Find Nearby Plumbers In Lakewood, 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.

The majority of reviews praise Aaron and PNW Green Plumbing for punctuality, professionalism, and friendly service, with multiple reviewers noting reasonable pricing and quality workmanship across both small and large projects. However, a 1-star review from 2022 explicitly flags a serious reliability failure — the owner allegedly committed to a job and never showed up — which meaningfully drags down the project completion and professionalism scores. Three of the five reviews are from 2019–2021, making them over three years old, and only one review is from the past 12 months (August 2024), limiting confidence in how current the overall picture is. The small review pool of just five reviews means no single dimension has enough data to be considered fully reliable, and the one negative review carries disproportionate weight in this small sample.

• Only 1 of 5 reviews is from the past 12 months (2024); 3 reviews are from 2019–2021 and may not reflect current service quality.
• One explicit reliability failure reported (1-star, 2022): owner committed to a job and did not show up — this is a significant red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• Review pool is very small (5 reviews total); scores should be treated as preliminary and not fully representative.
• No suspected fake reviews detected; language across reviews is varied and specific enough to appear genuine.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the very small review sample (5 reviews), the age of most reviews (3–5+ years old), and one explicit no-show complaint that meaningfully offsets the otherwise positive feedback.

This contractor shows a stark divide in customer experience. Two positive reviews (2023, 2018) praise professionalism, fair pricing, prompt service, and quality workmanship. However, a recent 2024 review describes a serious incident where an elderly customer was charged $500+ for unnecessary valve replacements that failed to resolve the actual water flow problem, with follow-up calls suggesting awareness of the problematic transaction. The pricing dimension is heavily penalized by explicit allegations of upselling and fear-based sales tactics. Project completion is compromised because the primary issue (low water flow) remained unresolved despite the work performed. All dimensions are scored conservatively due to limited mention counts (2 each) and the severity of the recent complaint.

• CRITICAL: Recent complaint (Jan 2024) alleges predatory sales practices targeting elderly customer, unnecessary upselling, and failure to resolve stated problem. Company's follow-up calls suggest internal awareness of transaction legitimacy issues.
• Significant recency concern: Positive reviews are from 2023 and 2018; most recent review is highly negative and detailed, suggesting possible service quality decline.
• Conflicting evidence: Positive reviews describe fair pricing and honesty; negative review describes aggressive upselling and fear tactics. This inconsistency warrants caution.
• Small sample size (3 reviews) limits statistical reliability. Score should not be considered stable without additional recent data.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (3 total) and conflicting evidence, but the recent detailed complaint about predatory practices toward a vulnerable customer is a serious red flag that cannot be ignored and should weigh heavily in decision-making.

Nathan's business shows strong pricing and reasonable responsiveness, but is significantly undermined by serious project completion and professionalism failures. Multiple reviews explicitly document incomplete work, poor follow-through on callbacks, and lack of accountability when problems arise (sink leaking 4 months post-installation, unfinished jobs requiring customer to hire another plumber). While some customers praise quick response times and fair rates, the pattern of ghosting after initial contact and abandoning work when issues are discovered represents critical professional failures. The business appears to operate as a one-person operation with inconsistent quality control.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2021-03-04, 2021-02-04, 2020-01-13) document failure to follow up, ghosting clients, and abandoning work — this is a pattern, not isolated incidents
• Review dated 2018-11-14 mentions 'Garcia's' plumbing, not Nathan — this appears to be a different business entirely and should not be attributed to Nathan's performance
• Significant recency issue: Most reviews are 3+ years old (2018-2021). Only 2 reviews from 2022 or later, limiting ability to assess current business practices
• Quality control concern: Sink installation failure (leaking after 4 months) suggests inadequate workmanship or lack of proper installation technique
• Inconsistent business identity: Review mentions 'family business' with wife at office, but also described as 'one guy' — unclear organizational structure

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data (most reviews 3+ years old) and the inclusion of one review for a different business (Garcia's). However, the pattern of project completion failures and professionalism issues across multiple independent reviews from different time periods suggests genuine concerns about reliability and follow-through that warrant serious consideration.

Three of the four reviews are strongly positive, praising punctuality, professionalism, clear communication, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. However, the fourth review — a detailed, credible 1-star account — describes a serious project failure involving an incomplete commercial job, a non-refundable lump-sum deposit taken upfront, and no resolution or follow-through from the contractor. This single review carries significant weight because it is highly specific, plausible, and directly contradicts the positive pattern across all four scored dimensions. The project completion score is particularly suppressed because an abandoned commercial job is a severe outcome. Pricing is also penalized due to the reported deceptive deposit structure. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with apparent capability on smaller jobs but a documented, serious failure on a larger commercial engagement.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: The three positive reviews share similar generic phrasing ('punctual,' 'professional,' 'highly recommend,' 'quickly diagnosed') with limited job-specific detail. Two were posted within hours of each other on 2024-10-30. This pattern warrants caution, though it does not conclusively confirm inauthenticity.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer explicitly describes an incomplete commercial project, a lump-sum upfront payment taken with a non-refundable deposit clause, and no remediation. This is a significant consumer protection concern and should be weighted heavily despite being a single review.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. Scores are based on limited data and should be treated as preliminary. Confidence across all dimensions is capped at MODERATE.
• RECENCY NOTE: All four reviews are from 2024 (August through November), so recency weighting does not significantly differentiate them.

This WW Score should be treated as low-to-moderate reliability due to the very small review pool, potential authenticity concerns with the positive reviews, and one highly specific negative account describing serious contractual and project completion failures.

Allen Plumbing receives deeply mixed feedback across a large review set spanning over a decade. Professionalism scores moderately — many reviewers praise punctuality, responsiveness, and courteous technicians, but a meaningful number of negative reviews cite arrogance, poor communication, and unprofessional attitudes from the owner specifically. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: an overwhelming volume of reviewers explicitly describe charges as exorbitant, non-transparent, and exploitative, with multiple reviewers comparing Allen's quotes to competitors who completed the same work for a fraction of the cost. Project completion is mixed — many jobs were finished satisfactorily, but several reviews describe incomplete work, callbacks refused without additional charges, and work that failed shortly after completion. Experience scores moderately positive, with many reviewers acknowledging technical competence, though a handful describe diagnostic failures and workmanship errors that required correction.

• THREE reviews appear to be for unrelated businesses (a dental office doctor 'Dr. Daly' and a general 'great doctor' review) — these were excluded from scoring as they are clearly misattributed reviews and do not pertain to Allen Plumbing.
• One review (2024-06-09, 'Very professional, patient and a great doctor!') is almost certainly a misplaced medical review and was excluded from scoring.
• Two reviews (2023-06-10, both referencing 'Dr Daly') are clearly for a physician, not a plumber, and were excluded from scoring.
• Pricing complaints are extremely consistent and highly specific across many independent reviewers spanning 2008–2024, lending HIGH credibility to the pattern of overcharging. This is not a one-off complaint.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic ('Good!', 'Good', 'unknown', 'I've found my plumber!') with no specifics — these may inflate the positive signal and were treated with reduced weight in narrative assessment.
• A recurring pattern exists where customers report being quoted one price and charged more, or being charged for work that did not resolve the problem — this suggests a systemic billing transparency issue.
• Multiple reviewers independently recommend a competitor ('Alewife Company' / 'Alewife Plumbers') after negative experiences with Allen Plumbing, which adds credibility to the pricing complaints.
• Review dates span from 2008 to 2025. The majority of detailed negative pricing reviews are from 2011–2018. More recent reviews (2024–2025) trend more positive, suggesting possible improvement, but the sample of recent reviews is smaller.
• One review (2011-09-23) is unusually long and appears to be a BBB complaint response — it was included as it contains substantive, specific feedback about billing practices.

This WW Score is based on a large, multi-year review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and the score of 54.3 should be considered a reliable reflection of this contractor's mixed reputation — strong on responsiveness and technical ability, but significantly undermined by a well-documented and consistent pattern of pricing complaints that spans over a decade of customer feedback.