Find Nearby Plumbers In Seattle, Washington

Bellevue Plumbing shows a deeply mixed track record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently discussed dimension and reveals a stark split: many reviewers praise specific technicians (Lauren, Troy, Austin, Brandon, Roderick, Denver) as punctual, communicative, and courteous, while a meaningful minority describe serious failures including no-shows, unreturned calls, abandoned jobs, and poor treatment of elderly customers. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out high hourly rates ($160/hr, $250/hr), excessive parts markups (reportedly 70%), and bills that far exceeded estimates or expectations — including two separate incidents involving senior citizens being charged amounts reviewers considered exploitative. Project completion is similarly mixed: many jobs were completed efficiently and on time, but there are credible accounts of multi-week delays, canceled appointments, parts not ordered, work done incorrectly requiring return visits, and at least one case where a warranty dispute was mishandled. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship, though offset by at least two reviews describing technicians who admitted they did not know how to fix the problem and billed the customer anyway. The overall picture is a company with capable individual technicians but inconsistent systems, communication, and pricing integrity.

• RECENCY NOTE: The review set spans from 2011 to 2024. Approximately 60% of reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2022). The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are limited in number but include both a strong positive cluster and a notable negative pricing complaint, suggesting ongoing inconsistency.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The review dated 2015-03-31 describing a sink cracked during a drinking binge is highly anecdotal, oddly detailed in irrelevant ways, and reads as potentially fabricated or written for entertainment rather than genuine service feedback. It was included in analysis but treated with low evidentiary weight.
• SENIOR CITIZEN EXPLOITATION PATTERN: At least three separate reviews (2022-05-26, 2021-09-28, 2017-11-13) explicitly describe elderly customers being treated poorly — overcharged, left without water for days, or having a water heater installed inaccessibly. This is a notable and recurring pattern that warrants serious consumer caution.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SPECIFIC AND CREDIBLE: Multiple reviewers cite exact dollar amounts and specific grievances (70% parts markup, $702 for two valves, $420 for a rubber stopper, bill exceeding estimate by more than double). These are not vague complaints and significantly drag the pricing score down.
• COMMUNICATION AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: At least five reviews (2016-08-08, 2016-12-11, 2018-11-23, 2015-11-16, 2016-10-14) describe complete communication breakdowns — no callbacks, no-shows, unreturned voicemails, and estimates never delivered. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• WARRANTY DISPUTE: One review (2019-09-05) describes a repair failing within two years with no warranty honored, and another (2017-11-13) describes a warranty dispute over an incorrectly installed water heater that was never resolved to the customer's satisfaction.
• TECHNICIAN QUALITY VARIANCE: Reviews suggest a significant gap in quality between specific named technicians (Lauren, Austin, Brandon praised repeatedly) and unnamed or other technicians who performed substandard work. The company's score is heavily dependent on which technician is assigned.

This WW Score is based on 57 reviews spanning 13 years with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable; however, the wide variance in review sentiment, the recency skew toward older data, and the presence of credible systemic complaints about pricing and communication mean consumers should treat this score as a moderate-confidence signal and read individual reviews carefully before hiring.

Metropolitan Sewer Service shows a genuinely mixed track record across a large review set spanning 2007–2022. Their strongest dimension is pricing, where numerous reviewers explicitly praised competitive bids, transparent quotes, and significant savings versus competitors — this is a consistent and credible signal. Experience and workmanship are generally well-regarded when jobs are completed, with multiple reviewers describing skilled crews, quality repairs, and technically sound diagnoses. However, professionalism and project completion are significantly dragged down by a recurring pattern of communication failures: multiple independent reviewers describe being ghosted after initial contact, no-shows for scheduled appointments, and incomplete follow-through on finishing work or addressing damage caused during jobs. The owner Parnell is mentioned by name in both glowing and deeply critical reviews, with several negative reviewers specifically citing broken promises and non-responsiveness from him personally.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2018. The two most recent reviews (2022) are both negative (1-star), suggesting possible decline in service quality in recent years. Scores should be interpreted with caution given this trend.
• RECURRING PATTERN — GHOSTING/NO-SHOW: At least 5 independent reviews (2012, 2017, 2017, 2018, 2022) describe being ignored after initial contact, no-shows for scheduled appointments, or promises made and never fulfilled. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• RECURRING PATTERN — INCOMPLETE PROJECT FOLLOW-THROUGH: At least 4 reviews describe work that was left unfinished, damage that was never remediated, or warranty-adjacent issues that were not honored or were only honored after persistent customer pressure.
• ONE REVIEW (2020, 1-star) describes a sewer repair that failed weeks after the warranty expired, costing the customer tens of thousands of dollars, with the owner allegedly lying and then ghosting. This is a severe allegation and materially impacts the project completion score.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary substantially in length, detail, writing style, and rating. Negative reviews are specific and credible. No artificial inflation pattern identified.
• OLDER REVIEWS (pre-2015): Several reviews are 8–17 years old and may not reflect current business practices. These were included in scoring but carry reduced practical relevance for a prospective customer today.

This WW Score is based on 38 reviews with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable — however, the strong negative trend in recent reviews and the documented pattern of communication failures and incomplete work mean prospective customers should weight the lower-scoring dimensions heavily when making a hiring decision.

Backflows Northwest shows a clear split between a strong track record in earlier years (2016–2022) and a notable deterioration in service quality and reliability from 2023 onward, particularly in 2024. Positive reviews consistently praise friendly technicians, competitive pricing, seamless paperwork submission to water districts, and ease of scheduling — all hallmarks of a well-run operation at its peak. However, a significant cluster of recent 1-star reviews (2024) describes chronic failures to submit required reports to water authorities, complete inability to reach the company by phone or email, and unresolved liability disputes over faulty workmanship — issues that directly undermine the core service promise. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating that the contracted deliverable (report filing) was not fulfilled, resulting in fines and water shutoff threats. Professionalism scores are dragged down by reports of unreturned calls, no-shows, and dismissive or rude office staff across multiple years. Pricing remains the most consistently positive dimension, with few complaints and many mentions of reasonable or competitive rates.

• RECENCY CONCERN: A disproportionate number of 1-star reviews are concentrated in 2024 (4 of the 8 negative reviews), suggesting a significant and recent decline in service quality that may not be reflected in the overall score average.
• BUSINESS CONTINUITY CONCERN: Multiple 2024 reviews reference the company going 'MIA', being completely unreachable by phone and email, and failing to honor contracted services — this may indicate operational collapse or severe understaffing.
• REPORT FILING FAILURES: At least 3 reviews explicitly state that Backflows NW failed to submit required backflow test reports to water districts, which is described as the primary contracted service. One reviewer was fined $189 as a direct result.
• WORKMANSHIP LIABILITY DISPUTE: One review (2022) includes a written plumber statement alleging damage caused by improper backflow testing technique, and describes the company deflecting responsibility and going silent — a serious quality and ethics flag.
• ACQUISITION-RELATED ISSUES: Two reviews reference Backflows NW taking over another company's client base and failing to adequately serve those inherited customers, suggesting the decline may be tied to a business acquisition that exceeded their operational capacity.
• OLDER POSITIVE REVIEWS: A large portion of the high-rated reviews date from 2016–2021, which are now 3–8 years old. These may not reflect current service quality and should be weighted accordingly per recency rules.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Review language is varied, specific, and includes both positive and negative detail. No patterns of fake review generation detected.

This WW Score is based on 33 reviews spanning 2016–2024 with high mention counts across all dimensions, giving the score mathematical reliability; however, the sharp and well-documented service decline in 2024 means the score likely overstates current performance, and prospective customers should treat recent 1-star reviews as the most predictive signal of what to expect today.

Rainier View receives consistently strong praise for individual technician professionalism, punctuality, and communication across many reviews, which drives the professionalism score upward. However, several serious negative reviews significantly drag down all dimensions: a $20k+ tankless water heater installation failure that multiple other plumbers refused to touch, an improperly insulated steam unit installed in an attic with the owner refusing accountability, a $200 charge for 15 minutes of dismissive warranty work, and a $300/hour charge for a garbage disposal issue. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out unfair or excessive charges, though a few positive pricing mentions and one integrity-based refund prevent a lower score. Project completion suffers most from the tankless heater disaster and the steam unit installation failure, both representing serious long-term workmanship failures that were not remedied by the company. The experience dimension reflects a mixed picture of skilled individual technicians alongside documented installation errors with significant financial consequences for customers.

• Multiple serious negative reviews describe installation failures with long-term financial consequences for customers, including a tankless water heater system that failed within 5 years costing the customer over $20k total, and an improperly insulated steam unit that caused water damage.
• A pattern of owner/management refusing accountability for documented installation errors appears in at least two separate reviews (steam unit attic install, tankless heater), suggesting a systemic issue at the management level rather than isolated technician errors.
• Several positive reviews are older than 5 years (2012–2017) and may not reflect current service quality. The most recent negative review is from 2024, suggesting quality issues may have persisted or worsened over time.
• The majority of 5-star reviews lack specific detail about project outcomes or long-term results, while the most detailed reviews tend to be negative. This asymmetry warrants caution when interpreting the positive reviews.
• Recency weighting applied: the 2024 negative review describing a $20k+ loss is given elevated weight as the most recent data point. Only two reviews are from 2023 or later, limiting confidence in current performance.

This WW Score is based on 21 reviews spanning over a decade, with sufficient mention volume for HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given that the most recent and most detailed negative reviews describe serious, costly installation failures and a pattern of management refusing accountability.

FloHawks demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism from individual technicians, with many customers praising knowledgeable staff and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious operational and business practice issues. Pricing concerns are pervasive, with customers frequently reporting overcharges, hidden fees, and rates substantially higher than competitors. Project completion reliability is inconsistent, marked by numerous no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication about delays, and incomplete follow-through on promised work. While field technicians often perform well, backend operations—scheduling, billing accuracy, and customer service responsiveness—are major pain points that undermine overall satisfaction.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple identical or near-identical reviews with generic praise and no specifics (e.g., 'Chris is a great guy and provided a great service' appears twice with identical dates; 'Tom did a great job even in the heat...' appears twice verbatim). This suggests potential review manipulation and reduces confidence in the 5-star cluster.
• SIGNIFICANT PRICING COMPLAINTS: 89 mentions of pricing issues reveal a consistent pattern of overcharging, hidden fees ('Consumables'), marked-up parts (700% markup reported), and quotes that don't match final invoices. Multiple customers report being charged $1000+ for work competitors completed for $250-500.
• SEVERE SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW PROBLEMS: 40+ reviews document no-shows, missed appointments, failure to call with updates, and customers waiting entire days within promised windows with no communication. This is a systemic operational failure.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERNS: Multiple reports of forged signatures, unauthorized charges, double-billing, and refusal to honor quoted estimates. One customer reported criminal forgery; another reported being sent to collections for a disputed charge.
• INCONSISTENT FOLLOW-UP: Numerous complaints about supervisors and managers failing to return calls/emails for weeks or months, even after escalation requests.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) show continued problems with pricing, scheduling, and communication, indicating issues persist despite company age and size.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be trusted as a realistic assessment based on 400 reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions. The score reflects a company with genuinely skilled technicians but severely compromised by operational dysfunction, pricing practices that customers perceive as exploitative, and poor project management. Customers should expect quality work but should verify pricing carefully, get everything in writing, and be prepared for scheduling delays and communication gaps.

Gene Johnson Plumbing & Heating demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism from individual technicians, with many customers praising punctuality, knowledge, and courteous service. However, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing concerns—the single most damaging issue across reviews. Customers consistently report charges 2–3x higher than competitors for identical work, with aggressive upselling, lack of transparency on costs, and refusal to provide estimates over the phone. Project completion is generally solid when work is performed, but scheduling reliability and follow-through on callbacks are inconsistent. The company's merger history and organizational changes appear to have degraded operational consistency.

• CRITICAL PRICING ISSUE: Approximately 142 reviews explicitly mention excessive, predatory, or unjustifiable pricing. This is the dominant complaint across the dataset. Examples include $1,400 for bidet installation (competitor: $400), $687 for faucet install, $650 for wax ring replacement, $3,500+ for simple repairs, and systematic 200–500% markups on parts.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Approximately 40–50 reviews from June 2025 and May 2025 are suspiciously generic, repetitive, and lack specificity. Many contain identical phrasing ('went above and beyond,' 'very knowledgeable,' 'professional'), all 5-star ratings, minimal detail, and appear clustered by date. These reviews inflate professionalism and experience scores artificially. Confidence in those dimensions should be reduced.
• SCHEDULING & FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 25 reviews document no-shows, cancellations without notice, missed appointment windows, and failure to return calls despite promises. This is a systemic operational issue.
• COMPANY OWNERSHIP & MERGER IMPACT: Multiple reviews note the company was acquired by an 'east coast company' and merged with Bel-Red, Fox Plumbing, and others. Post-merger reviews show degraded communication, inconsistent service quality, and loss of local accountability. Several customers explicitly state 'not the level of service I had come to rely upon.'
• LICENSING CONCERNS: Two reviews (Aug 2024) allege the company was operating with a suspended plumbing license and lied about its status when called.
• INCOMPLETE/INCORRECT WORK: Multiple reviews document work that failed inspection, required callbacks, or was done incorrectly the first time, forcing customers to pay again or hire competitors to fix GJ's mistakes.
• RECENCY BIAS MITIGATION: Most recent reviews (June 2025 onwards) are suspiciously positive and generic. Reviews from 2021–2024 are more detailed and credible. The dataset shows a clear quality decline from 2014–2017 (when reviews were more balanced) to 2018–present (dominated by pricing complaints and operational failures).

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence overall, but with significant caveats: the pricing dimension (42.0) is exceptionally well-documented and reliable; professionalism and experience scores are inflated by approximately 40–50 suspicious fake reviews from June–May 2025 and should be discounted by 5–10 points; project completion is reliable but masked by scheduling failures not fully captured in the score. The company excels at individual technician competence but fails catastrophically at pricing transparency, organizational follow-through, and customer respect. Customers should expect excellent workmanship but prepare for bills 2–3x market rate and poor scheduling reliability.