Find Nearby Plumbers In Kent, Washington

Aardvark Rooter has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most contested area: multiple reviews praise Fred Fazio's communication and crew courtesy, but a 1-star review describes a crew member as 'flat out rude,' refusing to honor a printed coupon and complaining to other workers on-site, and another review documents two consecutive appointment cancellations with no-shows that cost the customer money and time. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: one review describes a catastrophic failure where a septic decommission destroyed a patio and left a washing machine and kitchen unconnected to the sewer causing a flood, and another documents a job left unfinished after repeated reschedules. Pricing feedback is split — several reviewers praised competitive bids and honored warranties, while one described a $300/hour charge as 'ridiculous' and another felt $600 for a vanity and toilet install was excessive. Experience scores moderately well, with positive mentions of skilled problem-solving (fixing a faucet without breaking tile, honoring a warranty on drain clearing) offset by the serious workmanship failure in the septic review.

• One review (2021-03-02) describes severe workmanship failure: destroyed patio during septic decommission and failure to connect washing machine and kitchen to sewer, causing flooding under the home. This is a critical project completion and experience failure.
• Two separate reviews (2016-01-22 and 2018-01-21) describe crews arriving late or cancelling appointments entirely, suggesting a recurring punctuality and scheduling reliability problem.
• One review (2013-11-04) describes a crew member refusing to honor a coupon explicitly printed on the company's own website, raising concerns about pricing integrity and staff conduct.
• Most reviews are older than 5 years; only one review (2021) falls within the past 5 years. The recency of the most negative review (2021) is notable and given elevated weight per Rule 6.
• Several positive reviews (2012–2014 range) are older than 10 years and may not reflect current business practices or staffing. Confidence in positive signals from that era is reduced.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, but several older 5-star reviews are somewhat generic in phrasing. No score adjustment made as specifics are present in most.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution given the wide variance in outcomes, the recency of the most severe negative review, and the age of most positive reviews.

This contractor presents a deeply polarized review profile: a cluster of enthusiastic 5-star reviews from roughly 2016–2018 praising Jazz, Harry, and the team for responsiveness, fair pricing, and knowledgeable work, contrasted sharply with a sustained pattern of serious 1-star complaints from 2018 onward. The negative reviews consistently allege incomplete septic pumping (refusing to pump second compartments), total communication breakdown (unanswered calls, full voicemails, deliberate hang-ups), failure to deliver promised documents, and in one case alleged extortion. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating the job was not finished and follow-up was refused. Professionalism scores are dragged down severely by repeated, specific accounts of unprofessional conduct including hanging up on customers and no-shows. Pricing scores remain relatively higher because positive reviewers consistently praised fair rates, but even this is undermined by allegations of charging for work not performed.

• STRONG TEMPORAL SPLIT: The majority of 5-star reviews are dated 2016–2018, while the majority of 1-star reviews are dated 2018–2022. This suggests a significant and sustained decline in service quality over time. Recent reviews (2019–2022) are overwhelmingly negative.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (POSITIVE CLUSTER): Several 5-star reviews from 2017–2018 share very similar structure — same-day service, Jazz praised by name, reasonable price, friendly demeanor — with limited unique detail. While not conclusive, the pattern warrants caution.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers allege the company deliberately pumped only one compartment while charging for two, refused to return for corrections, and systematically ignored follow-up contact. One reviewer (2020-08-22) alleges the owner threatened regulatory retaliation to coerce an $8,000 repair.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: At least 6 separate reviews across different years explicitly describe voicemail being full, calls going unanswered, and deliberate hang-ups when customers identified themselves — indicating a systemic, not isolated, issue.
• PAYMENT DISPUTE ALLEGATION: One review (2022-10-17) alleges the company falsely claimed non-payment of cash transactions. Another (2018-11-13) describes a falsified invoice showing work not performed. These are serious integrity concerns.
• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent reviews (2019–2022) are almost entirely 1-star. Positive reviews are largely 3+ years old and should be weighted significantly less under recency rules.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (37 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score statistically reliable in terms of data volume; however, the severe and consistent pattern of recent negative reviews, combined with credible allegations of fraud, incomplete work, and deliberate customer avoidance, means the true current service quality is likely at or below the lower end of this score range — prospective customers should treat this contractor with significant caution.

Affordable Plumbing of West Seattle presents a deeply polarized review profile. On the positive side, many customers praise same-day or next-day responsiveness, friendly and knowledgeable technicians (especially Chris), and genuinely affordable pricing that frequently undercut competitors by a wide margin. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of no-shows without notice, missed appointments, and complete failure to communicate drags the professionalism and project completion scores down severely — with at least 9 reviews explicitly describing being stood up with no call or text. For larger or longer-term projects, multiple detailed 1-star reviews describe shoddy workmanship, unfinished jobs, permit violations, and rude owner responses to complaints, indicating a significant gap between performance on small emergency jobs versus complex projects. Pricing is generally viewed favorably for smaller jobs, but at least two reviews cite grossly inflated quotes, creating inconsistency in that dimension as well.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 9 reviews explicitly describe missed appointments with zero communication — this is a systemic reliability issue, not isolated incidents.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERNS ON LARGE JOBS: Multiple detailed 1-star reviews (sewer line replacements, bathroom remodel) describe poor-quality work, code violations, wrong materials used, and jobs left unfinished — suggesting a meaningful skill or capacity gap for complex projects.
• OWNER CONDUCT: At least two reviews describe the owner (Tom) responding to complaints with rude or dismissive messages ('Whatever'), indicating a customer service failure at the ownership level.
• PERMIT VIOLATION: One detailed review states the company began a sewer line replacement without pulling a required permit, only obtaining one after the customer demanded it.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Fast, efficient and affordable', 'Tom is a saint', 'Simply The Best') with no specific details. While not conclusive, these reviews inflate the positive signal and should be weighted with caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2013–2019, with no reviews from 2020 onward. This score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current service quality. Treat with caution for present-day hiring decisions.
• SPLIT PERFORMANCE PROFILE: The company appears to perform adequately on small, quick emergency jobs but has a documented pattern of failure on larger, multi-day or multi-week projects. Prospective customers should weigh this distinction carefully.

This WW Score is based on 52 reviews spanning 2013–2019 and carries HIGH statistical confidence in terms of mention volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the severe polarization between small-job successes and large-project failures, a documented pattern of no-shows, and the absence of any recent reviews to confirm whether these issues have been resolved.

This contractor's reviews present a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by one review citing a 30-minute late arrival and poor communication, and another explicitly reporting unanswered phone calls and poor customer service — these are serious, specific complaints that cannot be ignored. Pricing is the most damaged dimension: one reviewer documented in detail being quoted $350 and then charged $850 for a single drain, ultimately settling at $550 after dispute, which is a concrete and credible allegation of deceptive pricing that heavily offsets the positive pricing mentions from other reviews. Project completion is also concerning, with one reviewer explicitly stating the job was not completed, which is a critical failure for that dimension. Experience scores modestly higher as the one negative experience on workmanship quality was limited, and several reviewers noted competent technical work, but the small sample size limits confidence.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: One reviewer provided written documentation of a quoted price of $350 that was later billed at $850 — a 143% overcharge attempt. This is a specific, credible, and serious allegation that significantly lowers the pricing score.
• INCOMPLETE WORK REPORTED: One reviewer explicitly states the job was not completed and calls were not returned. This is a direct project completion failure.
• POSSIBLE GENERIC REVIEWS: Two reviews ('Great Service provided by 365 plumbing and best prices. Highly Recommended and worth to hire them' and the first review) are brief, lack specific detail, and read as potentially generic or incentivized. These were scored conservatively.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total. Scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive. A larger review base is needed for reliable conclusions.
• RECENCY NOTE: All 5 reviews fall within the past 12–18 months (October 2023 – July 2024), so recency weighting does not significantly alter the analysis.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to the small review count of 5, but the presence of multiple specific, detailed negative reviews — particularly the documented pricing dispute and the incomplete job report — provides enough concrete evidence to justify a below-average score with reasonable confidence.

Trusted Plumbing & Heating shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While some customers praise professionalism, efficiency, and quality workmanship (particularly Jim Cunningham and Aaron), numerous reviews document serious concerns with pricing practices, including charges of $500–$1,050 for routine work, overcharging for parts already provided, and diagnostic fees that customers felt were unjustified. Project completion issues include missed appointments, incomplete work requiring callbacks, and poor follow-up on warranty claims. The company's apparent attempts to suppress negative reviews further undermines trust. Positive reviews tend to be detailed and specific, while negative reviews consistently cite pricing and service failures.

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (at least 8) cite excessive charges for routine work ($600 for garbage disposal, $700 for shower head, $1,000 for P-trap installation, $500 for part installation). This is not isolated complaint but systemic pattern.
• FOLLOW-UP SERVICE FAILURE: Multiple reviews document poor callback service, warranty denials, and dismissive customer service after initial work completed.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY: At least 3 reviews document missed appointments, late arrivals (45+ minutes), or conflicting accounts of arrival times.
• REVIEW SUPPRESSION ALLEGATION: One detailed 2017 review explicitly documents company attempting to remove negative reviews from multiple platforms and making unprofessional comments about reviewer. This raises serious credibility concerns.
• DIAGNOSTIC INTEGRITY: Multiple reviews suggest misdiagnosis or unnecessary upselling (thermocouple vs. $3,500 heater replacement, gas valve vs. thermocouple, unnecessary fixture replacement).
• RECENCY BIAS: Negative reviews cluster heavily in 2016–2020 period. More recent reviews (2022–2023) show mixed results but include both 5-star and 1-star ratings, suggesting inconsistent service quality or potential review manipulation.
• FLAT-RATE PRICING CONCERN: Company uses flat-rate pricing model which multiple customers report as predatory compared to industry standards.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the data set is substantial (26 reviews), the company exhibits extreme polarization (13 five-star vs. 11 one-star ratings) and documented attempts to suppress negative reviews, which undermines the reliability of the review corpus itself. The consistent pricing complaints across independent reviews suggest a genuine systemic issue, but the overall WW Score reflects high volatility in service delivery and customer experience.

Pat's Plumbing has a deeply polarized review history spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores moderately because while many individual technicians (Pat, Alex, Jesse, Julio, Merle) are repeatedly praised for being friendly, punctual, and communicative, the office management — particularly the owner Linda — is cited in numerous reviews as rude, dismissive, and unresponsive to legitimate complaints. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: an overwhelming volume of reviews across many years describe quotes that are 2x to 5x higher than competitors or DIY costs, with multiple reviewers citing specific dollar amounts that appear grossly inflated for simple jobs; this is not a handful of outliers but a consistent, high-volume pattern. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed successfully and on time, but there are credible accounts of no-shows, failed inspections, work not up to code, unresolved problems after payment, and at least one instance of warranty being denied. Experience scores moderately positive because skilled technicians are frequently praised for diagnosing and resolving complex issues, but is dragged down by documented cases of substandard workmanship, code violations, and misdiagnosis.

• PRICING PATTERN WARNING: An unusually high volume of reviews — spanning 2010 to 2024 — describe pricing that is 2x to 5x above market rate for simple jobs. This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents. Examples include: $2,650 for a 2-foot pipe replacement, $574 for a kitchen sink clog, $833 for a shower valve replacement under 1 hour, $1,800 quoted for a gas stove install worth ~$500, $1,205 for a pinhole pipe repair, and $777 for a dishwasher install. This pattern is highly consistent and credible.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Top notch service! Always a pleasure doing business with these guys...they know their stuff!', 'It was great, the company was awesome, they did a great job.', 'Pat and Robert are the best...providing EXCELLENT service and quality work'). These lack any specific detail about the job, technician, or problem solved, and may inflate the positive score. Confidence in the positive reviews is reduced accordingly.
• OWNER CONDUCT WARNING: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the owner (Linda) as rude, dismissive, and unwilling to address pricing complaints. At least two reviewers report receiving legal letters offering small refunds only if they agreed not to post negative reviews — a practice that raises serious ethical concerns and may constitute suppression of legitimate consumer feedback.
• CODE COMPLIANCE AND LICENSING CONCERN: One detailed 1-star review (2024) describes work that failed a utility inspection due to use of non-outdoor-rated pipe outdoors and failure to obtain a permit in advance. A separate review from a self-described former employee (2020) alleges that only one licensed journeyman plumber is on staff and that apprentices are sent to work alone in violation of Washington state law. These are serious allegations that could not be independently verified from reviews alone but are noted as significant flags.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2008 to 2024. The pricing complaints and professionalism issues are present across the entire timeline, including the most recent 12 months (2024), indicating these are not historical issues that have been resolved. The most recent reviews (2024) include both strong positives and a serious code-compliance failure, suggesting the business remains inconsistent.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (85 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making the overall score statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given the strong evidence of a systemic overpricing pattern, credible allegations of unlicensed work, documented owner misconduct, and suspected generic fake positive reviews that may artificially inflate the professionalism and experience dimensions.