Find Nearby Plumbers In Everett, Washington

TCP demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Project completion is critically weak, with multiple reviews documenting incomplete work, no-shows, and failure to follow up on promised corrections—including a major HVAC installation that was dangerously mis-wired and cost the customer $2,000 to repair. Professionalism is compromised by poor communication, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and documented instances of hanging up on customers. While one review praises cost savings, three reviews document serious quality and accountability failures. The company's responsiveness and follow-through have deteriorated significantly over time, with recent reviews (2014–2015) showing no improvement.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document incomplete work and failure to honor callbacks. Review from 2015-01-08 describes dangerous HVAC mis-wiring and refusal to take responsibility; review from 2014-12-04 documents 3-month communication failure and a no-show appointment; review from 2014-11-09 explicitly states promises were made but not followed up on.
• All negative reviews (3 of 4) are from 2014–2015; one positive review is from 2013. This suggests a pattern of deterioration or systemic issues that emerged or worsened over time.
• The single 5-star review (2013) is generic and lacks specific detail about the work performed, while the three 1-star reviews are highly specific and detailed about failures.
• All reviews are older than 9 years; recency data is insufficient to assess current performance.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews) and age of all reviews (9+ years old), but the consistency and specificity of documented failures across three independent reviews provides LIMITED-to-MODERATE confidence that TCP has serious systemic issues with project completion and professionalism.

This analysis reveals a severely problematic contractor with critical failures in payment practices and follow-up communication. Five of six reviews explicitly document non-payment or extreme payment delays (65+ days overdue), with one case involving a disabled veteran allegedly denied a $2,650 refund. While one review praises professionalism and communication, it directly contradicts the pattern established by five other reviews describing immediate communication breakdown post-completion. The overwhelming evidence suggests systematic non-payment issues that constitute a fundamental breach of business integrity, making this contractor unreliable regardless of initial work quality.

• CRITICAL: Five of six reviews document payment non-compliance, non-responsiveness after work completion, and alleged refusal to refund overpayments. This is a systemic business practice issue, not isolated incidents.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: The single 5-star review (2019-09-15) uses generic praise language ('true pleasure to work with', 'covered for any of your needs') with no specific project details, while all negative reviews provide concrete evidence (payment delays, specific dollar amounts, timeframes). This suggests the positive review may be inauthentic or from a different business entity.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 3-5+ years old (2018-2021), but the pattern of non-payment complaints is consistent across the entire timeline, suggesting this is an ongoing business model rather than a temporary issue.
• LEGAL/ETHICAL RED FLAG: One review explicitly mentions reporting to Washington State Attorney General's office regarding alleged refusal to refund a disabled veteran. This indicates potential regulatory action.
• CONTRACTOR PERSPECTIVE: Multiple reviews are from service providers/contractors who performed work for properties managed by this company, not end consumers. This suggests the company may be a property management or commercial entity with a pattern of vendor non-payment.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to the fundamental nature of the data: five of six reviews document payment non-compliance and communication breakdown, which are disqualifying factors that transcend dimensional scoring. The WW Score methodology assumes normal business operations; this contractor exhibits patterns suggesting systematic non-payment practices that make any dimensional score misleading. Trust in this assessment is HIGH due to consistency of evidence across multiple independent reviewers over years, but the recommendation is unambiguous: do not engage with this contractor.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. Both reviews explicitly document severe failures in professionalism (rude customer service, missed appointment confirmation, lack of supervisor follow-up) and project completion (appointment rescheduled by one week without adequate notice, technician arrived 3 hours late). No data available on pricing or technical experience. The extreme recency of both reviews (January 2024) and consistent pattern of service failures suggest systemic operational issues.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURES: Both reviews document severe appointment management failures and unprofessional customer service interactions.
• NO PRICING DATA: Neither review mentions pricing, value, or cost-related factors.
• NO EXPERIENCE DATA: Neither review discusses technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from January 2024 (same month, consecutive days). Cannot assess trend over time.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required). The available data strongly suggests serious operational and customer service problems, but scoring is not statistically valid.

Both reviews are strongly negative and describe serious failures across multiple dimensions. The first review explicitly describes a contractor who promised to help but never followed up, causing a two-week delay and significant financial harm to a customer in a desperate situation — a clear professionalism failure. The second review describes destroyed deck and railing work so poor that another contractor had to be hired to repair it, with the original contractor refusing to reimburse the customer — indicating severe failures in both workmanship and project completion. No pricing information was mentioned in either review, so that dimension cannot be scored. With only two reviews available, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated, but the available evidence paints a deeply concerning picture.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 1-star with serious, specific complaints — no positive reviews exist in this dataset to balance the assessment.
• Review 2 describes work so defective it required paid remediation by a third party, and the contractor declined to reimburse — a potential legal and ethical red flag.
• Review 1 describes a contractor who made a commitment and then went completely unresponsive, causing measurable financial harm to the customer.
• No fake review concerns detected — both reviews contain specific, credible details consistent with genuine negative experiences.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, which is below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score; however, both reviews are highly specific and credible, and the pattern of complaints — abandoned communication, defective workmanship, and refusal to make things right — should be treated as a serious warning signal for any prospective customer.

Both reviews speak positively about Ted's professionalism, with one reviewer explicitly praising his punctuality and pleasant demeanor, and the other noting his focused and non-pushy approach. Project completion is supported by references to passing inspections on the first attempt and delivering work on time. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where it is described as fair and reasonable, limiting confidence in that dimension. Technical experience is implied through the complexity of a commercial aquarium plumbing job and a bathroom and kitchen remodel, but with only two reviews total, all scores must be treated with significant caution.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• One review dates from 2013 (over 10 years old) and should be weighted very lightly relative to more recent data.
• The most recent review is from 2018, meaning no reviews exist from the past several years — recency of feedback is a significant concern.
• Both reviews are 4–5 stars with no negative feedback; while not conclusively fake, the small sample size prevents meaningful pattern analysis for fake review detection.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, one of which is over a decade old, making it insufficient to reliably assess current contractor performance — treat all dimension scores as preliminary indicators only.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The reviews present sharply contradictory evidence: one 1-star review documents severe professionalism failures (lateness, lack of shoe covers, refusal to clean up damage), while one 5-star review praises punctuality and work quality. No pricing information was mentioned in either review. The extreme polarity and minimal sample size make any aggregate score unreliable.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable scoring
• EXTREME POLARITY: Reviews are contradictory (1-star vs 5-star) with no middle ground, suggesting either highly variable service or potential data quality issues
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are older than 12 months (June 2023 and March 2022); no recent performance data available
• GENERIC PRAISE: The 5-star review uses vague language ('great service', 'well done', 'dependable') without specific details, limiting confidence
• PROFESSIONALISM CONFLICT: One review explicitly documents unprofessional behavior (lateness, refusal to clean); the other claims punctuality — cannot reconcile without more data

This score cannot be calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and extreme contradictory evidence that suggests either inconsistent service quality or data reliability concerns; additional recent reviews are essential before making any business decision.