Find Nearby Plumbers In Kennewick, Washington

Two substantive reviews (2012 and 2024) provide evidence across all four dimensions. Both reviewers explicitly praised professionalism, responsiveness, and problem-solving ability. Pricing was mentioned favorably in both cases—fair estimates and charges below initial quotes. Project completion was confirmed in both reviews with on-time delivery. However, the extremely small sample size (n=2) and significant age gap between reviews (12 years) limit confidence in this score. The 2013 review was excluded as it explicitly states no service was rendered.

• Only 2 usable reviews analyzed; score reliability is severely limited
• Large temporal gap between reviews (2012, 2024) may not reflect current service quality
• One review (2013) was invalid and excluded from analysis
• Insufficient data to detect patterns or trends in service quality

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (n=2). While both reviews are positive and detailed, two data points are insufficient to establish reliable patterns or confidence in the contractor's overall performance. Additional recent reviews are strongly recommended before making a hiring decision.

All three reviews are positive and paint a consistent picture of a courteous, responsive plumber who delivers on his commitments. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with all three reviewers noting promptness, courtesy, or trustworthiness. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews, including a specific reference to a senior discount and reasonable fees. Project completion and experience are each touched on in two reviews, with mentions of efficient, high-quality work and successful resolution of an emergency call. However, the review base is very small and all reviews are over five years old, which significantly limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for decision-making.
• All reviews are dated between 2017 and 2019 — none are within the past 12 months. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• All reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language. While no clear fake-review patterns (e.g. identical phrasing) were detected, the small sample size and lack of any critical feedback means this cannot be ruled out.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present across any review — this may reflect genuine satisfaction but also limits the depth of analysis.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 5 years old, and should be considered low-reliability — significantly more recent reviews are needed before this score can be trusted for contractor selection.

Perfection Plumbing receives strong praise for fair and competitive pricing across many reviews, and technical competence is frequently highlighted by satisfied customers. However, professionalism is significantly dragged down by a recurring and serious pattern of no-shows, broken promises, and failure to return calls — reported independently by at least 5 reviewers across multiple years. Project completion is similarly mixed: while many jobs are described as completed well, there are credible accounts of abandoned work, price changes after agreement, and at least one case of a dangerous incorrect installation that was never remedied. The business shows a split personality in the review record — capable and affordable when engaged, but unreliable in follow-through and responsiveness.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 1 year, with most substantive reviews dating from 2013–2021. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (relative to the most recent review date of 2023-09-11). The most recent review (2023) is positive, but the data pool is heavily weighted toward older experiences.
• NO-SHOW / RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least 5 independent reviews (2017-02-18, 2017-01-16, 2017-12-11, 2019-07-23, 2020-01-31) explicitly describe missed appointments, broken promises, and failure to return calls. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SERIOUS SAFETY COMPLAINT: One review (2015-04-20) alleges a dangerous incorrect installation of a dryer vent that directed exhaust into the home, followed by complete refusal to return and remedy the work despite repeated contact. A Contractors State License Board complaint was reportedly filed.
• ABANDONED/INCOMPLETE WORK: One review (2020-01-31) describes a customer who paid for drain clearing but claims the agreed work was not completed, the price was raised without authorization, and all follow-up contact was ignored.
• STAFF CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One review (2022-06-10, 1-star) alleges a technician used a company work van during a shoplifting incident. While unverifiable, it is noted as a flag.
• TECHNICIAN MISCONDUCT: One review (2021-08-06) describes a technician named 'John' who refused to use proper equipment, argued with the customer, and allegedly filed a false complaint against the customer. This may reflect a specific employee rather than the owner.
• BLANK/CONTENT-FREE REVIEWS: Three reviews contain only a period or are completely blank (2014-11-03, 2014-04-24, 2018-06-11). These were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several older 5-star reviews (2006, 2012, 2013) use generic praise with minimal specifics. The all-caps review from 2006 is particularly generic. These are not conclusively fake but carry low evidentiary weight and were scored conservatively.
• MULTIPLE TECHNICIANS/STAFF: Reviews reference Robert, Antonio, Jimmie, John, and Lance Morrison — suggesting either multiple staff or possible business name overlap. Negative reviews involving non-Robert technicians may not fully reflect the owner's personal service quality, but they do reflect on the business as a whole.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the contractor demonstrates genuine skill and fair pricing when engaged, but a well-documented and recurring pattern of no-shows, broken promises, and at least one serious unresolved workmanship complaint meaningfully suppresses the score and represents real risk to prospective customers.

C&M Plumbing has a mixed track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and shows a split picture: several reviewers praised punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous behavior, but notable complaints include rudeness toward a customer's wife, a plumber dismissing pricing concerns with 'it is what it is,' and one professional plumber flagging unprofessional workmanship on a new construction job. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with two detailed complaints about a $289 charge for a 25-minute gas log swap and a $600 charge for a 90-minute job that was quoted for 6 hours — both reviewers felt ripped off, and no reviews explicitly praised pricing as fair except one older review. Project completion is moderately positive but undermined by one significant failure where a shower connection was left incomplete, causing water damage, and a separate incident involving a billing error sent to the wrong address with no follow-up call. Experience scores moderately, with some reviewers praising quick and effective repairs, while a fellow plumber criticized the quality of workmanship on a new construction build.

• 13 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no usable content — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no verifiable information and may inflate the overall star average.
• Two reviews (dated 2022-02-02 and 2022-02-13) describe the same incident (gas log swap on Jan 26, 2022, $289 charge, 25-minute job) in nearly identical detail. These appear to be duplicate reviews from the same customer posted twice. Only one was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting.
• The majority of substantive reviews are from 2012–2016, with only two usable reviews from the past 12 months (2024 and 2022). The recency of data is poor and the business's current quality cannot be reliably assessed from this review set.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief ('great very pleased', 'very well.', 'Overall call C & M Plumbing you won't be sorry.') with no specific details, limiting their evidentiary value. These were not counted toward any dimension score.
• One reviewer identifies themselves as a fellow plumber and criticizes the quality of workmanship directly — this carries elevated credibility as a professional assessment.

This WW Score should be treated with moderate caution: while enough substantive reviews exist to calculate a score, the bulk of usable data is 8–12 years old, 13 reviews were entirely uninformative, and two reviews appear to be duplicates — the score reflects a contractor with genuine service inconsistencies, particularly around pricing transparency and job completion, but the current state of the business cannot be confidently assessed from this dataset.

Homes by Jessica presents a deeply polarized contractor profile with stark performance inconsistencies. Recent reviews (Feb 2025) show excellent service with quick response, professional installation, and customer satisfaction. However, the majority of reviews spanning 2020–2024 reveal severe professionalism failures including rudeness, unannounced visits, unresponsiveness, discriminatory behavior, and poor communication. Project completion is compromised by incomplete work, false warranty claims, and extended delays. While some technicians (Axel, Shawn) demonstrate competence and integrity, others (Jim) are described as unprofessional and dismissive. The company's responsiveness and follow-through have been inconsistent, with multiple reports of voicemail boxes full and unanswered calls. The recent positive reviews suggest possible operational changes, but the weight of historical evidence indicates systemic issues.

• TEMPORAL ANOMALY: Four consecutive 5-star reviews all dated 2025-02-09 with similar positive phrasing (quick, respectful, top-notch, outstanding) following 18+ months of predominantly 1-star reviews. This clustering warrants caution regarding authenticity or recent management intervention.
• DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT ALLEGED: Multiple reviews document alleged discrimination against a deaf customer, including refusal to provide interpreter and derogatory comments. This is a serious compliance and ethical concern.
• STAFF INCONSISTENCY: Named technician 'Jim' appears in both highly positive reviews (2025) and highly negative reviews (2022) with contradictory descriptions of professionalism and competence. Axel and Shawn receive consistent praise.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Systematic pattern across 8+ reviews of full voicemail boxes, unanswered phones, no callbacks, and unannounced visits suggests operational dysfunction.
• FALSE CLAIMS DOCUMENTED: Multiple reviews allege the company filed false warranty claims (service marked complete when not performed, incorrect service type filed), which is a serious legal and ethical issue.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The four 5-star reviews from Feb 2025 are very recent and cluster together. If genuine, they suggest improvement; if not, they artificially inflate the score. Conservative weighting applied.

This WW Score of 54.8 should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization in the review set. The recent positive reviews (Feb 2025) conflict sharply with 18+ months of severe complaints. The score reflects the full dataset, but the company's reliability is questionable until the recent positive trend is sustained over several months. Customers should request specific technicians (Axel, Shawn) if possible and avoid assignment of Jim. The alleged discriminatory conduct and false warranty claims are serious red flags that warrant independent verification before engagement.

Right Now Heating and Air presents a deeply polarized review profile. Recent reviews from mid-2025 are overwhelmingly positive and praise individual technicians by name for punctuality, friendliness, and thoroughness — however, these reviews show strong signs of duplication and potential inauthenticity. The older and more detailed reviews (2018–2024) paint a starkly different picture: pervasive complaints about extreme overpricing (capacitors marked up 3,000–4,000%, labor billed at $700/hour), high-pressure scare tactics to sell unnecessary replacements, repeated appointment cancellations and no-shows, and serious workmanship failures including gas leaks, code violations, and systems that failed shortly after installation. Project completion is particularly damaged by numerous accounts of abandoned work, unresolved warranty claims, and jobs requiring third-party contractors to redo. Pricing is the single most-criticized dimension across the review corpus, with dozens of independent reviewers citing charges 2–10x market rate for identical work.

• CRITICAL — SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CAMPAIGN: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-08 appear to be exact duplicates of reviews dated 2025-06-05 through 2025-06-08 with different dates. For example, the 'Matt came out' review, the 'remodeling business for thirty years' review, the 'Bryan W.' review, and the 'crooks' 1-star review all appear verbatim on multiple dates (June 5, 6, 7, and 8). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or padding.
• REVIEW GATING CONCERN: One reviewer (3-star, April 2025) explicitly states they were required to sign a release form removing negative reviews as a condition of dispute resolution, suggesting the company may be suppressing negative reviews and artificially inflating its rating.
• RECENCY BIAS WARNING: The majority of 5-star reviews are clustered in 2025 and appear duplicated. The majority of substantive, detailed negative reviews span 2018–2024 and describe systemic, recurring issues. The positive recent reviews are disproportionately brief or generic.
• PATTERN OF SCARE TACTICS: At least 8 independent reviewers across multiple years describe technicians falsely claiming imminent system failure, cracked heat exchangers, or dangerous conditions to pressure immediate purchases — a consistent predatory sales pattern.
• PATTERN OF EXTREME OVERPRICING: Dozens of reviewers cite specific part costs (capacitors at $14 retail billed at $491, fuses at $27 billed at $266, garbage disposals at $124 billed at $735) indicating a systemic markup practice far beyond industry norms.
• PATTERN OF APPOINTMENT FAILURES: Multiple reviewers across 2021–2024 describe repeated same-day cancellations, multi-week waits during emergencies, and no-shows — suggesting chronic understaffing and poor scheduling practices.
• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERNS NOTED: Multiple reviews cite gas leaks after installation, carbon monoxide risks from improperly installed exhaust, and a furnace fire after installation — these are not isolated incidents and represent potential safety liability.
• ATTORNEY GENERAL INVESTIGATION MENTIONED: One reviewer (March 2025) states the company is under investigation by the Idaho Attorney General, which if accurate would be a significant red flag.
• One reviewer alleges the company cold-called them without consent and placed unsolicited stickers on their equipment, and another alleges the company called past 11pm — suggesting aggressive and potentially illegal marketing practices.

This WW Score has HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be treated with caution: the positive reviews show strong signs of duplication and inauthenticity, while the negative reviews are numerous, highly specific, independently corroborated, and span multiple years — making the true performance profile likely worse than the blended score suggests.