Find Nearby Plumbers In Bellevue, Washington

Rodriguez Irrigation & Backflow Services demonstrates strong technical expertise and fair pricing, with the vast majority of reviewers praising Juan's knowledge, workmanship, and value for money. However, a persistent and well-documented pattern of communication failures — including unanswered calls, full voicemail boxes, unreturned emails, and at least two confirmed no-shows — significantly drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. This communication problem spans reviews from 2017 through 2024, indicating it is a chronic structural issue rather than an isolated incident. When Juan and his team do show up, the quality of work is consistently rated highly, but the barrier to actually engaging their services is a serious reliability concern. The WW Score reflects a contractor with genuine skill and fair pricing who is undermined by a recurring responsiveness problem that affects a meaningful minority of customers.

• CHRONIC COMMUNICATION FAILURE: At least 8 reviews across multiple years (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2023, 2024) explicitly report unanswered calls, full voicemail boxes, unreturned emails, and no-shows. This is not an isolated complaint — it is a documented pattern spanning 7+ years.
• CONFIRMED NO-SHOW: One reviewer (2023-08-01) scheduled an appointment 2 weeks in advance, rearranged work meetings, and received no call or callback after the contractor failed to appear.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent negative review (2024-10-05) still notes slow call returns, confirming the communication issue has not been resolved as of late 2024.
• REVIEW DATE SPREAD: Reviews span from 2010 to 2024. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) have been given reduced weight in scoring, as business practices and staffing may have changed. However, the communication problem appears consistently across all time periods.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating. Negative reviews are detailed and credible. No suspicious patterns of coordinated fake positive reviews were identified.
• SCORE SUPPRESSION APPLIED: Professionalism score was deliberately suppressed below the positive-review average due to the volume and consistency of communication-related complaints, per conservative scoring rules.

This WW Score is based on 43 reviews spanning 14 years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given the well-documented and unresolved communication and responsiveness issues that affect a significant subset of customers.

John at Covington Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions from every reviewer. His professionalism stands out particularly — multiple reviewers highlight his responsiveness, communication, punctuality, and willingness to go above and beyond, including a Sunday night visit and proactively identifying additional issues at a vacant property. Pricing is described as fair, reasonable, and competitive across five of six reviews, with one reviewer noting he saved them significant money compared to other quotes. Project completion is well-supported, with all jobs described as fully resolved and no mention of callbacks or abandoned work. His technical experience is reinforced by his ability to correctly diagnose problems others could not, and his transparent guidance to customers throughout the work. The primary caveat is that all reviews are between 5 and 12 years old, which meaningfully limits confidence in how representative this data is of his current service quality.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OUTDATED: The most recent review is from August 2019 — over 5 years ago. The oldest is from 2012. None fall within the past 12 months. This significantly reduces the reliability of the WW Score as a predictor of current performance.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE 5-STAR: While the reviews contain specific details and varied language that reduce the likelihood of fabrication, the absence of any critical or mixed feedback across 6 reviews warrants mild caution.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews were available. While all dimensions have data, the low total volume means a single negative experience could substantially shift the score.

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution — the underlying review data is specific and credible in content, but the complete absence of reviews from the past five years makes it an unreliable indicator of John Dennison's current service quality, availability, or pricing.

Prokash Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with consistent praise for friendly, courteous staff who communicate clearly and show pride in their work. Project completion is solid, with jobs finished on time and follow-up service honored without additional charges. Technical skill is evident in complex work including new construction plumbing. However, pricing is a significant concern: one review explicitly flagged a $70 diagnostic fee plus a $500 markup on an appliance, which the customer rejected. This pricing issue, though mentioned in only 2 reviews, substantially impacts the overall score.

• Pricing concern: One review (2022-10-31) explicitly criticizes high markups and diagnostic fees, suggesting potential overpricing practices. This is a material red flag despite limited mention count.
• Review recency: 3 of 6 reviews are from 2022 or earlier (over 2 years old). Only 2 reviews are from 2024. Older reviews may not reflect current pricing or service practices.
• Limited sample size: Only 6 reviews total limits confidence in overall assessment. More recent reviews would strengthen reliability.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While professionalism and project completion are well-supported by recent evidence, the pricing dimension is based on limited data and includes a significant negative incident that was not selected for service. The small sample size and age of some reviews reduce overall confidence.

Lonnie and Plumbing Works receive consistently strong praise across all four dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently highlighted trait — reviewers specifically note punctuality, courtesy, responsiveness, and respectful behavior in the home. Pricing is a clear strength, with one reviewer explicitly citing a $600 savings over a competitor and multiple others calling costs 'reasonable' or 'fair.' Project completion is well-supported, with jobs described as finished correctly and thoroughly, including one notable case where Lonnie corrected a prior plumber's faulty toilet installation. Experience is evidenced by references to licensed plumbers, quality materials, and effective problem-solving under pressure. However, the majority of reviews are significantly dated — most are from 2011 to 2017, with only one review from 2022 — which meaningfully limits confidence in how current this performance picture is.

• RECENCY WARNING: 7 of 8 reviews are more than 5 years old, and 6 of 8 are more than 9 years old. Only one review (2022) falls within the past 3 years. This score may not reflect current service quality.
• MILD PATTERN CONCERN: All 8 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback. While the reviews contain sufficient specific detail to appear genuine, the absence of any critical feedback across 8 reviews warrants mild caution.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW — Reviews contain specific names, dates, situational details, and varied writing styles, which reduces the likelihood of fabrication. No identical phrasing detected.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to strong per-dimension mention counts, but should be treated with caution given that the vast majority of reviews are outdated and no recent volume of feedback exists to confirm consistent current performance.

AA Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently friendly, responsive, and punctual service across multiple reviews. Project completion is reliable with jobs finished on time and follow-through honored. Technical competence is evident in diagnostic ability and workmanship quality. However, pricing is a significant concern—two separate reviews (2022 and 2015) explicitly flag substantially inflated estimates and final costs compared to market rates, suggesting either aggressive upselling or poor cost estimation. The company's strengths in service and execution are undermined by pricing practices that erode customer trust.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Two 1-star reviews (2022-12-08 and 2015-12-18) both cite dramatically overpriced estimates/invoices. The 2022 review documents a $1,600 quote for a $65 cartridge replacement; the 2015 review shows $600 charged vs. $250-300 market rate for the same work. This pattern suggests systemic pricing issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 11 reviews are older than 5 years (2012-2014). Only 3 reviews from past 3 years. Recent pricing complaints (2022, 2015) may reflect ongoing practice rather than isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Several older reviews (2012-2014) use nearly identical phrasing ('friendly,' 'on time,' 'would recommend') with minimal specifics. However, negative reviews contain detailed, credible narratives that offset this concern. Overall fake review risk is limited but present in the positive subset.

This score should be treated with caution. While professionalism and completion metrics are well-supported by multiple reviews, the pricing dimension is based on only 4 mentions with a clear pattern of customer dissatisfaction. The WW Score of 78.2 reflects genuine strengths in service delivery but is significantly dragged down by documented pricing practices that appear to exploit customer urgency or lack of knowledge. Prospective customers should obtain detailed, itemized quotes and compare with other providers before committing.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism, responsiveness, and technical competence, with multiple reviews praising quick callbacks, friendly demeanor, and skilled problem-solving. Project completion is consistently reliable with work finished promptly and follow-through honored. However, pricing is a significant concern: three reviews explicitly document bait-and-switch tactics, dramatic price increases from initial quotes ($100→$400, $150→$450, $500 final bill with undisclosed fees), and one $790 charge that was later refunded due to service failure. While the contractor shows integrity in refunding the failed job, the pattern of aggressive upselling and hidden charges substantially undermines trust and value perception.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Three separate reviews (2021-12-15, 2021-12-10, and 2021-03-03) document significant quote-to-invoice discrepancies and undisclosed charges. This suggests a systematic pricing practice issue rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2017–2020 (3–6 years old). The most recent negative reviews are from late 2021, suggesting potential deterioration in pricing practices over time.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2020 and 2017 contain generic praise with minimal specifics ('great work', 'great job', 'great personality') and all are 5-star. However, the 2021 negative reviews are highly detailed and credible, and the 2021-03-03 review (5-star) is detailed and acknowledges a real problem with transparent resolution, so overall fake review risk is LIMITED rather than HIGH.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: One review (2021-03-03) documents a complete service failure ($790 charge for ineffective work), though the contractor did refund. This suggests quality control issues.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism and completion metrics are strong (HIGH confidence), the pricing dimension is heavily weighted and shows a clear pattern of aggressive upselling that directly contradicts stated quotes. The contractor's integrity in refunding the failed job is commendable, but does not offset the systematic pricing concerns documented across multiple recent reviews. Prospective customers should obtain detailed written quotes and clarify all potential additional charges before engaging this contractor.