Find Nearby Plumbers In Spokane, Washington

Barton Boys shows a deeply split performance record across its review history. Positive reviews consistently praise individual technicians — particularly Nick, Vern, Gary, Anthony, and Lysle — for punctuality, technical knowledge, friendliness, and thoroughness, suggesting strong individual-level capability. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews raises serious concerns about reliability, responsiveness, billing transparency, and workmanship quality, including one allegation of an illegal HVAC installation and repeated failed repair attempts. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers reporting abandoned appointments, unresolved recurring issues, and weeks-long waits for parts with no proactive communication. Pricing receives mixed signals — some reviewers praise fair rates while one explicitly disputes being charged more than quoted, and another was billed a show-up fee despite the technician arriving late.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with only 3 reviews dated within the past 24 months (2023–2024). The most recent positive reviews may not reflect current operational standards, especially given one reviewer's note that quality declined after the original owner sold the business.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE FLAG: One reviewer (2021) explicitly states dissatisfaction began after the original owner sold the company, suggesting a potential operational inflection point that may make older positive reviews less predictive of current performance.
• SERIOUS WORKMANSHIP ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2016) alleges an illegal HVAC installation — system installed without a pad and sideways — causing coil destruction, with multiple paid service calls that failed to disclose the root cause. This is a significant red flag for the experience and project completion dimensions.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2017, 2021) report that management (specifically 'Ed') failed to return calls, suggesting a systemic issue with management-level communication rather than isolated incidents.
• GENERIC REVIEW FLAGGED: The review dated 2024-02-03 ('The Barton Boys Heating Air and Plumbing works hard to offer outstanding service at fair prices. Call for your next Service, Maintenance, or replacement need.') reads as promotional copy rather than a genuine customer experience. It has been given minimal weight in scoring.
• BILLING DISPUTE: One reviewer reports being billed $150 for a late technician visit and being hung up on when disputing the charge, and another reports being billed higher than the quoted amount with no management callback — two separate billing integrity concerns.

This WW Score is based on 22 reviews with broad dimensional coverage, but reliability is meaningfully reduced by the age of most reviews, a reported ownership change, and several serious unresolved complaints about billing, responsiveness, and workmanship that suggest systemic rather than isolated failures.

The Clog Doctor demonstrates strong technical expertise and knowledge (85/100), with customers praising their ability to explain solutions and solve problems quickly. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by serious reliability issues: multiple no-shows and late arrivals are explicitly documented, offsetting positive communication in other instances. Project completion is mixed—some jobs are finished well and callbacks are honored, but one customer reports unresolved damage liability from over 6 months ago. Pricing appears fair based on limited data, though one incident involved property damage without timely resolution. The company's small, family-based structure is viewed positively by some but reliability concerns dominate recent feedback.

• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show incidents documented (Review 5: two no-shows with no communication). This is a severe professionalism failure.
• UNRESOLVED LIABILITY: Review 2 reports property damage (broken tail light) from June 2024 with owner allegedly avoiding payment responsibility for 6+ months. This is a major red flag for follow-through and integrity.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 4 of 5 reviews are from April-July 2024 (past 6 months), with 2 of the 5 being 1-star ratings citing serious operational failures. Recent trend is concerning.
• POLARIZED RATINGS: 3 five-star reviews vs. 2 one-star reviews with no middle ground suggests inconsistent service delivery or operational instability.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews) and polarized ratings. While technical competence appears solid, documented failures in punctuality, communication, and accountability for damages represent serious business risks that outweigh positive experiences. The unresolved property damage claim is particularly concerning and suggests potential integrity issues.

Vietzke Trenchless shows significant inconsistency in service quality. While older reviews (2017-2019) and inspection-focused work receive strong praise for professionalism, promptness, and fair pricing, recent reviews (2020-2024) reveal critical failures in project completion, follow-up communication, and workmanship. Major issues include incomplete work requiring rework, wrong materials/installation methods, non-responsiveness to warranty claims, and billing disputes. The company demonstrates competence in scoping and hydro-jetting but struggles with complex installation projects and post-job accountability. Recent negative experiences substantially outweigh positive ones in severity and financial impact to customers.

• CRITICAL: Stark temporal divide in review quality. Pre-2020 reviews are predominantly 5-star with detailed praise; post-2020 reviews are predominantly 1-star with serious allegations of incompetence and non-responsiveness. This suggests either significant operational decline or change in management/staffing.
• Multiple reviews (2024, 2023, 2020) allege non-responsiveness to callbacks and warranty claims despite explicit promises. Pattern suggests systemic communication/accountability failure.
• Two reviews (2024, 2023) allege incorrect installation (wrong pipes, backwards installation, damaged adjacent lines) causing $4,000+ and $13,800+ in additional costs respectively. These are not minor complaints.
• One review (2017) alleges deliberate use of inexperienced workers on time-and-material job, suggesting potential exploitation of billing structure.
• Billing disputes appear in multiple reviews (2020, 2017), with customers reporting they had to argue extensively over charges.
• One review (2020) alleges property damage (mud tracked through house, carpet ruined) with no cleanup or compensation.
• Positive reviews lack recent dates; most are 4+ years old. Recent reviews are overwhelmingly negative.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted cautiously: while based on substantial data (16 reviews), the dramatic quality decline over time and severity of recent allegations (installation failures, non-responsiveness, financial harm) suggest the company's current reliability is significantly lower than the overall score indicates. Recent customers (2023-2024) should weight negative reviews more heavily than historical positive ones.

Glenrose Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with strong positive experiences (5-star ratings emphasizing professionalism, quick service, and fair pricing) sharply contrasted by numerous negative reviews (1-star ratings citing excessive pricing, poor follow-up, and incomplete repairs). Professionalism scores moderately well based on punctuality and communication when service is delivered, but pricing emerges as the primary weakness with consistent complaints of markups 3-10x industry standard and charges for estimates. Project completion shows mixed results with some callbacks honored but multiple reports of unresolved issues requiring repeat visits or outside contractors. The company demonstrates technical competence in straightforward jobs but faces credibility issues around transparency and ethical pricing practices.

• CRITICAL: Severe pricing complaints dominate negative reviews (22 mentions). Multiple customers report charges of $475-$817 for simple 15-30 minute jobs, with documented evidence of retail parts costing <$20 marked up to $300+. Pattern suggests systematic overcharging, particularly targeting elderly customers and insurance claims.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: At least 6 reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls, send estimates, or follow through on promised callbacks. One customer waited 2 weeks for estimate with no response; another waited a month for promised callback on $4k job.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Same company receives 5-star reviews praising 'fair pricing' and 1-star reviews from same time period alleging price gouging. Suggests either different pricing tiers by customer type or significant inconsistency between technicians.
• INCOMPLETE REPAIRS: Multiple reviews (at least 4) report being charged for work that did not resolve the problem, requiring return visits or outside contractors. One customer had plumber visit 3 times with same leak persisting.
• INSURANCE CLAIM TARGETING: Pattern of high quotes on insurance jobs; one review explicitly states 'This business seems to make its money on insurance claims with no regard for actual cost.'
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews cluster in 2017-2023 period. Recent reviews (2024) are predominantly positive, suggesting either business model change or review manipulation. Recommend weighting recent data more heavily.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS: At least 2 sets of nearly identical reviews appear (shower valve complaints from 2018-2019; lift station complaint appears twice). May indicate customer frustration leading to multiple postings rather than fake reviews.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews contain no detail or are blank, reducing confidence in positive sentiment.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted cautiously: the score reflects genuine polarization rather than true middle-ground performance. The company demonstrates real technical competence and professionalism in service delivery, but systematic pricing practices that customers perceive as exploitative significantly undermine trustworthiness. Recent positive trend (2024) is encouraging but insufficient to offset pattern of complaints spanning 7+ years. Recommend obtaining detailed written estimates from competing contractors before engaging Glenrose, particularly for insurance-covered work or jobs involving elderly customers.

Smith Heating & Cooling shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 13 years. While recent reviews (2024, 2018) praise fair pricing and knowledgeable technicians, older reviews (2011–2016) document serious failures in professionalism, project completion, and responsiveness. Critical issues include missed appointments, incomplete repairs requiring multiple callbacks, rude staff interactions, and unresolved follow-ups lasting weeks. The company demonstrates strong pricing transparency and occasional excellent service, but reliability and accountability appear problematic. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects this volatility—positive recent sentiment is offset by documented systemic failures in communication and job completion.

• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: 4 of 10 reviews are from 2013 or earlier (13+ years old). Recent reviews (2024, 2018) are significantly more positive than older reviews (2011–2016), suggesting either genuine improvement or selection bias in recent feedback.
• PATTERN OF PROFESSIONALISM FAILURES: Multiple independent reviews document communication breakdowns, missed appointments, rude staff, and unresponsiveness. Review from 2016 describes technician rudeness and condescension; 2018 review documents 4-week delay with poor follow-up; 2011 review cites 5 phone calls, missed appointment, and being hung up on.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: Two reviews explicitly document incomplete repairs requiring multiple service calls (2016 AC flooding issue required 3 visits with no resolution; 2018 fireplace repair took 4+ weeks with no follow-up).
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews emphasizing reliability and 1-star reviews documenting systemic failures suggests either highly variable service quality or different technician performance levels.
• STAFF TRAINING ISSUE: Multiple reviews reference specific staff members (Marty, Kyle) in negative contexts across different years, suggesting potential management/training problems rather than isolated incidents.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While recent reviews are positive, the company has a documented history of serious professionalism and completion failures spanning multiple years and independent customers. The WW Score reflects genuine inconsistency rather than a stable, trustworthy rating. Prospective customers should be aware of historical accountability issues before engaging this company.

Inland Sprinklers shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with stark contrasts between highly satisfied customers praising quality work and responsiveness, and deeply dissatisfied customers citing poor communication, incomplete work, and dismissive ownership. Professionalism is undermined by communication failures (unanswered calls, unannounced arrivals, abrupt hang-ups) and unprofessional owner behavior, though some staff members (Nicole, Kim, Mike) receive individual praise. Project completion issues are evident in incomplete installations (unconnected drip lines), poor ground preparation, and unresolved follow-up work. Pricing concerns emerge from one customer citing high hourly rates ($75/hr) and another feeling dismissed for choosing lower-cost services. Technical skill appears solid when work is completed properly, but execution quality varies dramatically between projects.

• MAJOR INCONSISTENCY: Reviews span from 1-star to 5-star with no middle ground, suggesting either highly variable service quality or inconsistent customer expectations. This is a red flag for reliability.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN PATTERN: Multiple reviews cite inability to reach the company by phone, unanswered calls, and vague communication. This is a systemic issue.
• OWNERSHIP BEHAVIOR CONCERN: The 2022 review documents the owner being argumentative, dismissive, and unwilling to resolve issues caused by the company. The 2021 update shows some improvement (reimbursement offered), but the pattern suggests customer service is reactive rather than proactive.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: The 2021 review explicitly states a drip line was never connected to the water main—a critical installation failure that went unaddressed for over a year.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most negative reviews are from 2021-2022 (2-3 years old). The most recent review (2024-08-28) is positive. However, the 2024-06-26 review also contains serious complaints, suggesting ongoing issues.
• STAFFING ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The 2021 update mentions the company is 'extremely short staffed,' which may explain communication and follow-up failures, but does not excuse them.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization in reviews and documented systemic communication failures. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects genuine quality work capability offset by serious professionalism and project completion gaps; however, the small sample size (7 reviews) and high variance mean this score may not be predictive of future performance. Prospective customers should prioritize email communication per the company's stated preference and set clear expectations in writing before engaging.