Find Nearby Plumbers In Everett, Washington

Total Plumbing Solutions demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship quality, with multiple reviews praising knowledgeable technicians and effective problem-solving. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by documented instances of poor owner communication, dismissive attitudes toward customer concerns, and unprofessional phone handling. Project completion shows mixed results with some callbacks not honored promptly and incomplete initial work requiring follow-up. Pricing concerns emerge in multiple reviews citing unexpected charges, inadequate explanations for costs, and billing disputes. The company's performance is inconsistent across different technicians and situations.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Three 5-star reviews submitted on identical date (2023-03-29) within 20 minutes of each other with suspiciously generic praise and minimal specifics. First review explicitly alleges these were posted in response to a 1-star review, suggesting coordinated fake review activity.
• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: 2022-02-09 review documents use of water couplings instead of flared gas couplings on propane line repair, creating fire/explosion hazard. Propane line was also pinched between electrical and water conduit. This represents potential code violation and safety risk.
• OWNER CONDUCT ISSUES: Multiple reviews (2022-02-09, 2021-02-26, 2019-04-20) document unprofessional owner behavior including dismissiveness, refusal to listen to customer concerns, and poor communication. Owner Joe Gillespie accused customer of seeking free service rather than addressing legitimate warranty concerns.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews document incomplete repairs requiring callbacks (2021-09-16, 2020-07-21) and inadequate initial diagnostics.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews cite unexpected charges, inadequate explanations, and disputes over labor billing (2021-09-22, 2020-07-21).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2018-2019 and 2021. Recent reviews (2022-2023) show more critical feedback, suggesting potential service quality decline.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 72.8 appears moderate, the underlying data is compromised by suspected fake reviews (3 coordinated 5-star reviews on same date), serious documented safety violations, and a clear pattern of owner unprofessionalism that contradicts positive technician feedback. The company demonstrates technical capability but significant reliability and integrity concerns that make this score less trustworthy than the confidence level suggests. Customers should independently verify recent performance and consider the documented safety incident before engaging this company.

Gabelein Brothers demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally reliable project completion, with multiple customers praising their knowledge and ability to handle complex septic work. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by two detailed accounts of abusive, aggressive behavior from the proprietor Rod—including price-gouging allegations ($2,600 for incomplete work) and hostile phone interactions. While older reviews (2015–2019) are consistently positive, the two most recent negative reviews (2021–2022) suggest a pattern of inconsistent customer treatment and serious pricing concerns that cannot be ignored. The company's responsiveness and willingness to work on short notice are strengths, but interpersonal conduct and transparency remain major liabilities.

• CRITICAL: Two detailed, credible negative reviews (2021 and 2017) describe abusive behavior and price-gouging by proprietor Rod. The 2021 review documents incomplete work ($1,500 initial charge, $1,100 follow-up for incomplete job = $2,600 total) and poor communication about additional charges. The 2017 review describes Rod hanging up after profanity when losing a contract.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 3–5+ years old (2015–2019). The two most recent reviews (2021–2022) are both negative, suggesting potential deterioration in service quality or customer relations over time.
• CONSISTENCY ISSUE: Stark contrast between glowing older reviews and recent negative experiences suggests either inconsistent service delivery or a change in business practices/management.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Only 3 mentions of pricing, but both explicit mentions are highly negative (price-gouging, $2,600 for incomplete septic work). No positive pricing feedback in any review.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While technical competence appears solid (HIGH confidence), the professionalism dimension is severely compromised by credible accounts of abusive conduct and the pricing dimension is based on limited but damaging evidence. The recency of negative reviews and absence of recent positive feedback suggest the company's current reliability may be lower than historical averages. Prospective customers should weigh the strong older testimonials against the serious recent complaints and request clear, written pricing agreements upfront.

Bryant Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, courteous staff, fair pricing, and solid technical work across a wide range of plumbing tasks. However, three serious negative reviews meaningfully drag down the scores: one describes a catastrophic failure where water was turned back on without identifying the source of a leak, causing major structural flooding damage; another describes a job left incomplete with no follow-up communication, leaving the customer without functioning plumbing for days; and a third alleges price gouging and unnecessary work performed on a vulnerable senior citizen. These are not minor complaints — they describe fundamental failures in professionalism, project completion, and ethical conduct. The positive reviews span many years and include some with very little detail, which limits their evidentiary weight. Scores have been conservatively adjusted to reflect the severity and credibility of the negative incidents.

• Two reviews (2018-11-08 and 2018-11-10) are not plumbing reviews at all — they describe employees helping someone with a boat trailer. These provide no usable data on any scored dimension and were excluded from scoring.
• Several reviews contain no substantive detail (e.g., 'Bryant Plumbing is excellent. I love it.', 'OVERALL I THOUGHT WORK WAS FINE.', '.', 'unknown') and were treated as low-value or excluded from dimension scoring.
• The review corpus spans from 2004 to 2021. The majority of reviews are older than 3 years relative to the most recent review date (2021-11-23), and only 3 reviews are from 2020 or later. Recency weighting reduces confidence in the overall picture.
• The most recent review (2021-11-23, 1-star) describes a severe incident — water turned back on without identifying a broken main, causing flooding and foundation damage. This is the most recent data point and carries elevated weight under recency rules.
• The 1-star review from 2019-01-20 describes a job abandoned mid-service with no callback, leaving the customer without usable plumbing. This is a direct and credible project completion failure.
• The 1-star review from 2016-01-27 alleges financial exploitation of a senior citizen, which is a serious ethical and professionalism concern.
• Some 5-star reviews use generic praise without specifics, which slightly raises concern about authenticity, though most positive reviews do include enough detail to be considered credible. No strong fake review pattern detected, but caution is warranted given the volume of brief or vague entries.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the volume of reviews is reasonable and most dimensions have HIGH mention counts, but the wide date range (2004–2021), the presence of three serious and credible negative reviews, and a significant number of low-detail positive reviews mean the score should be interpreted cautiously — particularly given that the most recent review describes a severe service failure.

Two of the three reviews speak positively about the contractor's professionalism, highlighting patience, kindness, and responsiveness in difficult situations. The one detailed review from 2013 describes a job that was ultimately completed successfully, with the plumber diagnosing a complex legacy construction issue, though the work required coordination with a third party to fully resolve. Pricing received a strongly negative signal from one reviewer who complained about inflated rate increases, pulling that dimension down significantly. All dimensions are based on only one or two mentions, so every score carries very low confidence and should be interpreted with caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as highly unreliable.
• One review is from 2013 (over 10 years old) and carries significantly reduced relevance under recency weighting rules.
• The negative pricing review lacks specifics about the contractor's own quoted prices versus a utility rate increase — it is ambiguous whether this reflects the plumber's pricing or a water utility's billing, which may mean the pricing score is based on a misattributed complaint.
• No patterns of fake reviews detected, but the extremely small sample size makes any pattern analysis meaningless.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, one of which is over a decade old, making the overall score highly unreliable and insufficient to draw confident conclusions about this contractor's current performance.

Shannon Heights Heating demonstrates solid professionalism with fast, clean, and polite service noted in recent work. However, a significant project completion issue is evident: one customer reported 98% completion with an unfulfilled promise to install vents in a cold air return, with no follow-up for 3 months despite assurance of a 2-day callback. Technical competence appears adequate based on customer statements about their knowledge. The score is heavily constrained by very limited mention counts across all dimensions and the presence of a critical follow-through failure that contradicts the overall positive sentiment.

• Only 3 of 4 reviews contain usable data; one review is marked 'unknown' with no text content
• Severe recency bias: most reviews are 9-15 years old (2009-2011); only 1 recent review from 2024
• Critical project completion failure documented: promised callback in 2 days never occurred over 3-month period, undermining reliability despite customer willingness to use again
• Generic praise in 2011 review ('really knows what they are doing') lacks specific evidence and is too old to be reliable
• Mention counts are very low (2 per dimension maximum), resulting in LIMITED confidence across all scored dimensions

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to minimal data volume (only 3 usable reviews), extremely limited mention counts per dimension, and heavy reliance on reviews older than a decade; the single recent review is positive but insufficient to override concerns about the documented project completion failure and lack of callback follow-through.

Four of five reviews describe positive experiences with Brandon's Family Plumbing, highlighting prompt response times, polite and professional technicians, and successful completion of urgent jobs such as a burst main line and a major sewer backup. However, one detailed 1-star review from October 2023 makes serious allegations of attempted insurance fraud and bullying behavior, which significantly tempers the otherwise positive picture. This negative review is specific, named, and recent, and cannot be dismissed as a generic complaint. Pricing was not mentioned in any review, so that dimension carries no data. The overall score reflects a business with apparent operational competence but a meaningful unresolved credibility concern.

• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One reviewer (1-star, Oct 2023) makes specific claims that Brandon attempted to coerce them into committing insurance fraud and that he was removed from a prior business partnership as a result. This is a named, detailed, and recent accusation that warrants serious consideration.
• CREDIBILITY CONCERN: The negative reviewer claims to have reported Brandon to insurance companies and directs potential customers to verify the claims through another business's review history. This level of specificity increases the plausibility of the allegation.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 5 reviews total were analyzed. This is an extremely small sample size and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for confident decision-making.
• RECENCY NOTE: All five reviews fall between late 2022 and late 2023, so recency weighting does not significantly differentiate them. The most recent negative review (Oct 2023) is among the latest in the set.
• NO PRICING DATA: Not a single review mentions cost, quotes, or value for money. The pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review sample (5 reviews), the presence of a serious and specific fraud allegation in the most recent negative review, and the complete absence of pricing data — potential customers should conduct additional independent research before hiring.