Find Nearby Plumbers In Spokane, Washington

All Star received mostly positive feedback across a small set of reviews, with highlights including fast response times, polite crews, and reasonable rates. One review specifically praised their ability to minimize costs for the customer, while another noted their understanding of urgent business needs. However, one 1-star review explicitly called out overpricing and described the owner Dustin as difficult to deal with, which meaningfully pulls down the pricing and professionalism scores. The review base is very small and spans several years, limiting the reliability of any conclusions drawn.

• Only 5 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about consistent performance.
• Most reviews are from 2019–2022, with the most recent being December 2022. No reviews from the past 12 months are present, so current service quality is unknown.
• The single 1-star review (2017) contains specific named criticism of the owner (Dustin) and overpricing, which is a credible negative signal despite its age.
• Several positive reviews are somewhat generic and lack granular detail, though at least two contain specific situational descriptions which reduces fake review concern moderately.
• Review from 2020-09-14 contains a typo ('Great Jov') which is minor but consistent with an authentic, unpolished review.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review sample (5 reviews), wide date range spanning 2017–2022 with no recent data, and the presence of one substantive negative review that meaningfully offsets the positive signals.

PJ receives consistent praise for reasonable pricing and responsiveness, with multiple reviewers across different years noting fair costs and good communication. Professionalism scores are generally positive, with mentions of integrity, punctuality, and a pleasant demeanor. However, project completion and experience are meaningfully dragged down by a 1-star review describing a poorly executed shower valve installation that leaked and required a second plumber to correct — a serious workmanship failure. The positive reviews are spread across a wide date range (2013–2024), with only one review from the past 12 months, limiting confidence in how well the scores reflect current performance.

• Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2024); 4 of 6 reviews are more than 3 years old, and 2 are from 2016 or earlier — scores may not reflect current quality.
• The 1-star review (2013) describes a concrete workmanship failure: a leaking shower valve installation that required remediation by another plumber. This is a significant negative data point despite its age.
• Several positive reviews are somewhat generic in praise (e.g., 'great service,' 'knows his stuff') with limited specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in those scores.
• Small sample size of 6 reviews total — all dimension scores should be treated with caution and the WW Score is not highly reliable.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review sample (6 total), a wide date spread with minimal recent data, and one documented workmanship failure that meaningfully offsets the otherwise positive sentiment.

Raptor Rooter shows a deeply mixed performance profile across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately at 68 — many reviews praise individual technicians as courteous, punctual, and communicative, but a recurring pattern of rude or dismissive office/dispatch staff (multiple reviews explicitly citing the 'office lady' or receptionist being unhelpful, curt, or even hanging up) drags the score down significantly. Pricing is the weakest dimension at 48, with numerous reviewers explicitly describing bills as exorbitant, prices changing multiple times before service, charges triple those of competitors, and a pattern of upselling — though a handful of reviews do praise fair or reasonable pricing. Project completion scores 65, reflecting a meaningful number of cases where work was left incomplete, incorrect, or required callbacks (toilet improperly seated causing floor damage, garbage disposal wired backward causing fire hazard, pipe repaired without replacing heat tape/insulation, water heater installed with a leak and water not turned back on), offset by many reviews where jobs were completed efficiently and thoroughly. Experience scores 67, with strong individual technician praise balanced against several cases of clear technical errors, misdiagnoses, and inability to navigate warranty processes the company itself should have known.

• PRICING PATTERN WARNING: Multiple independent reviews describe prices changing mid-job, bills significantly higher than competitors for identical work, and one reviewer explicitly alleges a pattern of overbilling hoping customers pay without complaint. This is a substantive concern, not an isolated complaint.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: At least three reviews describe direct technical errors causing secondary damage or safety hazards — garbage disposal wired backward causing flames, toilet improperly seated and caulked over causing floor warping, and a pipe repair left without heat tape/insulation. These are serious quality-control failures.
• OFFICE/DISPATCH STAFF ISSUES: At least four reviews specifically call out rude, dismissive, or unhelpful behavior from office or dispatch staff — including one reviewer reporting being hung up on and another describing a hostile interaction over a warranty dispute. This is a systemic pattern, not an isolated incident.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span 2018–2024. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to show both positive and negative experiences, suggesting no clear improvement trend. Negative reviews citing pricing and workmanship issues appear throughout the entire date range.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: Reviews vary meaningfully in tone, detail, rating, and specificity. Named technicians appear across multiple reviews. Negative reviews are detailed and specific. No significant fake review pattern detected.

This WW Score of 68.4 is based on 48 reviews spanning six years with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, making it a HIGH confidence assessment — however, the score reflects a genuinely inconsistent contractor where individual technician quality varies widely and systemic issues around pricing transparency and office communication are well-documented.

Gold Seal Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally professional staff conduct, with many customers praising punctuality, politeness, and workmanship quality. However, the company is severely hampered by widespread and consistent complaints about pricing practices. Across 68 reviews mentioning pricing, customers repeatedly describe charges as exorbitant, predatory, and unjustifiable—often 3-5x market rates for identical work. Project completion shows moderate reliability with some concerning gaps: multiple no-shows, missed appointments, and unresolved issues requiring callbacks. The pricing dimension alone (score 42.0) significantly depresses the overall WW Score despite strong professionalism and experience ratings.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic overcharging is the dominant complaint across the review timeline (2012-2025). Customers consistently report being charged $500-$1,700+ for work that competitors complete for $50-$300. This is not isolated—it appears structural to the business model.
• FLAT-RATE OPACITY: Multiple reviews cite inability to obtain pricing before service, lack of itemized bills, and refusal to quote hourly rates. Customers report being charged 'by the job' with no transparency, making comparison shopping impossible.
• PROJECT COMPLETION GAPS: At least 8 reviews document no-shows, missed appointments, or failure to complete work on first visit. One customer waited for a scheduled appointment that was never on the books; another had a water heater installation appointment with no-show and nonchalant staff response.
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: Several reviews describe management non-responsiveness to complaints, refusal to honor warranties, and dismissal of customer concerns. One customer reported the owner promised a refund that never materialized after 2 weeks.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: While many reviews praise workmanship, others describe incorrect diagnoses (wrong part replaced), incomplete work (rusty fittings left in place), and defective installations requiring multiple callbacks (hydrant with repeated leaks).
• RECENCY NOTE: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) show the same pricing complaints as older reviews (2012-2019), indicating this is not a historical issue but an ongoing pattern.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 35 reviews from May-June 2025 are extremely brief (1-3 sentences), highly generic ('Great job!', 'Wonderful experience'), and uniformly 5-star with minimal specificity. However, these are balanced by detailed negative reviews from the same period, so overall fake review risk is moderate rather than high. The detailed positive reviews from 2022-2025 appear authentic.

This WW Score of 68.2 is highly reliable due to 120 usable reviews with consistent patterns across all four dimensions. The company excels in professionalism and technical skill but is fundamentally undermined by systematic pricing practices that customers across two decades describe as exploitative. The score accurately reflects a company with good execution but poor value proposition—customers consistently state they would use Gold Seal again if pricing were fair, but actively avoid them due to cost. Trust this score; the pricing weakness is not a perception issue but a documented structural problem.

Scott's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional conduct, with many customers praising workmanship quality and responsiveness. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent and credible pricing complaints spanning over a decade. Multiple independent reviews document charges substantially higher than competitors for identical work, with some customers reporting 2-4x markup disparities. While recent reviews (2024-2025) show improved consistency and positive experiences, older reviews reveal patterns of aggressive pricing, undisclosed fees, and incomplete follow-through on callbacks. The pricing dimension substantially depresses the overall score despite strong performance in experience and professionalism.

• PRICING PATTERN: 42 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Negative pricing reviews span 2008-2023 with consistent complaints of inflated rates ($400+/hour equivalent), hidden dispatch fees, and charges 2-4x higher than competitors. This is not isolated—it represents a systemic pattern.
• INCOMPLETE FOLLOW-UP: Multiple reviews (2023, 2018, 2016, 2015) document failure to return for callbacks, no-shows despite confirmed appointments, and abandoned work (e.g., ceiling hole cut but never repaired). At least 6 reviews explicitly mention this.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews report incorrect diagnoses (studor valve, compressor vs. starter, misidentified problems) requiring rework or customer correction. This suggests variable technical judgment.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Reviews from 2024-2025 (most recent 20 reviews) are predominantly 5-star with specific positive details. Reviews from 2015-2020 contain significantly more 1-star complaints with detailed pricing grievances. This temporal split suggests either genuine improvement or potential review management.
• DISPATCH FEE CONTROVERSY: Multiple reviews (2021, 2020) document surprise $70 dispatch fees charged after estimates, not disclosed upfront on phone or website. This practice appears to have been discontinued in recent years.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR: Several reviews describe the owner (Scott) as dismissive, defensive, or insulting when customers questioned pricing or complained about work quality. This suggests potential customer service culture issues.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Four reviews contain only ratings with no text (5.0 stars, 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10). While not conclusive, combined with the temporal clustering of 5-star reviews in June 2024, warrants caution. However, most positive reviews contain specific details and verifiable claims, reducing overall fake review likelihood.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable but reflects a company in transition: strong technical skills and recent service improvements are substantially offset by a documented 15-year history of pricing practices that customers consistently describe as exploitative. The HIGH confidence is justified by the large sample size (120 reviews) and consistent patterns, but potential customers should weight the pricing dimension heavily and obtain multiple quotes before engaging. Recent positive reviews suggest possible operational changes, but the pricing pattern is too extensive to dismiss as isolated incidents.

1st Response Plumbing has a strong base of satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, same-day availability, and courteous service — particularly from named technicians like Jared, Derek, and Mac. However, the review set contains multiple serious negative reviews that significantly temper each dimension: no-shows and failure to return calls directly undermine professionalism and project completion scores, while several reviewers explicitly called out overcharging, hidden fees, and prices far above competitor quotes on pricing. Experience is similarly mixed, with glowing praise for diagnostic skill in some reviews directly contradicted by others describing substandard workmanship, improperly installed toilets, sloppy pipe routing, and work that required correction by other contractors. The most severe negative review alleges theft of $1,000, installation of a used water heater sold as new, and a police report being filed, which is a significant red flag for both experience and project completion. Taken together, the score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in responsiveness but meaningful and documented weaknesses across all four dimensions.

• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2022-08-19) alleges the company took $1,000, left the job incomplete, installed a used water heater represented as new, caused $3,000 in additional damage, and that a police report was filed. This is unverified but materially impacts project completion and experience scores.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2019-02-01) alleges the owner did incomplete and dangerous work on a furnace after a house fire, abandoned the job, and that a subsequent inspector found the partial work nearly caused another fire. Note: this review references a furnace, which may be outside the plumber's scope, but the abandonment and safety concern are noted.
• NO-SHOW / RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: At least two reviews (2023-12-01 and 2023-06-10) explicitly describe the contractor failing to show up at scheduled times or failing to return calls entirely, including during an emergency. This directly and negatively impacts professionalism and project completion scores.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews flag pricing concerns — one reviewer (2018-06-11) was charged $217.60 for under 40 minutes of labor and found two competitors quoted $75–$100 for the same work. Another reviewer (2016-04-23) alleges being quoted five times the price charged to a neighbor for the same system, and describes charges for a branded collar as deceptive. Another (2014-03-13) reports being charged $70 over the quoted estimate with the contractor denying the quote was ever given.
• WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINTS: Two reviews (2015-06-12 and 2014-09-22) — which appear to be near-identical in content and may represent the same reviewer posting twice — describe poor pipe routing, lack of craftsmanship, and work that required a second contractor to fix. Even if treated as one unique complaint, the substance is credible and specific.
• POSSIBLE DUPLICATE REVIEW: The reviews dated 2015-06-12 and 2014-09-22 contain nearly identical text describing the same pipe-routing and vent stack complaint. These may be the same reviewer posting on two platforms or at two times. Counted as one unique negative data point for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Eight reviews contain no text (only a star rating of 5.0). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 1 and Rule 2. They may inflate the visible star average without contributing meaningful information.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews with serious allegations are from 2014–2022. The most recent reviews (2024) are positive. However, the 2023 no-show and non-response complaints are recent enough to remain relevant. Positive trend in recency is noted but does not override the weight of documented serious complaints.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several reviews (particularly from 2013) are generic, lack specific detail, and read as promotional (e.g., 'Best plumber around,' 'They will be the last plumber you will need to call'). These are treated with reduced confidence and weighted conservatively.

This WW Score is based on 44 reviews with usable content spanning approximately 11 years and carries HIGH confidence in its directional accuracy, but prospective customers should weigh the serious unresolved allegations of theft, job abandonment, and dangerous workmanship before engaging this contractor.