Find Nearby Plumbers In Tacoma, Washington

Bob Larson Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, though a meaningful minority of reviews cite abandoned work, failed repairs, or jobs that required multiple return visits to resolve. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — numerous reviewers across many years describe charges they considered excessive, opaque, or outright predatory, with specific complaints about rates exceeding $600/hour for routine work, lack of itemized invoices, and pricing that was inconsistent between customers for identical jobs. The recency of reviews (2024–2025) skews more positive on professionalism and completion, but pricing complaints persist across all time periods and represent a genuine, consistent pattern rather than isolated incidents.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 4 reviews appear to be exact duplicates posted on consecutive or near-consecutive dates (e.g., the 'We needed work done on water heater' review appears on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06 with identical text; the 'Sean and George were courteous' review appears on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; the 'Royce @Bob Larson plumbing was very helpful' review appears on 2025-06-08 and 2025-06-05; the 'I chose to call Bob Larson Plumbing' review appears on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04). These duplicates have been counted only once each for scoring purposes but are flagged as potentially artificial review inflation.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND PERSISTENT: Pricing criticism spans from 2010 through 2025 and includes specific dollar amounts cited as excessive — $869 for 25 minutes of work, $2,600 for 3 hours, $3,500 for a water heater repair that did not fix the problem, $900+ for a drain clog, $508 per outdoor faucet, and $350 for 45 minutes of work. Multiple reviewers independently describe feeling taken advantage of, and at least two describe the experience as a 'scam' or 'rip-off.'
• SERIOUS QUALITY AND ETHICS COMPLAINTS IN OLDER REVIEWS: Multiple 1-star reviews allege work that made problems worse, unlicensed plumbers sent to jobs, refusal to provide itemized invoices, failure to honor warranty work, damage to property (drilled holes in new cabinets) with no reimbursement, and one allegation of charging $3,500 for a repair that left the water heater non-functional. One review alleges the company conducted business in a city without the required business registration.
• BLANK REVIEWS WITH RATINGS: Approximately 12 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed, positive reviews are from 2024–2025 and reflect a noticeably more professional operation with named technicians, text notifications, and photo introductions. Older reviews (2017–2022) contain a higher proportion of negative experiences. The score reflects the full review history but the recent trend is meaningfully more positive on professionalism and completion.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW SOLICITATION PATTERN: One reviewer explicitly notes receiving three identical text messages from Bob Larson Plumbing asking for a review, suggesting an active review solicitation campaign. This may contribute to a higher volume of recent positive reviews and should be weighed accordingly.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning over a decade, giving HIGH confidence in the directional accuracy of each dimension score; however, the presence of confirmed duplicate reviews, active review solicitation, and a long tail of serious pricing and quality complaints means the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence indicator of current service quality, with particular caution advised around pricing transparency before committing to any job.

Harts Services demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism with skilled technicians who communicate well and complete work efficiently. However, the company is significantly undermined by widespread pricing concerns—many customers report quotes 2–6 times higher than competitors for identical work, with opaque pricing structures and aggressive upselling tactics. While project completion is generally solid and technicians are courteous, the pricing practices create a pattern of customer dissatisfaction that substantially lowers overall trust. The company excels at responsiveness and workmanship but fails on value delivery.

• PRICING PATTERN: Extremely high concentration of complaints about inflated quotes and pricing (156+ mentions). Multiple reviews cite quotes 2–6x higher than competitors for identical services. This is the single largest driver of negative sentiment.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Recurring reports of aggressive upselling, unnecessary service recommendations, and pressure tactics. Customers report technicians recommending full system replacements when simple repairs suffice.
• QUOTE INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews report being quoted different prices for the same service on different visits, or being quoted one price over phone and charged another on-site.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 15–20% of 5-star reviews are extremely generic (e.g., 'Great service!' with no detail, empty text fields, or single-word reviews). However, the volume of detailed negative reviews with specific dollar amounts and service descriptions suggests the negative reviews are authentic.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Significant number of reviews (40+) report missed appointments, cancellations without notice, failure to return calls, and poor scheduling coordination.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (past 12 months) show higher concentration of pricing complaints and service failures compared to older reviews (2014–2017), suggesting deterioration in business practices.
• PERMIT OVERCHARGING: Multiple reviews cite permit costs quoted at $600 when actual city permits cost $110–$140, indicating systematic overcharging on ancillary fees.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE ABUSE: Several reviews report being charged $75–$100 for estimates, then additional diagnostic fees ($500–$700) if work is approved, creating financial pressure to accept inflated quotes.
• COMPANY NAME CHANGES: Reviews reference 'Harts Services,' 'Allred's Plumbing,' 'Chipper Plumbing,' and 'Stack Plumbing'—indicating acquisitions/rebranding. Quality and pricing appear inconsistent across entities.

This WW Score of 72.3 should be interpreted with caution: while the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism (HIGH confidence on experience and project completion), the HIGH confidence pricing score of 58.2 reflects a systematic pattern of customer dissatisfaction with value. The company's business model appears to rely on high-margin pricing and upselling rather than competitive market rates, making it unsuitable for price-conscious customers despite solid workmanship. Customers should obtain multiple quotes before engaging and carefully review all estimates for hidden fees.

This aggregated review set spans many years and appears to represent multiple businesses operating under similar or identical names (Royal Flush Plumbing, Pro Plumbing Service, and others), which significantly complicates scoring reliability. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising punctuality, communication, professionalism, and technical skill — with many customers citing same-day or emergency responsiveness as a standout quality. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15-20% of substantive reviews) describe serious issues including no-shows, missed appointments without notification, overcharging without upfront disclosure, incomplete or defective work, and poor customer service when complaints were raised. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different time periods describing charges they felt were excessive, non-transparent, or inconsistent with quoted amounts. Project completion scores are dragged down by recurring complaints about abandoned work, callbacks not honored, and jobs requiring multiple return visits to fix errors.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews reference multiple distinct business names including 'Royal Flush Plumbing,' 'Pro Plumbing Service,' and references to individual owner-operators (Jarrod, Steve, Ben, Doug, Ted, Jose, etc.) across different geographic markets (Atlanta GA, Philadelphia PA, Providence RI, Las Vegas NV, Hollister CA, Cleveland OH, Oregon City OR, and others). This dataset almost certainly aggregates reviews from multiple unrelated businesses, severely limiting the reliability of any single composite score.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: A significant number of reviews contain zero substantive detail — only a star rating or a single generic phrase like 'Great service!' or 'Amazing!' with no specifics. Approximately 60-80 reviews fall into this category. Several clusters of reviews share identical or near-identical dates (e.g., dozens of reviews dated 2025-05-10, 2025-04-10, 2025-03-11, 2025-02-09, 2025-01-10) which is statistically anomalous and suggests possible review manipulation or bulk import artifacts.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: At least one review (Ted and his crew sewer line replacement) appears to be posted twice with identical text and nearly identical dates (2024-07-18). Additionally, two reviews from 2021-09-24 are near-identical complaints about overcharging for a kitchen faucet installation.
• RECENCY NOTE: The dataset spans from approximately 2003 to June 2025. Reviews older than 12 months (pre-June 2024) should be weighted less heavily. The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive, but the volume of blank or generic 5-star reviews in recent months raises authenticity concerns.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY PATTERN: Multiple independent negative reviews across different years and locations describe a consistent pattern of pricing not disclosed upfront, charges significantly exceeding verbal quotes, and management being unresponsive or dismissive when customers raised billing concerns. This is a recurring structural issue, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING PATTERN: A recurring theme across negative reviews spanning 2008 to 2022 involves technicians failing to appear within scheduled windows, no calls to notify customers, and rescheduled appointments also being missed. This pattern appears in enough reviews to be considered a systemic reliability concern rather than isolated incidents.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: Several detailed negative reviews describe defective workmanship including broken components attributed to technician error, incomplete jobs, and refusal to return to fix mistakes under warranty. These are high-severity complaints that meaningfully reduce the project completion score.

This WW Score carries LIMITED-to-MODERATE reliability for any single business decision due to strong evidence that the review dataset aggregates multiple unrelated businesses across different markets, combined with a statistically anomalous clustering of blank and generic 5-star reviews that suggests possible review inflation; the score is best interpreted as a broad industry-level benchmark rather than a precise assessment of any one contractor.

Prime Plumbing receives strong and consistent praise for professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers highlighting friendly, courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians across a large and diverse review base spanning many years. Technical experience and workmanship are similarly well-regarded, with numerous reviewers citing knowledgeable technicians who diagnosed and resolved complex issues effectively. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, though a meaningful minority of negative reviews describe abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, misdiagnoses requiring repeat visits, and jobs left incomplete — including at least one case of water damage caused by faulty repair. Pricing is the most significant drag on the score: a substantial and recurring pattern of complaints describes charges perceived as grossly excessive, hidden fees, dispatch charges not rolled into jobs, credit card surcharges, and instances of what reviewers characterize as predatory pricing targeting elderly or uninformed customers — this dimension alone pulls the overall score down considerably.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'Thank you Brandon for the great service!' (5-star) appears verbatim on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04. The review 'My plumber Bobby C was friendly and highly skillful...' appears verbatim on 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03. These are likely fake or bot-submitted duplicate reviews and have been flagged; confidence in the 5-star cluster from early June 2025 is reduced.
• SUSPICIOUS GENERIC REVIEWS: A significant number of reviews consist of a single sentence or less with no specific detail (e.g., 'Great job', 'He did a great job', 'Awesome service'). Several blank-text reviews with 5-star ratings are present and provide no usable data.
• ONE REVIEW REFERENCES A DIFFERENT COMPANY NAME: One review explicitly praises 'Modern Septic Plumbing in Ocala' rather than Prime Plumbing, suggesting it may have been posted to the wrong business profile or is fabricated.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE NUMEROUS AND SPECIFIC: At least 20+ reviews across multiple years describe overcharging, including $554 to snake a drain, $847.60 to unclog two toilets, $3,000 for a 40-gallon water heater, $600+ for simple snaking jobs, and $475 for an outdoor spigot. Multiple reviewers explicitly state the company targets elderly customers.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH AND CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple independent reviews describe the company failing to return calls for weeks or months, not honoring quotes, not completing jobs after initial visits, and in one case abandoning an emergency repair mid-job. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2025. The scoring gives appropriate weight to the large volume of recent reviews (2024-2025), which are more representative of current operations. Older reviews (pre-2020) reference specific technicians and owners (e.g., Dana) who may no longer be with the company, suggesting possible ownership or operational changes over time.
• UNRESOLVED DAMAGE CLAIM: At least one reviewer (January 2024) describes a botched toilet repair that caused water damage to ceilings and walls, with the company admitting human error but then failing to follow up or provide resolution — a serious project completion and liability concern.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (290 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the dimensional scores; however, the presence of confirmed duplicate reviews, numerous generic or blank reviews, and a strong recurring pattern of pricing complaints and follow-through failures means the score should be treated as a realistic mid-range assessment — Prime Plumbing delivers competent and professional service in many cases but carries meaningful and well-documented risk around pricing transparency and job completion reliability.

Pristine Plumbing scores strongly on professionalism and experience, with the vast majority of reviewers praising technicians as friendly, knowledgeable, punctual, and communicative — these dimensions are supported by an exceptionally large number of mentions and carry HIGH confidence. Project completion is generally positive, with most jobs described as finished same-day or within the agreed timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews cite callbacks needed, incomplete fixes, or abandoned follow-through (including a notable re-pipe with multiple call-backs, a water heater fix that failed initially, and a missed appointment). The pricing dimension is the most damaging factor in the score: a substantial and consistent pattern of negative reviews explicitly describes price gouging, charges far above competitor quotes, and labor rates that reviewers found indefensible — with multiple 1-star reviews citing specific dollar amounts that were two to five times competitor pricing. This pricing concern is not isolated and spans multiple years and multiple technicians, significantly dragging the overall WW Score down from what would otherwise be a high-performing contractor profile.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: A significant and consistent pattern of price gouging complaints exists across multiple years and multiple technicians. Specific examples include: $1,600 charged for a 1.5-hour drain job, $1,249 quoted vs. $476 accepted from competitors for the same job, $858 for a $125 garbage disposal replacement taking 7 minutes, $900 for a valve replacement, $1,350 quoted for a toilet installation vs. $185-$275 from competitors, $2,800 quoted for a camera inspection vs. $199 from a competitor, and $8,500 estimated to fix their own installation error. This is not a fringe complaint — it appears in at least 15+ distinct reviews.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN — MODERATE: Several reviews describe work that required multiple callbacks to fix correctly, including a re-pipe job with at least 4 callback visits and no final crawlspace inspection, a water heater fix that failed immediately after the tech left, a shower temperature issue that was not resolved after a $340 repair, and a backflow device incorrectly installed that the company then quoted $8,500 to fix.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES — MODERATE: Multiple reviews describe rude or dismissive behavior from office staff, including a woman yelling at a customer and hanging up, a technician (Nick) yelling at a tile contractor, and a manager refusing to take responsibility for a pricing dispute. These are not isolated incidents.
• MISSED APPOINTMENTS — MODERATE: At least 3 reviews describe technicians or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without adequate notice, including one reviewer who took a day off work for a no-show.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW-MODERATE: Approximately 38 reviews in the dataset contain no review text at all (rating only, all 5-star). These blank reviews provide no usable data and inflate the raw star rating without contributing evidence. They have been excluded from scoring. Additionally, a cluster of 5-star reviews dated 2025-05-25 (4 reviews on the same day) and 2025-06-07 (4 reviews on the same day, 3 with no text) show suspicious clustering patterns. Confidence has not been reduced for the scored dimensions as the substantive reviews are numerous and detailed, but the blank reviews are flagged.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review describing 'SIX different quotes ranging from $793 to $1,357' for an AirBnb leak repair appears to be submitted twice (2022-06-28 with two different timestamps). Only counted once in scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2017 to June 2025. The majority of reviews with substantive content are from 2020 onward. Pricing complaints are present across all years including the most recent 12 months (2024-2025), indicating this is not a historical issue that has been resolved.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review dataset (265 total, 227 with usable data) spanning multiple years, giving HIGH statistical confidence in all four dimensions; however, the pricing score in particular should be weighted heavily by prospective customers, as the negative pricing feedback is specific, detailed, and consistent across many independent reviewers — consumers should obtain competing quotes before committing to any work with this company.

Repipe Specialists earns moderately positive scores across all four dimensions, driven by a large volume of reviews praising professional crews, same-day completion, and competitive pricing. However, a significant minority of negative reviews — many detailed and credible — describe serious issues including abandoned or incomplete work, hidden charges, substandard workmanship, unresponsive staff after payment, and inspection failures that required costly remediation. The pricing dimension is pulled down by multiple complaints of bait-and-switch tactics, undisclosed add-on costs, and charges for work not performed, despite many customers praising the initial quote as competitive. Project completion is the most contested dimension: while the majority report one-day completions, a notable cluster of reviews describe jobs left unfinished for weeks or months, failed inspections, and work that deteriorated within years. The business model — acting as a marketing broker that subcontracts all physical work — is a recurring source of customer frustration and contributes to accountability gaps across all dimensions.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews from the Kirkland condo community (dated 2024-06-09 and 2024-02-22) are nearly word-for-word identical, suggesting a copy-paste submission or a potentially inflated review. These were counted as one unique data point for scoring purposes.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews praising Christopher Borden as an estimator (dated 2024-02-15 and 2024-02-14) are word-for-word identical, likely the same reviewer submitting twice. Counted once.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews describing the same water heater electrical oversight incident (one dated 2024-06-09 updated to 4 stars, one dated 2024-02-02 at 2 stars) appear to be the same customer submitting two versions of the same review. Scored as one incident.
• SUBCONTRACTOR MODEL WARNING: A large number of reviews — both positive and negative — explicitly note that Repipe Specialists does not perform the physical work itself, subcontracting to local plumbing companies. This creates systemic accountability gaps and makes quality highly variable by region and subcontractor. Customers frequently report that guarantees made by the sales rep were not honored by the subcontracted crew.
• PATTERN OF POST-PAYMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: Multiple independent, detailed negative reviews describe the same pattern — responsive and professional sales process followed by ignored calls, billing disputes, and refusal to remedy issues once payment is collected. This is a credible systemic flag, not isolated incidents.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE FLAG: At least one review describes pipe failure within 5 years requiring over $10,000 in remediation. Another describes work that failed city inspection due to multiple code violations including improper trench depth and missing required systems. These are serious quality-of-work red flags.
• PERMIT AND LEGAL FLAG: At least two reviews allege that permits were not pulled despite being promised, and one reviewer states legal action was initiated. One reviewer pulled their own inspection and the work failed.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2014 to June 2025. The majority of reviews with dates fall within 2016–2025. Negative reviews are distributed across the full date range, suggesting persistent rather than improving issues. Undated reviews were included but weighted conservatively.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEWS: A subset of short, undated 5-star reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'It was a total great experience', 'Did my re-pipe in one day everything was smooth') show limited detail and cannot be fully verified. These were included but treated as low-weight data points.
• HIGH-PRESSURE SALES TACTICS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe aggressive upselling, pressure to commit same-day, and estimators who became dismissive or rude when customers sought competing bids. This is a recurring and credible pattern.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (110 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust; however, the presence of duplicate reviews, a subcontractor-dependent business model with highly variable crew quality, and a credible pattern of post-payment service failures means the score should be interpreted as an average across widely varying customer experiences rather than a reliable predictor of any individual outcome.