Find Nearby Plumbers In Kent, Washington

Kent Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent punctuality, friendly demeanor, and responsive communication across 24 mentions. Technical expertise and workmanship quality are well-documented across 16 mentions with high marks for problem-solving and efficiency. Project completion is reliable with 18 mentions showing jobs finished properly and on schedule. However, pricing presents a significant concern: while many reviews praise fair rates, three detailed negative reviews (2018, 2014) explicitly describe overcharging, unnecessary part replacements, and lack of transparent estimates, creating material doubt about pricing consistency. The 2023 no-show incident and 2015 aggressive driving complaint further complicate the profile.

• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Three separate reviews (2018-03-22, 2018-01-18, 2014-06-11) describe overcharging, unnecessary services, and lack of written estimates. One customer reported being charged for warranty-covered parts during emergency call. Another reported $149.50 for a simple faucet swap on a disabled/fixed-income customer. This contradicts the majority positive pricing feedback and suggests selective or situational pricing practices.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: 2023-10-28 review reports scheduled appointment for shower valve replacement with zero follow-up, no answer to calls/messages, described as 'ghost company' and 'one man show.' This is the most recent review and indicates serious reliability breakdown.
• AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR: 2015-09-24 review describes driver behavior as threatening and physically aggressive (running yellow light, violent honking response, intimidating demeanor). While isolated, this raises character concerns.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 5+ years old (2011-2019). Recent reviews (2023, 2018) are predominantly negative. This temporal pattern suggests possible service quality decline or business model change.
• INCOMPLETE JOB: 2014-06-11 review indicates customer did not call back to complete work due to cost shock, leaving job partially unfinished by Kent.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Reviews from 2019-2021 show suspiciously similar phrasing ('honest,' 'professional,' 'fair price,' 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail. However, older reviews (2012-2016) contain more specific anecdotes, suggesting genuine variation rather than coordinated fake reviews.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 78.2 reflects strong professionalism and experience metrics, the pricing dimension is materially compromised by documented overcharging incidents, and the most recent review (2023) indicates a critical no-show/communication failure. The 5+ year gap between positive and recent negative reviews suggests possible service degradation. Recommend requesting written estimates and checking recent references before engaging.

Red Cedar Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base spanning several years, with consistent praise for professionalism, fair pricing, and technical competence across a wide variety of jobs including full-house repiping, drain cleaning, water heater replacement, and emergency repairs. Pricing is frequently cited as a standout strength, with multiple reviewers noting rates 30–50% below competitors and transparent upfront quotes. However, the score is meaningfully dragged down by a cluster of serious negative reviews that allege no-shows, missed appointments, failure to return calls, incomplete work, and in two cases outright fraud — including one detailed allegation of a $10,000 fake repipe job with supporting evidence cited (security footage, BBB complaint, Attorney General complaint). Additional negative reviews cite L&I fines, unresolved permits, poor workmanship (e.g., duct tape on gas connections, improper backfill causing crawlspace flooding, incorrect gas line placement), and unresponsive follow-up. These are not minor complaints and materially reduce confidence in project completion and professionalism scores. The volume of 5-star reviews is high, but several patterns raise fake review concerns that further temper the overall score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews are word-for-word identical (the long 'excellent experience' review appears twice on 2025-05-10 and 2025-05-07; the 'bad luck with plumbers' review appears twice on 2024-10-09 and 2024-10-04; the mobile home repipe review appears twice in nearly identical form). This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or padding.
• SUSPECTED FAKE/INFLATED REVIEWS: A significant number of reviews are extremely generic (e.g., 'Great service!', 'Amazing company', 'Good job Cesar, appreciate your work', 'Excelente job', 'Well, it's a nice company to work with') with no specific details. Several blank reviews with 5-star ratings were submitted, which provide no usable data but inflate review counts.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATION: One reviewer (1-star, 2024-03-04 and 2024-03-05 — appears twice) alleges Red Cedar performed a fake $10,000 repipe, pretending to run new pipes without actually doing so, lying about permits, and becoming unresponsive afterward. The reviewer states they filed complaints with the BBB and Washington State Attorney General. This is an extremely serious allegation that, if substantiated, would represent criminal conduct.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS AND MISSED APPOINTMENTS: Multiple independent negative reviews (2018-06-26, 2018-09-17, 2019-12-28, 2022-06-07, 2024-06-06) describe Red Cedar failing to show up for scheduled appointments, not calling to reschedule, and being unresponsive. This is a recurring operational failure.
• L&I FINE AND PERMIT FAILURES: One reviewer (2023-11-21) states Red Cedar was fined by Washington State L&I for errors, failed to follow through on permits, and did not complete a final inspection, turning a one-week job into a 3-month ordeal.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES DOCUMENTED: Multiple negative reviews cite specific quality failures: duct tape used on gas line connection (2020-08-26), gas line installed in wrong location with no follow-up (2022-10-21), improper backfill causing crawlspace flooding and mold (2021-01-28), and a P-trap coming loose days after installation (2018-03-02).
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star and include the duplicate reviews flagged above. The serious fraud allegation and L&I fine are from 2023-2024. Older reviews (2017-2020) show a more mixed but generally positive pattern. The concentration of negative operational reviews in 2022-2024 may indicate a decline in service quality or scaling issues.
• 10 BLANK REVIEWS with 5-star ratings were excluded from scoring as they contain no usable data but were counted in total reviews analyzed.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust despite HIGH data volume: the large number of reviews provides statistical breadth, but confirmed duplicate reviews, numerous generic 5-star reviews, a credible and detailed fraud allegation, documented L&I violations, and a recurring pattern of no-shows collectively introduce significant uncertainty — prospective customers should independently verify recent work quality and check BBB and L&I records before hiring.

Plumber Near Me LLC earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising punctuality, friendly communication, and same-day availability. Experience and workmanship are frequently cited positively, with named technicians like Dewey, Casey, Aidan, and others receiving consistent praise for technical skill and clear explanations. However, pricing is a significant drag on the score: multiple reviewers across different time periods explicitly called out quotes as extremely high, non-transparent, or unreasonable, and several negative reviews describe being charged for incomplete or no work. Project completion is also mixed — while most jobs are described as finished promptly, there are credible complaints about technicians not returning as promised, failed repairs requiring callbacks, and one instance of a repair that immediately leaked after completion. The combination of strong positive volume and a meaningful cluster of serious negative experiences produces a moderate-to-good but not excellent overall score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review describing replacement of a leaking outdoor hose bib (Casey, same-day service, 20-minute job) appears verbatim twice — once dated 2025-05-10 and once dated 2024-07-08. This is a copy-paste duplicate and one instance has been discounted.
• CLUSTER OF SAME-DATE REVIEWS: A large number of reviews (approximately 20+) share the exact date of 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10. While not all are identical in content, this clustering pattern is unusual and may indicate a coordinated review push or incentivized review campaign. Confidence in this subset is reduced.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE RECURRING AND SPECIFIC: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2019, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025) explicitly cite overpricing, lack of transparency, or being charged for work not completed. This is a consistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONMENT AND NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least three separate reviews (2024-07-02, 2023-08-17, 2025-05-10) describe the company failing to follow up, not returning as promised, or charging fees without completing work. This is a notable reliability concern.
• FAILED REPAIR REPORTED: One reviewer (2025-03-11) paid $570 for a PVC repair that leaked immediately upon water restoration, and the company was slow to honor the warranty callback.
• TECHNICIAN CONDUCT COMPLAINT: One detailed review (2024-06-28) describes a technician named Adam behaving rudely, dismissively, and unprofessionally toward an elderly customer. This is an outlier but a serious one.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One review (2019-02-13) alleges a technician named Shawn stole money and never returned a promised refund. This is unverified but noted as a serious flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of reviews predate 2023 and some predate 2021. The most recent 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a mix of strong positives and notable negatives, suggesting performance may be inconsistent rather than uniformly improving.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text and only a star rating (5 stars). These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (110 reviews) and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should weigh the recurring pricing complaints, documented no-show and abandonment incidents, and the suspicious same-date review clustering before making a hiring decision.

Rush Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise across most reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a significant concern, with multiple detailed complaints about markups exceeding 300%, inflated quotes, and charges that appear disconnected from actual work performed. Project completion is generally solid, though several no-show and callback issues are documented. The company shows polarized performance: many long-term customers report excellent value and reliability, while newer or one-time customers frequently report overcharging and dishonest pricing practices. Recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but historical patterns suggest systemic pricing concerns that warrant caution.

• PRICING PATTERN ALERT: Multiple detailed reviews (2014-2016) document excessive markups on parts (300%+), inflated labor quotes, and pricing that appears designed to exploit customer ignorance. At least 8 reviews explicitly cite overcharging or dishonest pricing.
• INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Several reviews allege dishonest practices including falsified paperwork, threats/legal intimidation, signature misuse, and removal of customer property (contractor points sticker). One review alleges theft of antique fixtures from customer's basement.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 3 reviews document missed appointments with no call or inadequate communication, contradicting claims of responsiveness.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star reviews describing poor diagnosis, unprofessional behavior, and combative interactions with customers.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are uniformly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2010-2016) contain more specific, critical detail. This pattern may suggest fake or incentivized recent reviews, though not conclusive.
• WATER HEATER DIAGNOSTICS: Multiple reviews (2014-2016) describe incorrect or incomplete water heater diagnostics, suggesting either knowledge gaps or intentional upselling.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR: Several reviews describe Robert (owner) as combative, dismissive of customer questions, or unwilling to explain pricing—behavior inconsistent with professional service standards.

This WW Score of 72.8 should be treated with caution: while recent reviews are uniformly positive and suggest improved service, the extensive historical documentation of pricing fraud, dishonest practices, and integrity violations creates significant trust concerns. The company may deliver competent technical work, but customers should obtain multiple bids, verify all pricing in writing, and be extremely cautious about any verbal agreements. The polarized review pattern (glowing vs. detailed critical accounts) suggests this company's reliability depends heavily on customer vigilance and willingness to challenge quotes.

Perez Plumbing has a large and predominantly positive review base, with many customers praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and skilled workmanship across a wide range of jobs including water heater replacements, leak repairs, and pipe work. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 20-25% of substantive reviews — raise serious concerns including incomplete work left undiscovered for extended periods, alleged overcharging, rude office staff, no-show appointments, and at least one claim of $45,000 in uninsured damage. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by recurring complaints about the front-office/scheduling staff being rude or dismissive, and by multiple no-show or late-arrival incidents. Pricing scores are mixed: while many customers praise fair and competitive rates, several credible negative reviews describe charges that appear excessive or inconsistent with the work performed. Project completion is generally strong but is meaningfully penalized by the disconnected kitchen drain incident, the incomplete pipe replacement allegation, and the irrigation meter job that left the lawn torn up for weeks.

• Approximately 25 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These blank reviews (mostly 5-star) cannot be scored and inflate the apparent rating without providing usable evidence.
• Several reviews appear to reference entirely different companies or locations (e.g., HVAC furnace work, A/C capacitor repair, tire change assistance, construction across the street) suggesting this review pool may aggregate reviews for multiple businesses sharing the 'Perez Plumbing' name or that some reviews were misdirected. These were excluded from scoring where clearly irrelevant.
• A pattern of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Love their service!', 'Very good', 'Good', 'All went well', 'unknown') raises moderate fake review concern. These were treated as low-weight evidence.
• One 1-star review references a 'Marcos' and 'Damon' as owner — names not mentioned in other reviews — suggesting possible review bleed from a different Perez Plumbing entity.
• One review references dangerous driving behavior and another references road conduct — these are not plumbing service reviews and were excluded from scoring.
• A review dated 2005 describes workers with poor English proficiency and a 3-hour delay returning with an invoice — this and other pre-2015 reviews were given minimal weight due to age.
• The 1-star review alleging a disconnected kitchen drain left draining into a crawl space for an extended period is a serious workmanship and integrity flag that was weighted heavily in project completion scoring.
• At least two credible reviews allege billing for work not performed or for excessive amounts relative to time on site, which is a significant pricing integrity concern.
• Recency note: The majority of detailed, substantive reviews are from 2024-2025, which is positive for recency weighting. However, negative reviews are also well-represented in this recent window.

This WW Score is based on a large review volume with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously given the serious nature of several negative reviews, the presence of numerous blank reviews inflating star averages, and evidence suggesting this pool may include reviews for more than one business operating under the Perez Plumbing name.

Plumb Fit receives strong praise from many customers for professionalism, friendliness, and quality workmanship, with multiple reviewers citing repeat business and referrals. However, two detailed negative reviews significantly weigh down the scores: one describes a major project with serious issues including unpermitted work, incomplete scope delivery, property damage, and poor cleanliness, while another describes unclear pricing, incomplete troubleshooting, and lack of follow-up. Pricing is a mixed picture — several reviewers found quotes competitive or fair, but two out-of-state landlord reviews raise concerns about transparency and value. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to explicit accounts of unfinished work, broken promises (drywall, P-traps), and a leaking supply line left behind. The overall score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but meaningful and documented reliability risks.

• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service highly recommend', 'Fast, efficient, and friendly!') with little specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews.
• Two reviews from out-of-state landlords describe similar patterns: unexpected charges, lack of transparency, and poor follow-through — this may indicate a pattern of behavior toward remote clients who cannot easily oversee the work.
• The 2023-09-13 review is highly detailed and credible, describing unpermitted work, incomplete scope, property damage, and attitude from the owner — this is a significant red flag that carries substantial weight.
• Several positive reviews are older than 12 months (2019, 2021, 2022), and the most recent negative review (2024-10-04) is the most current data point, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time.
• No reviews explicitly mention pricing being hidden or bait-and-switch, but two reviews describe flat-rate opacity and a suspicious split-visit charge, warranting a pricing transparency flag.

This WW Score is based on 14 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, though the presence of a few generic positive reviews and a cluster of older 5-star ratings means the score should be interpreted cautiously — the two detailed negative reviews from 2023–2024 are particularly credible and materially drag the score below what the volume of positive reviews alone would suggest.