Find Nearby Plumbers In Spokane, Washington

J&J Plumbing and Heating demonstrates severe deficiencies across nearly all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically undermined by rude office staff, poor communication, missed callbacks, and unreliability in scheduling and follow-through. Pricing practices are consistently flagged as deceptive, with excessive upsells, inflated charges, and surprise fees that double or triple initial quotes. Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete work, incorrect installations (wrong water heater types, improper setups), failure to order required parts, and refusal to honor warranty obligations. While a small subset of reviews (5 out of 25) praise individual technicians like Andy, Jaime, and Chad for quality workmanship and fair pricing, these positive experiences are vastly outweighed by systemic failures in business operations, customer service, and accountability.

• CRITICAL: 16 out of 25 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed complaints of serious failures. This is not a pattern of isolated incidents but systemic dysfunction.
• DECEPTIVE PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews document bait-and-switch tactics, hidden charges, and inflated upsells (e.g., $150 install becoming $300; $130 fee to plug in a refrigerator; $1,000+ in unnecessary upgrades for warranty work).
• WARRANTY VIOLATION: Reviews document refusal to honor manufacturer warranties and attempts to charge customers for warranty-covered work.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple instances of jobs left unfinished, incorrect installations discovered days/weeks later, and refusal to return for callbacks without additional charges.
• OFFICE STAFF FAILURES: Consistent complaints about rude, unhelpful, unresponsive receptionist/office manager; failure to return calls; inflexible scheduling.
• BBB F-RATING CONFIRMED: One review explicitly references an F rating from the Better Business Bureau, corroborating systemic issues.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews span 2019-2024, with recent incidents in August 2024 (toilet leak not fixed, charged for callback). This is not a historical problem—it is ongoing.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ANOMALY: The 5 five-star reviews (from 2020-2021) praise individual technicians (Andy, Jaime, Chad, Ricky, Paul, Robbie) for professionalism and quality work, suggesting field technicians may be competent but are undermined by office management and company policies.
• CONTRACTOR RELATIONSHIP: Multiple reviews indicate J&J is the Home Depot contract installer in the Coeur d'Alene/Spokane area, meaning many customers had no choice in vendor selection, which may inflate complaint volume but does not invalidate the complaints.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 25 detailed reviews with consistent patterns of failure across professionalism, pricing, and project completion, supported by explicit evidence of deceptive practices, incomplete work, and warranty violations. The score reflects a company with severe systemic problems that pose significant financial and service risk to customers.

The review set is deeply divided: one recent 5-star review praises speed and friendliness, while two negative reviews raise serious concerns across all dimensions. The most detailed negative review (2015) describes a misdiagnosis, excessive and unnecessary repairs costing $1,800, significant property damage described as 'minor,' and a rude response when the customer followed up — directly impacting professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience scores. The 2019 review adds a warranty refusal after defective work, further dragging down project completion confidence. The single positive review, while enthusiastic, lacks specific detail and cannot offset the weight of two substantive negative accounts. Scores are conservatively set to reflect the serious nature of the documented failures.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with significant caution.
• Two of three reviews are older than 12 months (2015 and 2019); only one review (2024) falls within the past 12 months. Recency weighting heavily favors the single positive review, but the older negative reviews contain far more substantive detail.
• The sole 5-star review uses enthusiastic but vague language ('miracle workers', 'no BS', 'best and fastest') with limited specific detail, which slightly raises generic praise concerns, though it does reference a specific scenario (leak resolved in 30 minutes).
• The 2015 review documents a potential misdiagnosis resulting in $1,800 in charges for unnecessary work — a serious workmanship and ethics concern.
• The 2019 review documents a refusal to honor warranty on defective work — a direct project completion and professionalism failure.
• The rude phone interaction described in the 2015 review, where the customer was dismissed after reporting an unresolved issue, is a significant professionalism red flag.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning nearly a decade and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional recent references before making a hiring decision.

This contractor has a deeply mixed and largely negative review profile across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension and is severely damaged by two explicit accounts of rude behavior, failure to answer phones, broken appointment commitments, and blaming customers for scheduling failures — offset only slightly by one positive review praising the owner as professional. Pricing drew complaints about unexpectedly high bills relative to the work performed, with two reviewers expressing dissatisfaction at charges of $242 and $339 respectively. Project completion is similarly troubled, with one job taking far longer than expected and another involving a no-show scenario. The sole positive review provides limited counterbalance given the volume and specificity of the negative accounts.

• Three of four reviews are 1-star with highly specific, detailed complaints — this pattern suggests genuine negative experiences rather than fake reviews.
• The single 5-star review is brief, generic, and lacks operational specifics, which slightly reduces its evidentiary weight.
• All reviews are dated between 2015 and 2019 — none are within the past 5 years. This score may not reflect current business performance.
• Small sample size of only 4 reviews severely limits reliability. Scores should be treated as directional only.
• Recurring theme of poor phone responsiveness and scheduling failures across multiple independent reviews suggests a systemic operational issue.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 4 reviews, all dated 2015–2019, and should be treated as a historical signal only — not a current assessment of contractor quality.

The overwhelming majority of reviews paint a deeply negative picture of this contractor across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of poor communication, no-shows, disrespectful technician behavior, and failure to follow through on commitments — with only one or two older positive reviews offering any counterbalance. Project completion is similarly alarming, with multiple reviewers describing unfinished work, systems left non-functional after multiple visits, and jobs dragging on for months without resolution. Pricing received a slightly higher score only because one reviewer noted a competitor was cheaper and another flagged an undisclosed mid-job rate increase, but data here is thin. Experience scores modestly above the floor due to a couple of positive mentions of knowledgeable techs, but these are outweighed by evidence of poor workmanship and failed repairs.

• Two reviews (2024 and 2022) describe nearly identical scenarios involving a failed backflow test, a missing or misrouted quote, and complete communication breakdown — this may reflect a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• The two positive reviews (2020 and 2019) are notably generic in praise and lack specific job details, raising mild concern about their authenticity or representativeness.
• Most positive reviews are from 2019–2020, while the most recent reviews (2022–2024) are uniformly negative, suggesting a significant decline in service quality over time. Recency weighting strongly favors the negative reviews.
• One reviewer explicitly noted an undisclosed hourly rate increase mid-job, which is a transparency and pricing integrity concern.
• A technician was reported speaking disparagingly about a paying customer on-site, which is a serious professionalism red flag.

This WW Score is based on 7 reviews with moderate data coverage across dimensions; the score is considered reasonably reliable given the strong consistency of negative feedback in recent years, though the small total review count limits absolute certainty.

Big Red Wrench Plumbing has a deeply concerning pattern of no-shows and failure to communicate across two of the three reviews analyzed. Two customers explicitly describe being stood up multiple times, having appointments cancelled with little or no notice, and in one case having calls rejected entirely — all hallmarks of severe professionalism and project completion failures. The single positive review describes a completed water heater installation with professional and knowledgeable service, which prevents the score from reaching zero but does not offset the weight of the negative experiences. Pricing was not mentioned in any review, so that dimension could not be scored. With only three reviews total, this score must be treated with significant caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as highly unreliable.
• Two of three reviews describe repeated no-shows and deliberate non-communication, including one report of calls being rejected and phone turned off — this is a serious pattern of unprofessional conduct.
• The single positive review (2021) is the oldest review in the set and may not reflect current business behavior; the two negative reviews are more recent (2022, 2023), suggesting possible decline in service quality over time.
• Recency weighting applied: the two most recent reviews (2022 and 2023) are negative and given greater weight than the older positive review from 2021.
• No pricing information was available in any review — the pricing dimension could not be scored.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable as a standalone metric; however, the consistent pattern of no-shows and non-communication in the two most recent reviews is a credible and serious warning signal for prospective customers.

All three reviews are uniformly negative with 1-star ratings from 2024. Professionalism is severely compromised by failure to disclose trip charges upfront, missed appointment windows, and poor communication follow-up. Pricing practices are deceptive, with hidden fees and invoicing errors including late charges on disputed work. Project completion is critically deficient: backflow device was not located, sprinkler lines were damaged with improper coverage adjustment, and the company failed to follow through on promised quotes. Technical skill is questionable given the visible pipe damage and incomplete work. With only 3 reviews all negative and recent, confidence remains moderate but the pattern is unambiguous.

• All three reviews are 1-star ratings from mid-2024 with no positive counterbalance — extremely high risk profile
• Systematic pattern of undisclosed trip charges and hidden fees across multiple customer interactions suggests intentional deceptive pricing practice
• Review 2 explicitly references existing BBB complaint over identical $50 trip charge issue, indicating recurring problem
• Review 3 mentions 'Go onto Google reviews and look at the 1 stars...my experience is not unique' — suggests broader pattern of poor service beyond these three reviews
• Insufficient sample size (n=3) to calculate reliable WW Score, but pattern is severe enough to warrant strong caution
• No positive reviews provided for balance; cannot assess if company has any satisfied customers

This assessment is based on only 3 reviews, all uniformly negative and recent, which is insufficient for a statistically reliable WW Score calculation. However, the consistent pattern of deceptive pricing, poor project execution, and communication failures across independent customer accounts suggests serious systemic issues that warrant significant caution before engaging this contractor.