Find Nearby Plumbers In Seattle, Washington

Professionalism scores moderately because while a large number of reviews praise individual technicians as friendly, courteous, punctual, and communicative, a significant and recurring minority describe rude office staff, dispatchers who hung up on customers, failure to notify customers of schedule changes, and at least one technician described as appearing impaired. Pricing is the most heavily penalized dimension: dozens of explicit complaints describe charges of $400–$1,800+ for jobs lasting under an hour, non-transparent fee structures, undisclosed dispatch fees, and quotes that ballooned after work began — with multiple reviewers stating they were charged more than quoted or charged for work that did not fix the problem. Project completion suffers from a meaningful pattern of abandoned or incomplete jobs, repeat visits for the same unresolved issue, parts never ordered, jobs left mid-way, and in several cases customers having to hire a second company to finish what Best Plumbing started. Experience scores in the moderate range because many individual technicians are praised for skill and problem-solving, but a notable subset of negative reviews describe misdiagnosis, wrong parts, broken equipment left behind, and work that made problems worse — suggesting uneven technical quality across the workforce.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews appear to be near-identical duplicates (the long 'sewer backup on a Sunday' review appears twice on different dates; the 'Fast and prof Service' review appears twice; the 'Professional, Helpful, Communicative' Morgan Hoover review appears twice; the 'Best Plumbing Company is simply the BEST' Trent and Sheldon review appears twice). These duplicates were counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes but inflate the raw review count.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A large cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-06 with no review text (rating only, all 5-star) is highly suspicious and suggests possible review padding. These blank reviews were excluded from dimension scoring as they contain no usable data.
• PLATFORM DISCREPANCY NOTED: One reviewer explicitly states the company has a 1.5/5 rating on Consumer Checkbook and a 3.0 on Yelp versus a much higher Google rating, and questions whether positive Google reviews are authentic. This is consistent with the observed pattern of generic, brief 5-star reviews alongside detailed negative reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text span from 2006 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) include both strong positives and several serious negatives including pricing complaints, incomplete work, and threatening collection behavior, suggesting the issues are ongoing and not historical.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer alleges the owner called months after a negative review to offer $100 to remove it, which if accurate represents a serious ethical concern about review integrity.
• BILLING PRACTICE FLAG: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same pattern — undisclosed dispatch/diagnostic fees, no upfront estimates, charges presented only after work is done, and refusal to itemize invoices. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 8 distinct reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required multiple return visits for the same issue, or required a second company to finish — a significant project completion risk for prospective customers.
• THREATENING COLLECTIONS FLAG: At least two reviewers describe being threatened with police action or property liens when disputing bills, including in one case for work that did not fix the problem. This is a serious customer service and ethical flag.

This WW Score of 58.3 is based on a very large review set with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but prospective customers should weight it cautiously given strong evidence of systematic pricing opacity, a suspicious cluster of blank 5-star reviews that may artificially inflate the overall star average on other platforms, and a recurring pattern of incomplete work and aggressive billing practices documented across multiple years and geographies.

Pacific Plumbing Supply shows a deeply mixed record across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is sharply divided: several reviewers praise specific staff members (Finn, Jack, Mike, Lisa) as friendly, patient, and knowledgeable, while a near-equal number describe staff as rude, dismissive, condescending, or outright unhelpful — including one reviewer who perceived discriminatory treatment. Project completion (interpreted here as fulfilling the customer's supply need completely) is also problematic, with multiple reviewers reporting they were turned away, sold incomplete products, or given wrong parts — including a restocking fee charged for staff error. Experience scores moderately, with some staff demonstrating strong technical knowledge and others unable to identify basic plumbing components like a pinch clamp. Pricing receives the most positive signals, with a few reviewers noting competitive or reasonable prices, though the sample is small.

• Review spread spans 2012–2020; the majority of reviews are older than 3 years relative to the most recent review date (2020-02-11), and all reviews are now more than 4 years old. Recency weighting significantly limits reliability of this score for current business quality.
• One reviewer (2018-04-03) explicitly notes management changed in the prior year, suggesting the business may have gone through a transition period. Reviews before and after this note may reflect different operational realities.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and specificity. Negative reviews include specific incidents and named staff, lending credibility to the dataset overall.
• The shower stall review (2019-12-30) describes a product fulfillment failure — selling a shower stall without the ability to supply the glass component — which is a significant service gap flagged under project completion.
• A restocking fee was charged for parts the staff themselves provided incorrectly (2012-04-04), which is a notable customer service and ethics concern.

This WW Score carries HIGH mention-volume confidence across all dimensions, but its real-world reliability is significantly reduced by the age of the review dataset — all reviews predate 2021 — and the sharp internal contradictions in staff quality, suggesting inconsistent service that may depend heavily on which employee a customer encounters.

Gary Fox Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across service dimensions. While professionalism and technical experience receive moderate-to-good marks (72 and 71 respectively), with many customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and knowledge, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing complaints. Pricing scores critically low at 38/100 based on 18 explicit mentions of overcharging, bait-and-switch tactics, and lack of transparency. Project completion is middling (68/100), with several instances of incomplete work, no-shows, and unfinished callbacks. The WW Score of 58.2 reflects a business that may deliver technically competent work but loses customer trust through aggressive pricing practices and inconsistent follow-through.

• SEVERE PRICING PATTERN: 18 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, with customers reporting $300–$700 for routine jobs (faucet installs, drain snakes, valve replacements). Multiple reviews use terms like 'rip off,' 'bait and switch,' and 'nickel and diming.' This is the dominant complaint across the dataset.
• QUOTE MISREPRESENTATION: Multiple reviews (2012-09-17, 2013-02-27) describe quotes given over phone that doubled or tripled upon arrival, with parts costs hidden until technician arrived. This suggests systematic low-balling followed by upselling.
• INCOMPLETE WORK & NO-SHOWS: Review from 2012-09-17 documents promised callback work that never materialized despite multiple reassurances. Review from 2013-06-05 reports a no-show appointment.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2010–2016 (older than 8 years). More recent reviews (2015–2022) are predominantly positive, suggesting either business improvement or change in customer base. Weight recent reviews more heavily.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: Review from 2014-08-21 criticizes appearance and hygiene of technician; review from 2014-07-30 reports unprofessional phone manner. However, many other reviews praise politeness and professionalism. Suggests variable staff quality.
• TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE VARIANCE: Review from 2013-06-05 criticizes first technician for recommending unnecessary work (full valve replacement instead of cartridge swap), though second technician corrected this. Indicates inconsistent expertise among staff.
• CASH-ONLY PRESSURE: Review from 2012-09-17 documents technician pressuring customer to withdraw cash to avoid tax charges and refusing receipt—potential tax evasion red flag.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the dataset is substantial (31 reviews), the company shows stark polarization: older reviews (2010–2016) are overwhelmingly negative on pricing and ethics, while recent reviews (2015–2022) are predominantly positive. The pricing dimension is well-evidenced (18 mentions) and consistently damaging, but recency bias suggests the company may have reformed or shifted customer base. The score reflects historical performance; current service quality may differ. Prospective customers should request detailed written estimates and compare with competitors before committing.

Greenwood Heating & Air Conditioning shows a deeply polarized customer experience. While professionalism scores moderately well (68.5) with many customers praising individual technicians' courtesy and communication, the company is severely undermined by pervasive pricing complaints (28.0), with numerous reviews documenting markups of 400-1300% on parts and inflated labor charges. Project completion is problematic (54.0), with recurring issues including incomplete repairs, multiple callbacks, warranty non-compliance, and poor follow-through. Technical experience is mixed (62.0)—some installations are excellent, but many reviews report misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and inconsistent service quality across technicians. The company's recent name change appears to have wiped previous negative reviews from Google Maps, raising integrity concerns.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing abuse documented across 38 reviews. Examples include: $495 electrical contactor marked up from $20-30; $7,500 water heater quote vs. $1,100 retail; $6,500 refrigerant flush vs. competitor's $1,254; $20,000 heat pump replacement vs. $6-7k market rate. Pattern suggests predatory pricing model.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews report company attempting to suppress negative feedback. One review explicitly states 300+ bad reviews are hidden in 'not recommended' category due to company disputes. Another review notes name change in 2023 wiped all previous Google Maps feedback including customer's own review.
• CRITICAL: Warranty and contractual obligation violations documented in at least 6 reviews. Company repeatedly refuses to honor promised warranties, preventive maintenance, and service guarantees after installation.
• CRITICAL: Inconsistent diagnostics and upselling pattern. Multiple customers report receiving 3-4 different diagnoses from different Greenwood technicians for the same problem, with escalating repair/replacement quotes ($6k → $13k → $23k in one case). Suggests commission-based sales incentives.
• CRITICAL: Installation quality failures. Multiple reviews document: miswired heat pumps causing motherboard failure, mis-plumbed condensation piping, incorrect furnace installation (wrong model installed 15 years ago), failed electrical work requiring reschedule and inspection failure.
• CRITICAL: Poor follow-up and communication. Numerous reviews report unanswered calls/emails, missed callbacks from promised supervisors, lack of status updates, and technicians not showing up with necessary parts despite customer confirmation.
• CRITICAL: Unethical service practices. Reviews document: technicians entering rooms without permission and photographing non-Greenwood appliances; charging $400 for 15-minute inspections; charging full diagnostic fees for warranty repairs; pulling breakers during diagnostics leaving customers without heat in winter.
• MODERATE: Positive reviews cluster in 2017-2021 period; negative reviews heavily concentrated in 2022-2024, suggesting significant company deterioration or business model change.
• MODERATE: Several reviews mention company owner/VP attempting to contact customers after negative reviews to pressure removal or offer partial refunds—suggests reputation management rather than genuine service improvement.
• MODERATE: Scheduling dysfunction. Multiple reviews report 4-6 month wait times for estimates, inability to reschedule appointments, and inflexible scheduling that doesn't accommodate customer needs.

This WW Score of 52.3 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence) and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 80 substantive reviews with consistent, documented patterns of predatory pricing, warranty violations, installation failures, and poor follow-through. The company's apparent suppression of negative reviews and recent name change raise additional integrity concerns. Customers should seek alternative providers.

This contractor's review set is deeply mixed, with serious negative incidents pulling scores down significantly across all dimensions. Professionalism is heavily damaged by multiple no-show incidents, a plumber who lied to dispatch, poor communication during scheduling failures, and a threatening lien notice — offset only partially by a handful of reviews praising responsiveness and friendliness. Project completion is similarly compromised: one review explicitly describes an abandoned sewer job where the core issue was never resolved, and another describes a technician never arriving at all. Pricing drew consistent criticism, including a 3x markup allegation, a disputed $75 repeat trip fee that cost the company a $2,000 job, and a charge-for-estimate complaint. Experience scores slightly better, with a few reviewers praising technical knowledge and explanation quality, but the sample is small and the negative incidents undercut confidence in consistent workmanship.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 2 of 9 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). The majority of reviews are from 2016–2019, meaning recent performance is largely unknown and the score may not reflect current operations.
• SERIOUS INCIDENT FLAG: One reviewer (2024) alleges the contractor threatened to file a property lien for payment on a job they did not complete — this is a significant legal and ethical red flag.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least two separate reviews (2019, 2017) describe the contractor failing to show up without notice, suggesting a possible systemic reliability issue.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The 5-star reviews tend to be more generic in praise (e.g., 'they really are the best', 'part of the family') while negative reviews contain specific, verifiable details. No confirmed fake review pattern detected, but positive reviews carry less evidentiary weight.
• RATING POLARIZATION: Reviews are heavily polarized — four 1-star or 2-star reviews versus four 5-star reviews — with little middle ground, which can indicate selective review solicitation or genuine inconsistency in service quality.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review sample, the age of most reviews, and the stark polarization between positive and negative experiences — the serious allegations in negative reviews (abandoned work, lien threats, no-shows) are specific and credible and should be weighted heavily by any prospective customer.

Bel-Red Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently mentioned dimension and shows a stark split: individual technicians like Hamid and Daniel receive strong praise for punctuality, courtesy, and communication, but the office/dispatch staff are repeatedly criticized for scheduling failures, miscommunication about fees, and poor phone etiquette. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out hidden or undisclosed fees, a non-transparent dispatch vs. diagnosis fee confusion, and a $500+ charge for a valve replacement that the plumber himself acknowledged was above market. Project completion is similarly mixed — the pipe repair job was completed thoroughly and with care, and the utility sink install was handled promptly, but one toilet installation resulted in an ongoing plunging problem due to improper assembly, and one customer received no resolution at all after paying a dispatch fee. Experience scores reflect capable workmanship from specific technicians but are undermined by at least one case of an inconclusive diagnosis and one improper installation.

• One review (2016-12-26) explicitly states it was posted for the wrong company and should be disregarded — excluded from scoring.
• One review (2013-08-21) is a retraction of a prior negative review after speaking with the owner; it contains no specific service detail and was treated as low-signal for scoring purposes.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2015–2022. Only one review is within the past 12 months (2023-04-14), which is negative. Recency weighting therefore slightly depresses the score.
• Several positive reviews mention the same technician by name (Hamid/Hammid), which may reflect genuine repeat satisfaction but also means positive scores are concentrated around one individual rather than the company as a whole.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating, and include specific job descriptions and named individuals.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small review pool (12 reviews, one discarded), a wide date range spanning nearly a decade, and significant inconsistency between individual technician performance and company-level operations — the score should be interpreted as a rough signal rather than a definitive assessment.