Find Nearby Plumbers In Seattle, Washington

This contractor shows a stark and troubling divergence in review quality and recency. Three recent positive reviews (2018) praise professionalism, fair pricing, and expertise, but a single detailed 2022 review documents serious, recurring quality failures: crooked sink installation with water leaks, improper pipe installation causing cabinet damage, poor caulking work, and persistent phone distraction during work. The 2022 review explicitly states the customer abandoned this contractor due to concerns about shoddy work. The professionalism score is heavily penalized by documented phone use during work hours and failure to complete repairs properly on first attempt. Project completion is compromised by the leak recurring weeks after the initial fix.

• CRITICAL RECENCY ISSUE: Three glowing 5-star reviews from 2018 (4+ years old) versus one detailed 1-star review from 2022 documenting multiple failures. The 2022 review is far more recent and specific.
• PATTERN OF RECURRING DEFECTS: The 2022 review documents not isolated mistakes but a pattern—crooked installation, improper pipe work, poor caulking, and a leak that recurred after repair. This suggests systemic quality control issues.
• PHONE DISTRACTION ALLEGATION: Explicit claim of constant phone use/texting during work hours affecting job quality. This is a serious professionalism concern.
• CUSTOMER ABANDONMENT: The 2022 reviewer explicitly states they are switching to another plumber due to quality concerns. This is a strong negative signal.
• POSSIBLE REVIEWER INCONSISTENCY: The positive reviews may reference different service levels or time periods. The 2018 reviews mention 'Dukes' and 'Kyle' but it is unclear if this is the same contractor or different team members.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 4 reviews total. Score reliability is limited. Recommend collecting more recent reviews before making hiring decisions.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews) and a critical recency gap: the most recent review (2022) documents serious, recurring defects that directly contradict the older positive reviews, suggesting either a significant decline in service quality or inconsistent performance. The 2022 review's specificity and the customer's decision to switch contractors carry substantial weight and should not be dismissed.

B&J Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by two explicit accounts of no-shows, unreturned calls, a perpetually full voicemail box, and weeks of unresponsiveness — these are serious red flags that drag the score down despite two positive reviews praising Austin's communication and demeanor. Project completion is the most damaged dimension: the most detailed negative review describes an ADU project left in limbo with no final inspection follow-through, preventing the customer from moving into their home — a critical failure of follow-through. Pricing received mixed signals, with one reviewer calling it competitive and another feeling overcharged for a simple cartridge replacement with a suspicious cash-discount offer. Experience scores moderately positively, as reviewers who did receive completed work generally praised the quality and knowledge of the plumbers, but this is offset by the small sample and age of most reviews.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 2 of 6 reviews are from 2020 or later. Three reviews are from 2013–2017, making them 7–11 years old and of very limited relevance to current business quality.
• ABANDONMENT FLAG: One review explicitly describes an unfinished ADU project with no final inspection completed, unreachable contractor, and potential legal action — this is a serious project completion failure.
• NO-SHOW FLAG: One reviewer reports Austin failed to show up for a scheduled estimate and never responded to follow-up texts over two weeks — a clear professionalism failure.
• CASH DISCOUNT FLAG: One reviewer notes being offered a discount to pay in cash, which may suggest off-the-books billing practices.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 6 reviews total. This is insufficient to draw reliable conclusions about consistent business behavior. All scores and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEW: The 5-star review from 2020 ('10 out of 10... far exceeded my expectations every time') contains no specific job details and reads as potentially generic, though it is not conclusively fake.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to a very small review sample (6 total), predominantly outdated reviews (4 of 6 are from 2015 or earlier), and significant contradictions between positive and negative accounts that cannot be resolved without more data.

This contractor's review profile is deeply divided between a cluster of positive reviews from 2014–2015 and a consistent pattern of serious complaints from 2016 onward. Professionalism scores are severely dragged down by multiple documented no-shows, chronic failure to return calls, and unprofessional conduct on-site. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers describing abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, shoddy installations requiring correction, and a sump pump failure with zero follow-up response. Pricing received mixed signals — some reviewers praised affordability and transparency, while one felt overcharged for incomplete work — resulting in a middling score. Experience scores reflect a similar split: early reviews praise technical skill, while later reviews document incorrect plumbing installations and work that had to be redone by other contractors. The overall trajectory of reviews is clearly negative and worsening over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All positive reviews are dated 2014–2016. All reviews from 2018 onward are negative (1-star), suggesting a significant and sustained decline in service quality. Recent reviews should be weighted more heavily, which further depresses the score.
• PATTERN OF NON-RESPONSE: Multiple independent reviewers (at least 4) explicitly describe the same behavior — Duane failing to return calls, not showing up for scheduled appointments, and ignoring follow-up attempts. This is a systemic reliability issue, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK / CALLBACK FAILURE: At least 3 reviews describe work that was left incomplete or faulty with no resolution, including a sump pump failure, incorrect shower plumbing causing loss of hot water for 2.5 weeks, and a slow toilet never addressed.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (LOW SEVERITY): The 5-star reviews from 2014–2015 are generally more detailed and specific, reducing suspicion of fabrication. However, the 2019 5-star review ('Competent, knowledgeable, professional. The best to fix my plumbing problems.') is unusually brief and generic compared to all other reviews and may warrant skepticism.
• SCAM ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2023) explicitly accuses the business of operating a scam. While unverified, this is the most recent review in the dataset and cannot be dismissed.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the mention counts are sufficient for statistical grounding, but the extreme time-based divergence between positive and negative reviews means the score is most accurately read as a warning signal rather than a balanced average, and prospective customers should treat the post-2018 negative reviews as the most predictive of current service quality.

Puget Sound Plumbing and Heating receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four dimensions, with pricing being the single most damaging factor. Dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges that are 3–10 times higher than competitors for identical work, with no itemized billing provided and a mandatory dispatch fee used as leverage. Professionalism is severely undermined by chronic no-shows, missed appointment windows without notice, rude technicians, and in multiple cases outright dismissive or hostile behavior toward customers. Project completion is also deeply problematic, with multiple accounts of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, failed repairs requiring immediate re-service, and refusal to honor callbacks or warranties. The small number of positive reviews (approximately 10 out of 75) praise specific technicians by name and describe competent, friendly service, but these are vastly outnumbered and do not offset the dominant pattern of failure across all dimensions.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED POSITIVE REVIEWS: One reviewer explicitly states they were offered a $50 discount in exchange for a 5-star Yelp review while the technician was still on-site. This directly compromises the integrity of positive reviews for this company.
• PATTERN OF GENERIC PRAISE IN POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews use vague, superlative language ('best plumbing company,' 'cannot be beat,' 'top notch') with no specific job details, names, or dates, which is consistent with potentially inauthentic reviews.
• SYSTEMATIC PRICING MISCONDUCT: An extraordinary number of reviewers (58 of 75) explicitly cite grossly inflated pricing. Multiple reviewers independently confirmed competitor prices were 50–75% lower for identical work. One review alleges the owner personally instructs plumbers to charge $750–$1000 for disposal installs as company protocol.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH TACTICS REPORTED: Multiple independent reviewers describe a consistent pattern of low or waived dispatch fees used to gain entry, followed by extreme quotes once the customer has a sunk cost, constituting a potential deceptive trade practice.
• WORK QUALITY AND ETHICS CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending unnecessary replacements (furnaces, toilets, entire water lines) that second-opinion plumbers found were not needed. One review documents installation of a furnace motherboard dated 2016 in a 2020 installation.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2016–2024. The negative pattern is consistent and persistent across all years, with no evidence of improvement over time. The most recent reviews (2024) continue to reflect the same core complaints as reviews from 2016–2019.
• UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS AND BBB REPORTS: At least one reviewer states they filed a BBB complaint. Another describes involving lawyers due to pricing disputes. A third describes the company refusing to provide itemized invoices for insurance claims.

This WW Score of 24.1 is based on a large sample of 75 reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable and accurate reflection of this contractor's performance — the score is low because the evidence overwhelmingly and consistently supports it.

Both reviews speak positively to Mike's responsiveness, friendliness, and communication, supporting a moderately high professionalism score despite the very small sample. Project completion is implied in both cases — a drain line repair and a sump pump issue were each addressed — though neither review provides granular detail about the finished work quality or timeline. Experience is lightly supported by one reviewer explicitly calling Mike 'knowledgeable,' and both reviews describe successful resolution of distinct plumbing problems. Pricing is entirely absent from both reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. With only two reviews total, no dimension reaches a confidence level above LIMITED, and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language and limited technical specifics, which is consistent with a small genuine sample but also consistent with early-stage or selectively submitted reviews — treat with caution.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — the Price Friendly dimension has no data and is excluded from scoring.
• Both reviews are from November 2023; recency is acceptable but the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions about consistency over time.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, all with LIMITED confidence across every scored dimension, and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance.

Both reviews paint a consistently strong picture of PJ Plumbing across all four dimensions. Professionalism is well-supported: PJ is described as punctual, communicative, pleasant, and responsive to calls and texts, with one reviewer noting she returned to complete post-job changes without hesitation. Project completion is also strongly evidenced, with complex multi-scope remodel work and multiple separate service calls all described as fully resolved, including city permitting and code compliance. Experience is demonstrated through technically demanding work — re-plumbing three bathrooms, bidet installation, tankless water heater installation, pressure-regulating equipment, and identifying a code violation from a prior plumber. Pricing receives a modest positive signal from one instance where PJ declined to charge for a quick diagnostic visit, suggesting a fair and customer-first approach, though this is based on a single data point and should be weighted conservatively.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules. All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence only.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings. While the reviews contain specific, detailed, and credible narratives with named individuals and distinct scenarios, the small sample size means the score cannot be considered representative.
• One review is dated 2022-11-30, which is more than 12 months prior to the most recent review (2024-04-11). The older review should be weighted slightly less than the more recent one.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism appears in either review. This is not flagged as fake — the specificity and detail of both reviews suggest authenticity — but the absence of any criticism means scores may skew optimistic relative to a larger, more balanced dataset.

This score should be treated as a very early-stage signal only — with just 2 reviews, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and the WW Score cannot be formally calculated; additional reviews are needed before this contractor's rating can be considered reliable.