.3 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 35+ mentions each) and reflects a company with competent individual technicians undermined by predatory corporate pricing, systematic deception, and poor operational execution. The score accurately captures customer sentiment: Goettl is trusted for technical skill but distrusted for honesty and value. The prevalence of pricing complaints (52 mentions) and project completion failures (35 mentions) across a large, recent review set (most from 2024-2025) indicates these are systemic, not isolated, issues. Customers consistently report feeling scammed despite acknowledging technician professionalism, suggesting the problem lies in management, pricing strategy, and sales practices rather than field-level competence.