Find Nearby Plumbers In Seattle, Washington

D Young's Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise fair pricing, honest assessments, and friendly technicians — with multiple reviewers specifically noting they were charged less than competitors or told work was unnecessary. However, the review set contains a significant cluster of serious negative experiences involving the owner Guy Young personally: multiple independent reviewers describe him yelling, using profanity at customers, hanging up on clients, and behaving in an argumentative or dismissive manner. Project completion is further dragged down by a recurring pattern of failed follow-through on estimates and callbacks, with at least five separate reviewers describing being ignored for weeks after initial contact. The pricing dimension scores relatively well because even some dissatisfied customers acknowledged fair rates, but the professionalism and project completion dimensions are materially harmed by credible, detailed negative accounts. The overall WW Score of 72.1 reflects a business with genuine technical strengths and honest pricing undercut by serious and repeated management and communication failures.

• SERIOUS CONDUCT FLAG: Multiple independent reviewers (2016-01-29, 2016-02-22, 2014-08-27, 2015-05-28, 2017-01-05) describe the owner Guy Young yelling at customers, using profanity (F-bomb reported directly), hanging up on clients, and being verbally abusive. These are distinct, detailed accounts from different dates and situations — not a single incident.
• RECURRING FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: At least 5 reviews (2019-03-01, 2019-11-15, 2015-09-05, 2018-05-22, 2016-01-29) describe a consistent pattern of D Young's failing to return calls, deliver estimates, or complete promised callbacks — spanning multiple years, suggesting a systemic operational issue.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One review (2015-05-28) states a PRV installed by D Young began leaking within 6 months and a second plumber found it was installed incorrectly. One review (2016-01-29) describes forgotten tools, unfinished drain work, and abandoned jobs. These are credible and specific.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024, 2023, 2022) are predominantly positive and do not mention the owner Guy directly in negative contexts. The most severe negative reviews cluster between 2014–2019. It is possible management or staffing has improved, but insufficient recent negative data exists to confirm this definitively.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK: No strong evidence of fake reviews detected. Positive reviews vary in detail, writing style, and specificity. Negative reviews are highly detailed with specific dates, names, and incident descriptions, lending them credibility. The mix of 1-star and 5-star reviews appears organic.
• INVOICE DISPUTE FLAG: One reviewer (2017-01-05) describes the owner becoming hostile and cutting off conversation when the customer asked reasonable questions about line items on an invoice — a transparency concern for the pricing dimension.

This WW Score is based on 44 reviews spanning 2012–2024 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the severity and specificity of multiple negative accounts describing owner misconduct, and prospective customers are advised to note that recent reviews (2022–2024) trend more positively, suggesting possible improvement over time.

Rain City Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising professionalism, friendliness, and quality workmanship across a wide range of plumbing jobs including full repiping, water heater installation, and bathroom remodels. However, several serious negative reviews significantly temper the scores: one customer was abandoned mid-project with a dug-up yard and lost $1,600 in deposit money, another experienced multiple no-shows and a faulty repair that went unaddressed for months, and two others reported complete failure to follow up or return calls. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by those who received completed work, with multiple reviewers noting fair and transparent quotes. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to the abandoned water line job and the 2016 no-show pattern, which represent significant failures in follow-through. Experience scores are solid but pulled down by the abandoned water line review explicitly questioning the company's competence in that area.

• One review (2024-08-01) describes a serious project abandonment: customer paid $1,600 deposit, work was started but never completed, company became unresponsive, and customer had to hire another contractor at additional cost. This is a critical project completion failure.
• A 2016 review documents multiple no-shows, a faulty repair left unaddressed for months, and a dispatcher described as disorganized. While older, the pattern is consistent with other responsiveness complaints.
• Two reviews (2023-05-15 and 2023-05-30) describe complete failure to return calls or follow up after initial contact, suggesting a recurring responsiveness issue.
• A 2023-10-26 review describes a booking error, an unprofessional plumber, and pricing described as subjective and scam-like — covering professionalism, pricing, and communication failures simultaneously.
• The majority of strongly positive reviews are from 2013–2022, with the most recent reviews (2023–2024) skewing more negative. This recency trend is a concern and suggests possible decline in service quality.
• Several older 5-star reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'great company, great service, great price, friendly'), which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight, though they are not flagged as definitively fake due to variation in language and named individuals.
• No confirmed fake review patterns detected, but the volume of generic praise in older reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on 31 reviews spanning 2013–2024 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score statistically meaningful; however, the recency trend toward negative experiences and one serious project abandonment complaint in 2024 mean prospective customers should weight recent reviews heavily and verify current responsiveness before hiring.

Capitol Hill Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and technical competence, with multiple technicians (Rob, Steve, Aaron, Chris, Sean) receiving specific commendations. However, the pricing dimension is notably dragged down by credible complaints about hidden or questionable fees, a suspicious 'rush fee' scheme, charging for early arrival time, and billing errors that the company refused to correct — these are serious red flags that meaningfully reduce the price-friendly score. Project completion is generally solid, with many jobs finished promptly and even some no-charge goodwill visits, but the hot water heater incident (2-week delay for a part available 3 miles away) and the emergency service mishandling represent significant failures in follow-through and customer care. Experience scores well overall given repeated evidence of skilled diagnostics and problem-solving, including handling unusual vintage plumbing, but is tempered by at least one instance of a plumber snapping a pipe through excessive force. The WW Score of 72.1 reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in responsiveness and workmanship but meaningful and recurring concerns around pricing transparency and billing integrity.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviews describe questionable billing practices — charging for a plumber's early arrival when no one was home, a suspicious 'rush fee' for a part available 3 miles away, billing errors on emergency rates that were refused correction, and a $158 charge for under 25 minutes of work with no parts listed. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 5 years, with most dating from 2010–2016. Only two reviews are from 2017–2018. The score may not reflect the company's current service quality. More recent reviews skew negative (1-star ratings in 2017 and 2018).
• NEGATIVE TREND IN RECENT REVIEWS: The two most recent reviews (2017 and 2018) are both 1-star, one describing billing misconduct and one describing a dangerous driving incident. This recency-weighted signal is concerning and suggests possible decline in service standards.
• DRIVING SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (July 2018) reports a Capitol Hill Plumbing driver texting while driving on a highway, which is both illegal and a liability concern. While this does not directly affect plumbing quality, it reflects on company culture and employee conduct.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary meaningfully in tone, detail, specificity, named technicians, and rating. No suspicious uniformity or templated language was identified. Reviews appear genuine.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the volume of reviews (25) and broad mention coverage across all four dimensions, but the score's real-world reliability is moderated by the age of most reviews and a concerning negative trend in the most recent submissions — prospective customers should weight the 2017–2018 reviews heavily when making a hiring decision.

Ed consistently receives strong praise for his technical skill, workmanship, and fair pricing across many reviews spanning several years, with multiple reviewers specifically noting his knowledge, craftsmanship, and reasonable rates. However, a recurring and serious pattern of non-responsiveness significantly drags down the professionalism and project completion scores — at least 5 separate reviewers explicitly report that Ed or his office never returned calls or emails, even after automated confirmations were sent. This responsiveness failure is not a one-off complaint but a documented pattern across multiple years (2017, 2018, 2020, 2022), indicating a systemic issue with follow-through on new or returning inquiries. When Ed does show up, the work quality and customer experience are rated very highly, but the barrier to actually reaching him represents a meaningful reliability risk. The WW Score reflects this split: strong on skill and pricing, but materially penalized for a consistent communication and responsiveness failure.

• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN — At least 5 reviews (2017, 2018, 2020, 2022 x2) explicitly report that Ed never returned calls or emails despite automated confirmations being sent. This is a documented, recurring pattern across multiple years and is not an isolated incident.
• RECENCY CONCERN — The majority of highly positive reviews are from 2013–2018. The most recent reviews (2022–2023) include both a positive and two non-response complaints, suggesting the responsiveness issue may have persisted or worsened over time. Scores are weighted toward more recent data where possible.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY — One review (2017) directly quotes and paraphrases another reviewer by name ('To quote Nick K.'), which is unusual and may indicate a coordinated or coached review. This review was included but treated with reduced weight.
• SMALL BUSINESS CAPACITY — Several reviewers acknowledge Ed may be overwhelmed with work, which contextualizes but does not excuse the non-response pattern. Prospective customers should be aware that reaching him may require persistence.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews with a broad date range (2013–2023) and carries HIGH overall confidence due to sufficient mention volume across all dimensions, though the score should be interpreted cautiously given the persistent non-responsiveness pattern and the age of most positive reviews.

Michael and his crew receive strong praise across most reviews for punctuality, politeness, responsiveness, and honest dealings — including one notable instance where he chose not to upsell an unnecessary replacement. However, a significant negative review from July 2024 describes repeated missed warranty appointments, shoddy workmanship, and unprofessional on-site behavior, which meaningfully drags down scores in professionalism and project completion. Pricing is generally viewed as affordable and reasonable, though one 2022 review raises concerns about a lack of cost transparency and mismatched parts. Experience scores are mixed: most reviewers are satisfied with the quality of completed work, but the 1-star review explicitly calls the crew unskilled, and the 3-star review points to poor product selection and execution. The overall picture is a contractor with genuine strengths in customer relations and responsiveness but with documented reliability and quality-control gaps that cannot be ignored.

• One review (2024-07-12, 1-star) describes three missed warranty/callback appointments, shoddy workmanship, no drop cloths, crew using client's toilet as a step stool, and damage to a newly stained deck — this is a serious flag for both professionalism and project completion reliability.
• One review (2022-06-12, 3-star) raises a transparency concern: no cost breakdown was provided, and a mismatched toilet was installed despite explicit client instructions — flagging a potential issue with honesty in pricing and experience.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Polite very hard worker', 'Awesome work', 'hard working and go the extra mile') with minimal specifics. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants mild caution about review authenticity for a subset of reviews.
• The 2022 review is older than 12 months and has been weighted less heavily. The 2024 negative review is within the past 12 months and has been given full weight as it represents the most recent signal of potential quality issues.
• Cluster of reviews in October 2024 (5 reviews within 6 days) may indicate a solicited review campaign; language varies enough to avoid a fake review flag, but the timing concentration is noted.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the presence of a detailed and credible 1-star review alongside a 3-star transparency complaint means the score should be interpreted cautiously — particularly for projects requiring follow-up warranty work or precise material specifications.

Aurora Plumbing has a deeply split reputation across its two core functions: retail parts/supply store and plumbing service contractor. On the experience and knowledge side, a large volume of reviewers — including DIYers, homeowners, and even professional contractors — consistently praise staff members like Spencer, Joel, Matt, Kevin, Travis, Sean, and others for exceptional technical knowledge, creative problem-solving, and going far beyond expectations to help customers find obscure parts and avoid unnecessary costs. However, professionalism scores are significantly dragged down by a recurring and well-documented pattern of specific counter staff being dismissive, rude, condescending, and unhelpful — particularly to women, non-professionals, and first-time visitors — with multiple reviewers explicitly citing the same behavior (staff refusing to leave their seat, ignoring customers, responding with sarcasm). Pricing is the weakest dimension: numerous reviewers across many years cite markups of 28% to 100%+ over big-box stores, surprise charges on service calls, billing disputes, and in several cases allegations of outright price gouging or fraudulent upselling on sewer work. Project completion is moderate-to-good for straightforward jobs but is undermined by documented cases of cancelled appointments, no-shows, jobs left incomplete, return visits needed, and at least one extended multi-month failure to complete a toilet installation. The score reflects a business with genuine pockets of excellence but systemic inconsistency in service quality and serious pricing transparency concerns.

• 21 reviews contain no text (rating only) — these were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Pricing concerns are severe and consistent across many years: multiple reviewers cite 28%–100%+ markups over Home Depot/Amazon for identical parts; several service reviews cite unexpected charges, billing disputes, and charges for time not worked.
• Multiple serious allegations of fraudulent upselling on sewer/drain work: at least 4 independent reviewers describe being told they needed $5,000–$15,000 in sewer repairs that other plumbers subsequently resolved for a fraction of the cost or not at all. This is a significant red flag.
• Recurring pattern of specific staff being rude, dismissive, and condescending — particularly to women and non-professionals. At least 8 reviews describe nearly identical behavior (staff refusing to leave seat, ignoring customers, sarcastic responses). This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• At least one review (2016) describes Aurora Plumbing attempting to impose a non-disparagement/gag order clause as a condition of refund — a serious ethical and reputational concern.
• One review (2021) alleges a quote of $15,000+ for sewer work that two other plumbers said required only a small repair under $3,000.
• One review (2017) describes a sump pump specialist who had never worked on the specific pump type (Saniflo) and caused damage, suggesting dispatching technicians without verifying relevant expertise.
• One review (2016) from an 87-year-old customer alleges charges for work not performed, inflated permit fees (charged $550 for a $158 permit), and removal of a pressure relief valve without consent — totaling thousands in disputed charges.
• Several reviews from 2016–2017 describe appointment cancellations, no-shows, and technicians arriving without necessary parts — suggesting scheduling and logistics failures.
• Recency note: Reviews span 2008–2025. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) continue to show the same split pattern — excellent counter staff experiences alongside dismissive/unhelpful staff encounters. No clear improvement trend is evident in the most recent 12 months.
• Possible duplicate review detected: Two reviews with nearly identical text about an 'old house' hose bib repair appear — one dated 2024-09-09 and one dated 2024-08-21. These were counted as one mention to avoid score inflation.
• Two reviews (2016-05-15) appear to be near-identical duplicates from the same customer. Counted as one mention.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, but the volume of generic 5-star text-only reviews (e.g., 'Great service.', 'Excellent', 'Exelente') warrants mild caution — these were not used for dimensional scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (183 total, 162 with usable data) spanning 17 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given documented patterns of alleged fraudulent upselling, pricing opacity, and inconsistent staff quality — the true experience at Aurora Plumbing appears highly dependent on which staff member a customer encounters and whether the job is a simple parts purchase or a complex service call.