Find Nearby Plumbers In Kennewick, Washington

Precision Plumbing receives strong praise across professionalism, with many reviewers citing punctuality, responsiveness, and friendly attitudes as consistent strengths. However, there are notable negative reviews that meaningfully drag down scores: one customer was charged $1,000 just for water heater removal with poor communication about the reason, another was left with an unresolved clog after paying $600 and was quoted an additional $375 to finish the job, one customer reported recurring plumbing failures in a new home, and one reviewer described rude and sarcastic treatment over the phone. Project completion is also tempered by a case where a wrong tank was installed (though corrected at no charge) and a water hammer issue that was not resolved after $300+ in charges. Pricing scores are pulled down significantly by the $1,000 removal charge complaint and the unresolved $300 repair, despite many reviewers praising fair or reasonable pricing. Experience scores reflect genuine skill noted by many customers but are moderated by the instances of misdiagnosis and incomplete work.

• Three reviews contain no text — only a 5-star rating. These blank reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Several reviews use very similar generic phrasing ('best plumber,' 'highly recommend,' 'above and beyond') with no specific details, which may indicate some reviews are low-effort or potentially inauthentic. Confidence is not reduced significantly as the pattern is not extreme, but it is noted.
• The review dated 2015-01-06 is over 9 years old and the review from 2020-07-07 is over 4 years old. These older negative reviews are given reduced weight but are still factored in as they describe substantive issues.
• One reviewer explicitly described receiving a sarcasm-filled email from the company when disputing a $1,000 charge — this is a direct professionalism concern from the business owner or staff.
• A pattern of negative reviews specifically citing poor communication, unresolved issues, and feeling taken advantage of financially suggests these are not isolated incidents and should be weighted seriously despite the overall positive majority.

This WW Score is based on 34 reviews with usable content spanning 2015 to 2025, with a strong majority from 2022 onward, giving the score reasonable reliability — however, the presence of multiple substantive negative reviews covering pricing, project completion, and professionalism means the score reflects a genuinely mixed track record rather than a uniformly excellent one.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness from individual technicians, with hundreds of reviews praising courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is the single most damaging dimension across this dataset, with an enormous volume of reviews describing charges as excessive, deceptive, or wildly inconsistent — including numerous accounts of bait-and-switch quoting, undisclosed fees, and charges for incomplete work. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a substantial minority of reviews describing failed repairs, no-shows, abandoned jobs, warranty disputes, and work that made problems worse. Experience scores moderately well overall, as many technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but this is offset by recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, wrong equipment, and upselling unnecessary services. The aggregate picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic issues around pricing transparency, scheduling reliability, and quality control.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates (e.g., two identical reviews from 'Paul arrived same day...', two identical 'Zach is the man...', two identical 'Based solely off customer service...', two identical 'Easy to schedule and a quick service...', two identical 'Great service. Would highly recommend!', two identical 'Efficient and effective...', two identical 'Excellent with Armando...', two identical 'Very prompt and helpful! Anthony...', two identical 'My name is Antoinette...'). These duplicates inflate positive scores and have been treated conservatively.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS: A large cluster of reviews dated 1996-2001 consist of single-line responses ('NO', 'NOT REALLY', 'ON TIME AND DID THE WORK') with no detail, all rated 5 stars. These appear to be placeholder or fabricated entries and were excluded from scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 100+ reviews contain no text content but carry 5-star ratings. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data, but their presence inflates the raw star average.
• EXTREME RATING POLARIZATION: The dataset shows a pronounced bimodal distribution — a very large number of 5-star reviews with minimal detail alongside a substantial volume of detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. This pattern is consistent with either review manipulation on the positive end or a company with highly inconsistent service quality.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they span multiple years, multiple geographic locations, and multiple service types. Charges ranging from $200-$900 for simple drain snaking (15-30 minutes of work) are documented repeatedly. This is a structural business practice issue, not individual technician behavior.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and no communication was provided. This is a recurring operational failure across multiple franchise locations.
• MULTI-FRANCHISE DATASET: Reviews appear to span dozens of different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the United States. Scores reflect the brand aggregate, not any single location. Individual location quality varies significantly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive content are dated between 2020-2025, which is within the relevant scoring window. Older reviews (pre-2015) were given reduced weight.

This WW Score of 72.4 is based on a very large dataset (1,456 reviews) and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its directional accuracy, but should be interpreted as a brand-level aggregate across many franchise locations — individual location quality varies substantially, and the systemic pricing and scheduling issues documented here may not apply equally to all franchises.

Riggle Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and project completion, with many reviewers praising punctuality, cleanliness, communication, and thorough follow-through on complex jobs. Technical skill and problem-solving are frequently highlighted, particularly by customers who describe multi-day or emergency repairs completed efficiently. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly complained about high flat-rate service call fees, perceived overcharging, and billing that felt disproportionate to the work performed — this is the clearest drag on the overall score. One serious negative review also alleged a misdiagnosis that caused unnecessary hardship, and another alleged overcharging supported by camera footage, which raises workmanship and integrity concerns that temper the otherwise positive experience scores.

• 8 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Two reviews dated 2024-03-11 and 2024-06-09 appear to be near-identical duplicates describing the same crawl space inspection job with Joel. This may indicate a duplicate submission or a copied review. Treated as a single data point for scoring purposes.
• One review dated 2022-06-10 is a near-verbatim duplicate of a review dated 2023-08-28 (kitchen drain pipe repair, Joel, 20% senior discount). This is a likely duplicate and was counted only once.
• A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10 with no specific detail may suggest bulk or solicited reviews. Confidence is not reduced significantly as many do contain specific names or job details, but this pattern warrants mild caution.
• Pricing complaints span from 2010 to 2024, indicating a persistent and long-standing issue with flat-rate service call fees and perceived lack of transparency — not an isolated incident.
• One 1-star review (2016-04-29) references a BBB complaint with no response from Riggle, and another 1-star review (2017-02-15) alleges a serious misdiagnosis that caused the customer to vacate their home unnecessarily. These are significant integrity and competence flags.
• One 1-star review (2024-09-12) alleges overcharging verified by home cameras and poor workmanship including a crooked toilet and splattered walls. This is a credible and specific complaint that negatively impacts both pricing and experience scores.
• Most reviews older than 2022 carry reduced weight per recency rules. The majority of detailed, specific reviews are from 2019–2025, providing a reasonably current picture.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and is considered moderately reliable, though the pricing score in particular reflects a well-documented and recurring concern that prospective customers should take seriously before engaging this contractor.

Bison Septic receives consistently strong praise for professionalism across all 7 reviews, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out responsiveness, kindness, honesty, and willingness to go above and beyond during emergencies. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting jobs were finished promptly, problems were solved thoroughly, and follow-through was evident even in complex situations like locating unrecorded tanks. Experience is moderately supported, with reviewers highlighting technical knowledge, problem-solving ability, and sound recommendations for next steps. Pricing data is thin — only two reviews mention it, both positively describing competitive or fair pricing, but this dimension carries limited confidence due to low mention count.

• All 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — this warrants mild caution, though most reviews contain specific details and named individuals which reduces fake review suspicion.
• 5 of 7 reviews are older than 12 months (some dating back to 2017 and 2019), with only 1 review from the past 12 months (January 2024). Recency of data is limited and the score may not fully reflect current service quality.
• Small total review count (7 reviews) limits statistical reliability across all dimensions. Scores should be interpreted conservatively.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability overall — professionalism and project completion are well-evidenced, but the small review pool, predominance of older reviews, and thin pricing data mean the score should be treated as a reasonable directional indicator rather than a definitive assessment.

The contractor demonstrates strong professionalism across multiple reviews, with explicit praise for responsiveness, communication, punctuality, and willingness to accommodate urgent requests. Project completion is consistently affirmed with successful sewer relining, leak repair, and emergency service work. Pricing is mentioned positively but only in 2 reviews with limited detail. Technical skill and workmanship quality are not explicitly discussed in any review. The score is moderately reliable but constrained by the small sample size (5 reviews) and lack of data on experience/technical expertise.

• Three reviews are from 2013 (10+ years old); only two reviews are from 2023. Recency is limited and may not reflect current service standards.
• No explicit mention of technical skill, problem-solving ability, or quality of workmanship in any review. Experience dimension cannot be scored.
• Small sample size (5 reviews total) limits statistical confidence. Recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making high-stakes decisions.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, which is atypical. While not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical detail or balanced perspective is notable.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size, heavy weighting toward older reviews, and complete absence of data on technical experience. The professionalism and completion dimensions are reasonably supported, but the overall WW Score would benefit from additional recent reviews before relying on it for major decisions.

The contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness consistently praised across multiple reviews. Pricing appears fair with transparent estimates and no overcharges noted. However, project completion is significantly undermined by one critical failure: a washer repair request that went unanswered for over a month, suggesting serious follow-through issues. Technical skill and workmanship are evident in completed projects, though the sample size is limited. The WW Score of 78.3 reflects solid execution on completed work offset by a major reliability concern.

• CRITICAL: One review (2024-10-04) reports complete non-response to service request for over one month — this is a severe project completion failure that heavily impacts overall score.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Four of five reviews are from 2023 (over 1 year old). The most recent review is the negative one, suggesting possible recent service degradation.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The 2023-12-23 review contains unusual holiday greeting language and generic praise structure that differs from other reviews, though it does include specific service details (LG gas range installation, hauling debris).
• SERVICE SCOPE AMBIGUITY: Reviews mention paver work, appliance installation, and plumbing — unclear if this is truly a plumber or multi-service contractor, which may affect reliability assessment.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (5 total), heavy weighting toward 2023 data, and a critical recent failure in responsiveness that contradicts earlier positive reviews; the contractor's current reliability is questionable.