Find Nearby Plumbers In Tacoma, Washington

Matt the Plumber demonstrates strong professionalism, fair pricing, and technical expertise across most dimensions, supported by numerous positive reviews spanning 2015–2023. However, the WW Score is significantly depressed by critical project completion failures documented in two recent reviews (October 2024) involving deposit non-refunds and abandoned jobs totaling $3,000+. These recent incidents represent a severe departure from the contractor's historical pattern and suggest either a recent operational breakdown or a fundamental change in business conduct. The score reflects the weighted impact of these serious completion failures despite otherwise strong performance in communication, punctuality, and workmanship quality.

• CRITICAL: Two recent reviews (October 2024) allege serious misconduct—non-refunded deposits ($1,000 and $1,000) and complete abandonment of jobs after payment. Both reviews are detailed, specific, and credible with dates and amounts. This represents a severe red flag for project completion reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2015–2023 (older than 12 months). The two most recent reviews (October 2024) are highly negative and describe unethical behavior. This suggests a recent deterioration in business conduct.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews from 2015–2020 use nearly identical phrasing ('friendly, courteous, professional,' 'reasonable price,' 'highly recommend,' 'on time'). While not conclusive, the repetitive language and uniformly glowing tone across many older reviews warrants caution. One review contains only a period (.) with a 5-star rating, indicating data quality issues.
• MEDICAL CONDITION MENTIONED: One October 2024 review mentions the contractor disclosed pancreatic cancer, which may explain recent operational failures but does not excuse non-refunded deposits or lack of communication.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference locations in Massachusetts (Marshfield, Plymouth), Washington (Tacoma), and other areas, suggesting either multi-location operation or data aggregation from multiple contractors with similar names. This should be verified.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While historical data (2015–2023) strongly supports a rating of 85+, two credible and detailed recent complaints (October 2024) describing deposit theft and job abandonment fundamentally undermine confidence in current business reliability. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects this critical recent deterioration. Potential customers should contact the contractor directly to clarify current operational status and request references from jobs completed in the past 6 months before engaging.

Union City Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism scores well (76) with consistent mentions of responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous staff, though some reviews cite communication failures and billing disputes. Pricing is the weakest dimension (52), with multiple complaints about unclear trip fees, labor overcharges, and billing for work not completed. Project completion (65) is hampered by serious concerns: incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, warranty disputes, misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary work, and at least one case of alleged theft. Experience (78) is supported by positive comments on technical skill and problem-solving, but undermined by critical failures in septic tank assessment and recurring plumbing issues. The company's performance appears to have declined over time, with older reviews (2007–2011) more positive than recent ones (2019–2024).

• SERIOUS INTEGRITY CONCERN: One 2023 review alleges theft of customer's phone by a technician; company allegedly denied the claim. This is a major red flag for trustworthiness.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2019–2024) are significantly more negative than older reviews (2007–2015). This suggests declining service quality or increasing customer dissatisfaction over time.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2022, 2021, 2019) cite confusing or unfair billing practices, including trip fees that don't include travel time, labor overcharges, and refusal to honor warranty claims.
• MISDIAGNOSIS: 2019 review documents a plumber incorrectly assessing septic tank condition, contradicted by actual septic experts. This raises questions about technical competence.
• WARRANTY ISSUES: 2021 review highlights a 90-day warranty on a water heater installation that failed at 14 months; company denied responsibility due to lack of records.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: 2019 review describes a service call where the plumber gave advice but performed no actual work, yet still billed for the visit.
• REPEAT FAILURES: 2011 review alleges repeated failed repairs causing thousands in home damage.
• EMERGENCY SERVICE FAILURE: 2017 review reports inability to respond to emergency call for 3 weeks despite advertising emergency service.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While the MODERATE overall confidence reflects adequate mention counts, the score is heavily influenced by serious integrity concerns (alleged theft, billing disputes, warranty denials) and a clear negative trend in recent reviews. The company's older reviews are substantially more positive, suggesting either service degradation or changing customer expectations. Potential customers should prioritize recent reviews and seek clarification on warranty terms and billing practices before engaging this contractor.

West Coast Plumbing shows a deeply polarized performance profile. Professionalism scores reasonably well (72) with consistent praise for friendly, courteous field staff and responsive scheduling across 11 reviews. However, pricing is a critical weakness (45), with multiple customers reporting dramatic overcharges, hidden trip fees, and quotes 3x higher than competitors. Project completion is severely compromised (52) by documented failures to diagnose issues correctly, incomplete work, code violations, and refusal to honor warranties. Experience is below average (58) with several reviews detailing incorrect pump calibration, misdiagnosis, and sloppy workmanship requiring costly corrections by other contractors. The company's WW Score of 62.8 reflects a business with friendly frontline workers undermined by poor management, questionable technical competence, and aggressive pricing practices.

• SEVERE PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2024, 2018, 2023) document price gouging—quotes jumping from $1,400 to $2,900, charges 3x competitors, and undisclosed trip fees. Pattern suggests systematic overcharging.
• TECHNICAL INCOMPETENCE: Ian's pump calibration error (2015 review) required correction by another company; customer had to pay twice. Multiple reviews cite misdiagnosis and incomplete repairs.
• WARRANTY VIOLATIONS: 2023 review explicitly states company issued warranty but refused to honor it when work failed. Customer spent $10k+ and had to hire another contractor.
• CODE VIOLATIONS & INSPECTION FAILURES: 2015 review documents failed inspections (2x), sloppy work per inspector, incomplete drywall repairs, unsealed plumbing causing mouse infestation, and improper tankless heater installation. Owner filed BBB complaint.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: 2019 review documents poor internal/external communication—Joe and Ian had no shared information on same project; company misunderstood scope and asked city for unnecessary expensive work.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Most negative reviews (pricing, completion, experience failures) are from 2023-2024 (recent) and 2015-2019 (older but severe). Positive reviews cluster in 2014-2020 with limited recent positive data.
• POLARIZED REVIEWS: 6 five-star reviews vs. 6 one-star reviews with no middle ground. Positive reviews lack specificity on pricing/completion; negative reviews are detailed and specific about failures.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While professionalism data is robust (11 mentions), the company's technical competence, pricing practices, and project completion are severely compromised by documented failures, warranty violations, and code violations. The recent pricing complaints (2024, 2023) combined with historical completion failures (2015) suggest systemic issues beyond individual technician performance. Recommend obtaining multiple independent bids and checking BBB complaints before engaging this contractor.

Franich Plumbing demonstrates strong technical skill and quality workmanship on new projects, with multiple reviews praising the quality of bathroom and kitchen work. However, the company exhibits severe deficiencies in project completion and follow-through on service commitments, with two detailed accounts of multi-year non-responsiveness on warranty service and callbacks despite explicit promises. Professionalism is mixed: positive on initial customer interactions but severely compromised by unresponsiveness and ghosting after commitments are made. The WW Score reflects this critical gap between excellent execution on new work and poor accountability on service obligations.

• CRITICAL: Two independent, detailed reviews (2023-11-15 and 2023-07-13) describe nearly identical patterns of non-responsiveness spanning 7 years, with explicit promises made by owner Brian Franich followed by ghosting. These are not generic complaints—they include specific dates, email references, and documented communication attempts. This suggests a systemic service failure, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One highly positive review is from 2014 (10 years old). The two most recent reviews (2023) are severely negative. This indicates deterioration in service quality or business practices over time.
• CONFLICT IN NARRATIVE: Three recent reviews (2024) praise responsiveness and follow-through, while two 2023 reviews document the opposite. This suggests either selective responsiveness (prioritizing new projects over service obligations) or recent changes in business practices.
• SERVICE vs. NEW WORK DIVIDE: Positive reviews focus on new installations/remodels. Negative reviews focus on warranty service and callbacks. Company may excel at new projects but fail at ongoing service commitments.

This score should be treated with caution due to conflicting signals: strong evidence of quality workmanship on new projects is substantially undermined by credible, detailed documentation of systematic non-responsiveness on service obligations. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects that while data exists across dimensions, the small sample size (5 reviews) and the severity of the service failure pattern create uncertainty about which behavior is more representative of current operations.

Mega Mushroom Landscaping shows a mixed but generally positive track record across a small review set. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable and fair, which is a clear strength. However, professionalism and project completion scores are significantly dragged down by the most recent review (March 2024), in which the contractor abandoned his landscaping business without notifying existing clients, left them without referrals, and failed to honor the agreed-upon scope of work (mowing vs. weeding split). The older reviews (2023) are largely positive regarding responsiveness, attitude, and workmanship quality, but the recency-weighted negative experience raises serious concerns about reliability and follow-through. The overall score reflects a contractor who performed adequately in the past but whose most recent behavior represents a significant professional failure.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (2024-03-27) is the only review from the past 12 months and is strongly negative, describing business abandonment without client notification. This is given elevated weight per recency rules.
• SCOPE CREEP / INCOMPLETE WORK: The 2024 reviewer explicitly states the contractor did not honor the agreed-upon work split between mowing and weeding, suggesting a pattern of partial task completion.
• BUSINESS CONTINUITY RISK: The contractor has reportedly ceased landscaping services entirely as of early 2024, which raises serious questions about whether this score is even relevant for future hiring decisions.
• POSSIBLE GENERIC PRAISE: Two of the five-star reviews (2023-09-25 and 2023-06-20) contain vague, non-specific praise with limited detail, which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews. However, other five-star reviews contain sufficient specifics to be considered credible.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total. Scores should be treated with caution and not considered statistically reliable.

This WW Score has LOW overall reliability due to the very small review sample (6 reviews), the contractor's apparent exit from the landscaping business as of early 2024, and a significant negative recency signal that contrasts sharply with older positive reviews.

Mercurio's presents a deeply split profile: a meaningful subset of customers — particularly those receiving installations or routine maintenance from specific named technicians — report excellent professionalism, punctuality, and quality workmanship. However, a large and consistent volume of negative reviews from 2020 through late 2024 documents serious systemic failures including repeated no-shows, last-minute cancellations without notice, incomplete work left in disarray, and unresolved follow-through on multi-month projects. Pricing is a significant liability, with multiple reviewers citing extreme markups (e.g., a $27 part billed at $780, a $25 ignitor billed at $800, a $189 diagnostic for flipping a light switch), lack of upfront pricing transparency, and invoices far exceeding quoted amounts. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with numerous accounts of abandoned work, unresolved warranty repairs lasting months, systems left disassembled, and persistent failure to follow up without customer initiation. The overall picture is of a company with capable individual technicians but serious organizational and ethical problems at the operational and management level.

• PATTERN — DEPRIORITIZATION OF SMALL JOBS: At least 3 independent reviews (Nov 2024, Oct 2024, Sep 2020) use nearly identical language about being deprioritized for smaller jobs. Two reviews from Oct 2024 share the phrase 'unless you're spending a lot on a big repair or service, they will deprioritize you' almost verbatim — this may reflect a shared experience or a copied phrase, but the underlying complaint is corroborated by multiple other reviewers independently, so it is treated as credible rather than fake.
• PRICING CONCERNS — POTENTIAL UNETHICAL BILLING: Multiple reviews allege charges far exceeding quotes, markups of 1000–3000% on parts, and charges for warranty work that should have been free. One reviewer (Mar 2024) explicitly accused the company of a near-3000% markup on a $27 part. Another (Jan 2023) was charged $800 for a $25 ignitor. These are not isolated complaints.
• WORKMANSHIP INTEGRITY CONCERNS: One review (Oct 2024) alleges a technician broke a working system during a maintenance visit and then attempted to charge for the repair. Another (Aug 2020) alleges refrigerant was billed but never added, and the system was run dry causing potential compressor damage. These are serious allegations of misconduct, not mere incompetence.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews are concentrated in 2023 and 2024, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Positive reviews are more evenly distributed across years but also present in 2023–2024, indicating inconsistency rather than a uniform decline.
• INCOMPLETE PROJECT PATTERN: Multiple reviews cite unresolved work lasting weeks to months with no proactive communication — including a 6-month open trench (Oct 2023), a 2-month unresolved heater repair (Oct 2024), and a heat pump broken for multiple consecutive summers (Oct 2024). This is a systemic follow-through failure.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: Positive reviews are sufficiently varied in language, detail named technicians, and describe specific scenarios. No strong evidence of coordinated fake positive reviews, though the volume of generic 5-star reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews spanning 2019–2024 with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score reflects a genuinely polarized contractor where individual technician quality varies widely and systemic operational failures are well-documented, so prospective customers should weight the negative patterns heavily when making a hiring decision.