Find Nearby Plumbers In Puyallup, Washington

This contractor shows a clear split between positive recent experiences and a significant pattern of serious failures in older reviews. Professionalism scores are dragged down substantially by multiple reviews describing no-shows, missed appointment windows without communication, rude customer service staff, and failure to honor warranties — even though many recent reviews praise individual technicians as friendly and knowledgeable. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out deceptive quoting practices, bait-and-switch pricing escalations, and charges that were disputed as unnecessary or fraudulent. Project completion is mixed: several reviews confirm jobs were finished well, but others describe incomplete work, return visits for the same unresolved issue, and a refusal to honor a warranty on a sump pump installation that failed. Experience scores moderately, with skilled individual technicians praised in recent reviews, but offset by older reviews describing misdiagnoses, unnecessary work recommendations, and incorrect information given to customers.

• 21 out of 58 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These blank reviews cannot be used for dimensional scoring and inflate the apparent review count without providing verifiable evidence of quality.
• Multiple blank 5-star reviews clustered on the same dates (e.g., 2025-06-02, 2025-05-26, 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10) are a potential indicator of fake or incentivized reviews. This pattern warrants caution.
• A 1-star review from 2025-06-02 explicitly describes a bait-and-switch pricing scheme escalating from $700 to $1,500 to $8,500, with a second company resolving the issue more cheaply. This is a serious fraud allegation.
• A 2019 review describes being charged $250 twice for the same unresolved issue, receiving false information, and being denied requested video evidence — suggesting a pattern of deceptive practices.
• A 2019 review describes Roto-Rooter recommending a $2,500 pipe excavation for a pipe that was not actually collapsed, confirmed by a competing company with camera inspection.
• Recency note: Several of the most damaging reviews (no-shows, missed windows, warranty refusal) date from 2018–2021. Recent 2025 reviews are more positive, suggesting possible improvement in field technician quality, but the pricing and scheduling concerns persist into 2025.
• The overall review set spans 2016–2025. Older reviews (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring but were not excluded, as they document serious recurring patterns.

This WW Score is based on 37 reviews with usable text content out of 58 total, with HIGH confidence across all scored dimensions due to mention volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible fraud allegations, a suspicious cluster of blank 5-star reviews, and a documented history of no-shows and deceptive pricing practices.

Bailey's Plumbing presents a mixed picture across its small review set. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by a detailed 1-star account describing a plumber who manipulated a customer mid-job by cutting pipe before disclosing off-invoice cash pricing demands — a serious ethical violation — partially offset by two older reviews praising courteous and professional service. Pricing similarly suffers from the same 1-star review describing deceptive cash-price tactics, though two other reviewers found pricing reasonable or average. Project completion and experience scores are based on only two mentions each and must be treated with caution, though those mentions were generally positive. The overall score reflects the serious weight of the misconduct described in the 1-star review against a backdrop of older, positive but less detailed feedback.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: The 1-star review describes a plumber (JJ) deliberately cutting pipe before disclosing off-invoice cash pricing, effectively trapping the customer — this is a significant ethical and potentially legal concern that heavily impacts professionalism and pricing scores.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are between 7 and 14 years old (2010–2017). No reviews from the past 12 months are present. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. The WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be interpreted with caution.
• GENERIC PRAISE NOTED: Two of the positive reviews (2016 and 2010) are brief and lack specific detail, reducing their evidentiary weight. However, the 2014 review includes specific workmanship detail, suggesting it is likely genuine.
• INSUFFICIENT RECENCY: With the most recent review dated 2017, this score reflects historical performance only and may not represent the contractor's current operations.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 4 reviews, all of which are at least 7 years old, combined with a serious documented misconduct incident that cannot be offset by the limited volume of positive feedback.

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

This contractor demonstrates significant and consistent problems across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by manipulative sales tactics, blame-shifting, and poor customer service on callbacks. Pricing is a major weakness, with multiple reviews documenting inflated quotes, pressure tactics, and refusal to honor agreements—one customer paid $2,500 for work worth a fraction of that cost. Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete work, damage to customer property (tile scarring), messy cleanup, and failure to finish jobs as promised. While some technical capability is evident, it is overshadowed by poor execution and customer mistreatment. The single positive review from 2022 is substantially outweighed by four detailed negative reviews spanning 2017–2021.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 3–6 years old (2017–2021). Only one review from 2022. Limited recent data to assess current performance.
• PATTERN OF COMPLAINTS: Four of six reviews (67%) are 1-star ratings with detailed accounts of financial exploitation, incomplete work, and property damage. This is not random dissatisfaction but a consistent pattern.
• PRICING MANIPULATION: Multiple independent reviews describe quote changes, pressure tactics, and dramatic price reductions when challenged—suggesting systematic overcharging and negotiation-based pricing rather than transparent estimates.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Explicit mention in one review that service quality deteriorates significantly on callbacks and warranty work, with blame-shifting and avoidance tactics.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: One review documents tile floor scarring and wall damage from negligent work (dull drill bit), with incomplete cleanup of insulation work that required a second plumber to remediate.
• REFUND DISPUTE: One customer waited 6 months to recover only $1,200 of a $3,700 deposit after cancellation, with the contractor charging $2,500 for exploratory work that was abandoned.
• SINGLE POSITIVE REVIEW: The 2022 5-star review is generic in praise ('top notch,' 'no short cuts') but lacks specific detail about work performed. It contrasts sharply with the detailed negative reviews and may not reflect current operations given the age of other complaints.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence due to consistent patterns across five dimensions and multiple independent corroborating accounts of poor pricing, incomplete work, and unprofessional behavior. However, the age of most reviews (3–6 years) and the single recent positive review introduce some uncertainty about current performance. The score reflects a contractor with serious and documented problems in customer treatment, financial practices, and project execution.

Both available reviews are negative and paint a concerning picture of this contractor. The first review details a billing dispute where the customer was charged emergency rates despite explicitly requesting non-emergency service, and the technician crew criticized their own company's original installation work — a serious professionalism and workmanship red flag. The second review flags unsafe driving behavior from a company vehicle, which reflects poorly on overall professionalism and company culture. The original sprinkler installation was later found to have been done incorrectly, raising significant concerns about workmanship quality. With only two reviews and both being 1-star, no dimension could be scored favorably, though all scores remain conservative given the extremely limited data set.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review 1 (2022): Customer was charged $381.85 at emergency rates despite explicitly telling the dispatcher it was not an emergency — potential deceptive billing practice.
• Review 1 (2022): Technicians verbally criticized the quality of the company's own prior installation work, suggesting awareness of substandard workmanship.
• Review 1 (2022): Four technicians were dispatched for what the customer described as a one-person job, suggesting inefficiency or inflated labor billing.
• Review 2 (2018): A company box truck was observed weaving unsafely between vehicles on a highway — reflects on company culture and employee conduct.
• Review 2 (2018) is over 5 years old and should be weighted with caution regarding current operations.
• No positive reviews present — impossible to assess whether negative experiences are isolated or systemic without more data.

This WW Score report is based on only 2 reviews, both negative, making it statistically insufficient to draw broad conclusions — however, the specific and detailed nature of the complaints, particularly around billing practices and workmanship, are credible red flags that prospective customers should take seriously.

Only two reviews were provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The one substantive review (July 2024) speaks positively about the contractor's thoroughness, communication, and quality of work, suggesting competence across professionalism, project completion, and experience. However, no pricing information was mentioned in either review, leaving that dimension entirely unscored. The second review consists solely of the word 'Excellent' with no supporting detail, making it unusable for dimensional scoring. All scores are conservative given the extremely limited data.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• One review ('Excellent') contains no specific detail and cannot be used for dimensional scoring.
• Pricing dimension has zero data points — this is a significant blind spot for consumers.
• With only 2 reviews, both rated 5 stars, there is no basis to assess consistency or detect patterns of concern, but the sample size is too small to draw meaningful conclusions.
• Recency note: Both reviews are from July 2024, which is recent, but the sample remains too small to be meaningful.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews, one of which contained no usable detail.