Find Nearby Plumbers In Kent, Washington

This contractor has a deeply split review profile. The majority of positive reviews are 3 to 10+ years old, describing timely, professional, and fairly priced work. However, two recent 2024 reviews raise serious red flags: one alleges the owner collects deposits and abandons jobs, operates without a proper journeyman license, and previously ran a failed company under a different name; the other simply states the company does not show up. A revised comment within an older positive review also describes a failed repair and an unprofessional response from the owner's wife. The recency of the negative reviews significantly drags down scores across all dimensions, particularly professionalism and project completion, as these are the most recent data points available.

• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATION: One 2024 reviewer alleges the owner collects down payments and abandons jobs, operates without a valid journeyman license, and previously shut down a company called Westview Plumbing under similar circumstances. This is an unverified but highly specific and credible-sounding claim that warrants serious caution.
• NO-SHOW ALLEGATION: A separate 2024 reviewer states the company does not show up for jobs, directly contradicting older positive reviews about punctuality.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All positive reviews are from 2013–2021, with the most recent positive review being over 3 years old. Both 2024 reviews are strongly negative. This trend suggests a possible decline in service quality or business integrity.
• REVISED REVIEW WARNING: One reviewer who originally gave 5 stars later revised their comment to describe a failed repair, an additional unexpected charge, and rude behavior from the owner's wife — indicating a pattern of post-job issues.
• ONE REVIEW MARKED UNUSABLE: The review with text 'unknown' and a 5-star rating from 2014 was excluded from scoring due to no usable content.
• POTENTIAL BUSINESS CONTINUITY CONCERN: The detailed 2024 allegation suggests this may not be the same operational entity as the one that received positive reviews years ago, which could make historical positive reviews misleading.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW trust — while the volume of reviews is sufficient for calculation, the two most recent reviews contain serious and specific allegations of fraud and non-performance that directly undermine the credibility of the older positive review base.

Aqualine's review corpus is deeply polarized: a cluster of enthusiastic 5-star reviews praising specific technicians (Jordan, Gabriel, Garrett, Isaac, Nicole, Eddie, Jeff) sits alongside a large volume of detailed 1-star accounts describing missed appointments, no-shows, wildly inflated pricing, incomplete or incorrect work, and outright refusal to follow up. The negative reviews are highly specific, credible, and span multiple years through the most recent review in September 2024, indicating persistent systemic problems rather than isolated incidents. Pricing complaints are among the most severe, with multiple reviewers documenting charges of $1,100–$9,000 for work later completed by competitors for a fraction of the cost, and at least one reviewer alleging fraudulent misdiagnosis to upsell unnecessary replacements. Project completion is a critical failure area, with multiple reviews describing abandoned jobs, wrong parts ordered, repairs marked complete in the system when they were not, and work that had to be entirely redone by other contractors. The positive reviews, while genuine in tone for the most part, are insufficient to offset the volume and severity of the negative evidence.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews are suspiciously brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service highly recommended Leo was very helpful and professional I would definitely use them again') with no job-specific detail. One reviewer explicitly states they were offered a 20% discount in exchange for a Yelp review, which directly calls into question the integrity of some positive reviews in this dataset.
• PRICING MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers allege that technicians quoted prices far above market rate, refused to provide estimates before charging, and in at least two cases misdiagnosed problems (furnace, sewage backup) to upsell expensive replacements that were not needed. A second opinion in each case revealed the actual cost was dramatically lower.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least four reviews describe jobs that were left unfinished, incorrectly completed, or required a second contractor to redo. One reviewer describes electrical work that was found to be a fire hazard after being redone by another electrician.
• NO-SHOW AND COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years describe technicians failing to arrive at scheduled times, offices promising callbacks that never came, and jobs being falsely marked as completed in internal systems.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative review (September 2024) describes the same systemic failures documented in reviews from 2020–2022, suggesting these are not historical issues that have been resolved.
• TECHNICIAN VARIABILITY: Positive reviews are almost exclusively tied to specific named technicians (Jordan, Nicole, Eddie, Jeff, Garrett, Isaac), suggesting quality is highly dependent on individual assignment rather than company-wide standards. Gabriel receives both praise and severe criticism across multiple reviews, adding further inconsistency.

This WW Score is based on 27 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable reflection of Aqualine's overall service quality; the low score is well-supported by detailed, specific, and consistent negative evidence spanning multiple years and service types.

Dear Services receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven by severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is compromised by chronic no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, and rude technicians (score: 38). Pricing is the most damaging dimension (score: 18), with overwhelming evidence of extreme price gouging—quotes routinely 3–5x market rates ($23k–$59k for work priced $3k–$15k elsewhere), aggressive high-pressure sales tactics, and predatory targeting of elderly customers. Project completion suffers (score: 35) with abandoned work, rescheduled appointments (sometimes 4+ times), and failure to honor callbacks or warranties. Experience is the only relatively stronger dimension (score: 62), as individual technicians like Gerardo, Nathan, and Jeremy demonstrate genuine skill and professionalism, but this is overshadowed by systemic company-wide misconduct.

• CRITICAL: Fake review pattern detected. Approximately 20 reviews (20%) contain suspiciously generic praise with minimal detail, identical phrasing ('great job,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional'), and come from profiles with no review history. These cluster around dates 2024-02-29, 2024-04-01, 2024-06-25, 2024-07-09, 2024-08-04, and others. This suggests incentivized or fabricated reviews.
• PREDATORY BUSINESS PRACTICES: 65+ reviews document systematic price gouging, bait-and-switch tactics, aggressive same-day contract signing under pressure, and targeting of vulnerable populations (elderly, first-time homeowners, those in emergency situations). Multiple reviews cite quotes 3–5x legitimate market rates.
• REGULATORY VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews reference 56+ L&I violations since 2017, unpaid citations from 2020–2021, failure to obtain permits, use of unqualified personnel, and violations of elder abuse laws. Washington State Attorney General involvement mentioned.
• DECEPTIVE SALES PRACTICES: Documented pattern of technicians using scare tactics (fire hazard claims, carbon monoxide threats), showing fake/misleading evidence, refusing to provide itemized invoices, bundling services to obscure costs, and pressuring customers to sign contracts without copies provided.
• SYSTEMATIC SERVICE FAILURES: 40+ reviews document chronic no-shows, rescheduled appointments (up to 4 times), failure to return calls, and abandonment of customers post-payment. One customer waited 1 year for a unit to be fixed.
• FAKE REVIEW SOLICITATION: Multiple reviews describe technicians requesting Google/online reviews on-site, sometimes with photos, and one review mentions the company offering $50 gift cards for reviews (FTC violation).
• RECENCY: 85% of reviews are from 2023–2024 (past 12 months), indicating ongoing, current misconduct rather than historical issues.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 28–52 mentions each). The score reflects systematic, documented patterns of predatory pricing, deceptive sales practices, service failures, and regulatory violations corroborated across 65+ independent negative reviews. While 20 reviews appear fabricated, the remaining 80 reviews provide overwhelming, consistent evidence of serious consumer harm. This company should be considered high-risk; the low score is conservative and trustworthy.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe serious failures across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is heavily penalized by repeated accounts of poor scheduling, no-shows or late arrivals, unresponsive office staff, and broken follow-through on callbacks. Project completion is critically damaged by multiple reports of abandoned or unresolved work, incorrect installations left unfixed, and a foreman described as unresponsive for weeks. Experience scores are dragged down by documented technical errors including reversed hot/cold plumbing, angled valve installations, and a drain connection missing a washer that caused water damage. The sole positive review — from a general contractor praising consistent quality since 2004 — is the only meaningful counterweight, but it is from 2018 and cannot offset five negative reviews spanning 2019–2023. Pricing receives a very low score based on one explicit overcharging complaint with limited confidence due to a single mention.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The only positive review is dated December 2018 — over 5 years before the most recent negative review (October 2023). All five negative reviews are from 2019–2023, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. The positive review should be weighted significantly less.
• PATTERN CONCERN: Multiple reviews independently describe the same organizational failure — poor scheduling, crews arriving unprepared, and front office dysfunction — which adds credibility to these complaints as systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• SPLIT OPERATION NOTE: One reviewer explicitly distinguishes between the new construction division (rated very poorly) and the warranty/repair team (rated more favorably). The WW Score may reflect the new construction division disproportionately, and consumers should be aware this company may have inconsistent quality across service lines.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 total reviews are available. While the WW Score has been calculated, the small sample size limits statistical reliability. Treat this score as directional rather than definitive.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the directional signal is strongly negative and consistent across multiple independent reviewers, but the small sample size of 6 reviews and the age gap between the sole positive review and all negative reviews mean the score should be interpreted with caution rather than treated as a precise measurement.

Chris' Plumbing exhibits a stark pattern of severe operational failures across multiple dimensions. Two recent negative reviews (2023, 2020) document systematic issues: scope creep with dramatic cost overruns (5X quoted price), missed appointments spanning months, poor communication from office manager Alyssa, and lack of transparency about parts ordering. While two older positive reviews (2021) praise expertise and fair pricing, the weight of evidence from more recent complaints suggests a deteriorating business model. Critical concerns include licensing irregularities, repeated business closures/rebranding, and failure to honor commitments. The contractor demonstrates technical knowledge but fails consistently on execution, communication, and integrity.

• CRITICAL: Two independent 1-star reviews document identical concerns about office manager Alyssa's poor communication and attitude, suggesting systemic organizational dysfunction rather than isolated incidents.
• LICENSING RED FLAG: First review explicitly states Chris Cunningham lacked a plumbing license and had to involve 'a guy's license'—potential regulatory violation.
• BUSINESS PATTERN: First review documents history of closing and reopening businesses under similar names, with multiple Yelp listings—suggests pattern of avoiding accountability.
• RECENCY BIAS: Positive reviews are from 2021 (2+ years old); negative reviews are from 2023 and 2020, indicating recent deterioration in service quality.
• REGULATORY CONCERNS: Second negative review references suspended license, new license #CHRISPI852RA, prior Yelp page closed after 4 one-star reviews, and filed complaints with BBB, state AG, and Washington LNI.
• SCOPE CREEP PATTERN: Both negative reviews describe identical 'bait and switch' tactic—low initial quote followed by dramatic cost increases mid-project, leaving customers unable to exit.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), but the consistency of serious allegations across two independent recent complaints, combined with documented regulatory issues and business closure patterns, suggests the negative findings are reliable and warrant significant concern; the two positive reviews are substantially older and may not reflect current operations.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture across nearly every dimension. Pricing is the most consistently flagged issue — multiple reviewers describe charges they consider exploitative, including $900 for an unresolved sewer clog, $1,500 for a toilet installation without prior approval, $850 just to open drywall for an estimate, and opaque 'per job' billing with no itemized breakdown. Project completion is also severely undermined, with multiple jobs left unresolved or abandoned, a sewer line still clogged after payment, and a technician arriving unprepared for a standard gas line connection. Professionalism scores are dragged down by repeated tardiness, rude managers, a technician refusing safety equipment, and at least one incident where a different company entirely showed up at the customer's door. The lone 5-star review praises punctuality and fair pricing, but it stands in stark isolation against ten overwhelmingly negative accounts and cannot meaningfully offset the pattern of complaints.

• DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICE SUSPECTED: One reviewer explicitly documented that a different company arrived at their home than the one they called, with screenshots and phone number comparisons as evidence. This is a serious red flag suggesting potential bait-and-switch or lead-hijacking behavior.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same tactics — high dispatch fees, refusal to itemize costs, 'per job' billing with no transparency, and estimates that are 3–4x market rate. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• VULNERABLE CUSTOMER EXPLOITATION: Two separate reviews describe work being performed on or quoted to vulnerable individuals (a disabled veteran, a pregnant household) without proper authorization or informed consent, which raises ethical and potentially legal concerns.
• INCOMPLETE WORK NOT REFUNDED: At least two reviewers paid hundreds to over $900 for work that was not completed or did not resolve the problem, with no refund or meaningful remedy offered.
• SINGLE 5-STAR REVIEW ANOMALY: Only one review is positive (5 stars, January 2024). It is brief and generic with minimal specifics. While not conclusively fake, it is an extreme outlier and should be weighted accordingly given the volume and consistency of negative reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review is from September 2024. The majority of reviews span 2020–2022, with one from 2024 and one from January 2024. The negative pattern appears consistent across all time periods, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.

This WW Score is based on 11 reviews with strong thematic consistency across all four dimensions, and the score of approximately 24 should be treated as highly reliable — the volume, specificity, and cross-year corroboration of negative experiences make this one of the more trustworthy low scores this engine can produce.