Find Nearby Plumbers In Seattle, Washington

Rapid Rooter has a large and broadly positive review base, with many customers praising individual technicians by name for being prompt, courteous, knowledgeable, and professional. However, a meaningful minority of reviews — roughly 20–25% — describe serious failures including no-shows, abandoned or incomplete work (unfinished concrete left for months), technicians being rude or aggressive, billing for work not performed, and at least one instance of a motor being installed incorrectly. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and transparent by most reviewers, but several customers describe being overcharged, billed for mileage unexpectedly, or charged for incomplete service. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with multiple credible accounts of jobs left unfinished, return visits not honored, and work that failed shortly after completion. The overall picture is of a company with capable technicians and a solid track record on routine drain jobs, but inconsistent quality control and customer service that varies significantly by technician and location.

• Multiple reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 with no specific detail (e.g., 'Amazing company very professional', 'Always goes the extra mile to help', blank text reviews with 5-star ratings) — these show hallmarks of potentially padded or low-effort reviews and were given reduced evidentiary weight.
• Three blank/empty review texts with 4–5 star ratings were excluded from substantive scoring as they provide no usable data.
• One review ('Loved their food and the family arcade') appears to be a mistaken review for a different business entirely and was disregarded.
• Two nearly identical reviews from 2022-11-28 describing the same abandoned concrete job appear to be duplicate submissions by the same customer — counted as one incident.
• Several reviews are more than 5 years old (pre-2020); while included for pattern context, they were given reduced weight relative to reviews from 2023–2025.
• A pattern of rude or dismissive office/dispatch staff is noted across multiple independent reviews spanning several years, suggesting a systemic customer service issue rather than isolated incidents.
• At least one review describes a technician refusing to complete work, one describes a snake left in a drain causing $2,000+ in damage with no accountability, and one describes an incorrectly installed motor — these are serious workmanship and liability concerns.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the consistent minority of serious negative experiences involving incomplete work, unprofessional conduct, and billing disputes that suggest meaningful quality inconsistency.

Action Jackson receives strong praise across a large volume of reviews for punctuality, friendly technicians, and responsive scheduling, which anchors a solid but not exceptional professionalism score. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious failures including incomplete work, misdiagnosis, poor cleanup, refusal to honor implied guarantees, and dismissive customer service when complaints were raised, which significantly depresses the project completion and pricing scores. Pricing feedback is mixed: many customers praise fair and transparent quotes, while a notable minority report sticker shock, undisclosed fees, being charged for work not completed, or feeling upsold into unnecessary services. Experience scores are similarly split — skilled technicians are frequently praised, but recurring accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect scoping assessments, and jobs that required a second company to actually resolve the problem introduce meaningful doubt about consistent technical quality. The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine strengths in responsiveness and friendliness, offset by a persistent and credible pattern of execution and accountability failures.

• 18 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A disproportionate number of blank 5-star reviews appear in clusters around the same dates (e.g., multiple on 2025-06-06, 2025-04-09, 2025-05-25), which raises a moderate concern about review authenticity or solicitation practices. Confidence in the overall positive sentiment is slightly reduced as a result.
• Multiple independent negative reviews describe a consistent pattern: work declared complete but failing within days or weeks, refusal to return without additional charge, and dismissive or hostile responses from management when complaints were raised. This pattern across different reviewers and different years is credible and materially impacts project completion and customer service scores.
• Several reviews describe misdiagnosis leading to costly unnecessary work recommendations (e.g., jackhammering, cleanout installation, pipe replacement) that were contradicted by other companies. This is a recurring technical credibility concern.
• One review (2016) alleges illegal dumping of raw sewage in a public alley. This is an unverified but serious allegation noted for transparency.
• One review (2023) alleges a technician damaged a washing machine, that the company denied responsibility, and that invoices and resolution were withheld for over two months. This describes a significant customer service and accountability failure.
• One review (2022) describes a basement flooding caused by a crew leaving a valve shut after a sewer scope — a serious procedural error. The company did respond quickly to remediate, which is noted.
• Recency note: Reviews span from 2015 to June 2025. Negative reviews are distributed across the full timeline, suggesting the issues described are not isolated to a single period. More recent reviews (2024–2025) still include both strong positives and notable negatives, indicating the pattern has not clearly resolved.
• The BBB rating referenced as D- in one review (2019) is an unverified third-party claim and is noted only as flagged customer-reported information, not as independently confirmed.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning approximately 10 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a credible and recurring pattern of project completion failures, misdiagnosis, and poor complaint resolution that appears across multiple independent reviewers and time periods.

Paris Plumbing has a long and mixed review history spanning roughly 15 years. The majority of positive reviews praise punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence — particularly from named technicians like Gene, Tim, Lee, and Chris — which drives a moderate-to-good professionalism and experience score. However, a persistent and credible pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down all dimensions: multiple reviewers report being overcharged for minimal work, receiving no itemized billing, being sent to collections, and experiencing rude or dismissive office staff (particularly Jennifer and Stephanie). Project completion is notably impacted by several reviews describing incomplete or misdiagnosed work, failed callbacks, and jobs that required a second plumber to actually resolve. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple independent reviewers citing a high flat-fee minimum, charges for time not spent solving problems, and a 30-day warranty policy that left customers paying multiple times for the same issue. The company appears to have undergone ownership changes (new management noted around late 2023), and more recent reviews trend more positively, but the volume of detailed negative reviews across many years prevents a high score.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews are near-identical word-for-word copies — one dated 2024-06-09 and one dated 2022-10-14 (the long negative review about shower controller and $600 in charges), and similarly the 'BEWARE OF THESE PEOPLE' review appears twice (2023-06-10 and 2022-10-13). These duplicates were counted only once each for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Eight reviews contain no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The company reportedly changed ownership around November 2023. Reviews from 2024-2025 trend more positively, suggesting possible operational improvement under new management. Older negative reviews (2013-2016 era) may reflect a prior ownership culture but are still relevant given the volume and specificity of complaints.
• OFFICE STAFF PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2013, 2015, 2016, 2020) specifically name office staff (Jennifer, Stephanie, Michelle) as rude, dismissive, or having hung up on customers. This is a credible recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY CONCERN: At least four independent reviews explicitly describe being charged without prior disclosure of fees, charged for cancelled appointments, or charged for work not completed. This is a significant and recurring pricing integrity issue.
• POSSIBLE GEOGRAPHIC OUTLIER: One review references 'Detroit' and a plumber named 'Gary,' which does not match the Seattle-based Paris Plumbing profile. This review may be misattributed and was excluded from scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: No strong evidence of coordinated fake positive reviews. Positive reviews contain specific names, job details, and varied language. However, a cluster of 5-star reviews all dated '2022-06-10' with no text or minimal text warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 15+ years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted with awareness that the company has changed ownership and recent performance may differ meaningfully from the historical average reflected here.

Pioneer Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising individual technicians like Carl, Will, Mike Davidson, Stephen, and Kip for professionalism, punctuality, and technical skill, which drives the experience and professionalism scores upward. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious issues including unlicensed plumbers, abandoned or unfinished work, billing surprises, unresponsive customer service, and at least one incident of sewage left splashed throughout a unit. Pricing is a notable weak point: multiple reviewers were blindsided by charges significantly higher than quoted or expected, and one reviewer documented a potential $2,000+ mid-job price escalation. Project completion is dragged down by credible accounts of work left unfinished for months, a plumber walking off a job, and a scheduling failure that left a customer without service for four days. The score reflects a company with genuine talent on the tools but inconsistent management, billing transparency, and follow-through.

• Several reviews with no text content (rating only) were excluded from dimension scoring — 8 blank reviews detected, all rated 4 or 5 stars, which slightly inflates the raw star average.
• Two reviews appear nearly identical in phrasing: 'Carl was professional, personable, and repaired my ongoing issue of 6 months in less than an hour' — posted on the same date (2023-06-10). This may be a duplicate or manipulated review and was counted only once.
• A cluster of reviews dated 2024-06-09 with no timestamps (only date) and uniformly positive tone warrants mild fake review suspicion — language is varied enough to not be definitively flagged, but the date clustering is unusual.
• One review (1-star, 2024-08-13) explicitly alleges unlicensed plumbers working on residential jobs — this is a serious legal and safety concern that, if accurate, would materially affect trustworthiness.
• One review (1-star, 2021-06-28) alleges plumbers entered a unit without notice or permission on multiple occasions, including at unauthorized times — describes potentially illegal conduct.
• One review (1-star, 2017-03-31) describes a bill sent a full year after job completion with no supporting documentation, followed by refusal to service their own installation — suggests possible billing integrity issues.
• Recency note: The majority of negative reviews span 2012–2024, indicating these are not isolated historical incidents. Positive reviews are also distributed across the full date range, suggesting the company has not fully resolved its service consistency issues over time.
• One review (1-star, 2016-02-02) describes a detailed pattern of being sent an unequipped technician, receiving verbal assurances that were later denied, and being charged nearly $900 with no recourse — consistent with a systemic billing transparency problem noted across multiple reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible, specific, and recurring negative reports about billing practices, project abandonment, and customer service failures that are not offset by the volume of positive reviews alone.

2 Sons Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise technician friendliness, responsiveness, and communication, with many reviewers highlighting same-day or next-day availability as a standout strength. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern across a substantial portion of reviews, with multiple customers explicitly describing charges as excessive, non-transparent, or misrepresenting the scope of work — this is the weakest dimension and meaningfully drags the overall score. Project completion is generally solid but is undermined by several notable failures: a technician sent who lacked the skills to complete the job, a misdiagnosed leak, an incomplete electrical inspection, and a no-show appointment. Professionalism scores moderately well overall but is pulled down by serious complaints about rude phone staff, alleged dishonesty from a dispatcher, a threatening call from the owner, and at least one instance of a technician being directed by a manager to maximize charges. The WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuine strengths in responsiveness and friendly field technicians, offset by meaningful and credible concerns around pricing integrity and occasional serious lapses in honesty and follow-through.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods describe feeling overcharged, misquoted, or given non-transparent pricing. Specific complaints include $400+ for a 5-minute drain snake, $500+/hour implied labor rates, $2,000+ for 1.5 hours of work, and a $638 toilet repair completed in under 25 minutes. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• HONESTY AND TRUST CONCERNS: At least two reviews allege outright dishonesty — one involving a dispatcher who knowingly sent an unqualified technician and then denied a promised Monday callback, and another involving a plumber who verbally promised a free callback repair that the company later refused to honor, charging ~$450 instead. These are serious allegations with detailed, specific accounts.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer credibly alleges the owner left a threatening voicemail warning them about leaving a negative review and threatening to retaliate against their business. Another reviewer alleges the owner responded to their complaint by leaving a retaliatory negative review on their business. If accurate, this represents a significant character and trust concern.
• TECHNICIAN COMPETENCY ISSUES: At least three reviews describe technicians who failed to correctly diagnose the problem — including a misdiagnosed leak attributed to caulking rather than a plumbing fault, a technician who cut a wall hole and could not identify the issue, and a technician who told a customer to keep using a dishwasher that was actively leaking and damaging the subfloor.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURE: One reviewer reports waiting a full 4-hour window with no technician arriving and being offered only a reschedule, with no proactive communication during the wait.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW. The review set contains a healthy mix of positive and negative reviews with specific names, dates, and details. No strong pattern of fake reviews detected. The positive reviews are generally specific and credible.
• RECENCY NOTE: All 75 reviews fall between late 2021 and late 2024. The majority (approximately 60+) are from 2023–2024 and are given full weight. Two reviews from 2021–2022 are present and weighted slightly lower per recency rules, but they are consistent with the overall pattern and do not materially skew the score.

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews spanning approximately three years, with strong representation from the past 12 months, and carries HIGH overall confidence — however, prospective customers should weigh the pricing and honesty flags seriously, as these concerns are specific, recurring, and come from multiple independent reviewers rather than isolated complaints.

2 Sons Plumbing scores well on professionalism at the technician level, with dozens of reviews praising individual plumbers as friendly, courteous, punctual, and communicative — this is clearly the company's strongest dimension. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern: multiple reviewers across several years describe charges they considered exorbitant, hidden fees (undisclosed credit card surcharges, opaque minimum charges), and refusal to provide itemized invoices, dragging the pricing score significantly down. Project completion is mixed — many jobs were completed same-day or on schedule, but there are notable failures including missed callbacks, repeat visits required to fix botched work, and at least one instance of a $28,000 misdiagnosis that a competitor resolved in 20 minutes. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many technicians praised for knowledge and problem-solving, but offset by documented cases of poor workmanship, improper installations, and failure to identify obvious issues during service visits. The gap between excellent frontline staff and problematic pricing practices and ownership/management accountability is the defining tension in this review set.

• PRICING CONCERNS — HIGH SEVERITY: Pricing complaints appear in at least 15+ reviews spanning 2018–2024, representing a consistent and credible pattern. Specific complaints include: undisclosed 3% credit card surcharges, $300+ minimum service fees not disclosed upfront, charges of $600–$1,800 for minor repairs, and refusal to provide itemized invoices. This is not isolated — it is a systemic pattern.
• CONTRACT CLAUSE FLAG: One reviewer (2021-06-14) explicitly cited a clause in 2 Sons' contract prohibiting customers from writing negative reviews about pricing, which violates the FTC Consumer Review Fairness Act. This is a significant red flag about business ethics and may suppress the true volume of negative pricing reviews.
• ALLEGED REVIEW SUPPRESSION: One reviewer (2021-12-15) states the company offered additional refund money in exchange for removing a negative Yelp review. This is a serious ethical concern and suggests the positive review pool may be artificially inflated.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: Multiple reviews document jobs that were not completed correctly on the first visit, required repeat visits, or caused secondary damage (leaking toilet seal, noisy pump installation, failed fittings causing flooding, toilet fill valve left incorrectly adjusted). In several cases, management refused to accept responsibility.
• MISDIAGNOSIS / POSSIBLE DISHONESTY: One reviewer (2024-02-19) was quoted $28,000 for a blockage that a second company cleared in 20 minutes. Another reviewer (2022-08-30) was quoted $6,800 for pipe replacement that cost $310 elsewhere. These are extreme outliers that suggest either serious incompetence or predatory upselling.
• MANAGEMENT VS. TECHNICIAN SPLIT: A recurring pattern shows individual technicians rated highly while management/ownership is described as defensive, rude, dismissive of complaints, and unwilling to honor workmanship issues. This split is present in at least 6 reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2018–2024. Pricing complaints and workmanship accountability issues appear consistently across all years, including the most recent 12 months (2024), indicating these are not historical issues that have been resolved.
• NO STRONG FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: While many 5-star reviews are enthusiastic, most reference specific technician names, specific job types, and specific details. The positive reviews appear largely genuine, though the review suppression tactics noted above mean the negative review count may be artificially low.

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable representation of customer experience, though the true score may be lower than calculated given documented evidence of negative review suppression by the company.