Find Nearby Plumbers In Tacoma, Washington

Raven Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently discussed dimension and is sharply divided: positive reviewers praise punctuality, courtesy, and honest communication, while negative reviewers describe being forgotten after calls, unreturned messages, scheduling failures, and confrontational responses to complaints. Pricing is similarly polarized — one reviewer was charged exactly as quoted despite extra labor, and another long-term customer praised competitive rates, but a detailed 2014 review documents a billing rate nearly double what was quoted ($153.60/hr vs $96/hr), significantly dragging this score down. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: multiple reviews describe abandoned work, reversed faucet installation, drain lines that flooded a basement on first use, and the owner placing liens on customers after disputed or incomplete jobs. Experience scores reflect a contractor capable of competent routine work but with documented failures in technical execution and problem diagnosis. The majority of positive reviews are from 2011 and earlier, while negative reviews span a wider range of years including more recent ones, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.

• RECENCY WARNING: Most positive reviews (5-star) are from 2006–2013, which is over 10 years old. The more recent reviews (2014–2020) include a mix of positive and negative, but the most detailed negative experiences come from 2013–2020. Scores should be interpreted with caution given the age of positive data.
• LIEN PATTERN: Two separate reviewers (2008 and 2013) independently report that the owner placed or threatened to place a lien on their property after disputed work. This is a significant red flag for consumer risk.
• ABANDONED WORK: At least two reviewers explicitly state the contractor left work unfinished and they had to hire someone else to complete the job.
• BILLING DISPUTE: The 2014 review contains a detailed, specific account of being charged approximately 60% more per hour than the quoted rate, with the owner refusing to resolve the discrepancy.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAG: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, length, and rating. No strong pattern of fake reviews detected, though the older 5-star reviews are somewhat generic.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review count is sufficient and dimensions are well-evidenced, but the heavily skewed age of positive reviews versus the recency of negative ones means the score likely overstates current service quality, and prospective customers should weight the post-2013 reviews most heavily.

Atlas Home Services presents a deeply polarized review profile spanning over a decade. A meaningful subset of positive reviews — primarily from plumbing-focused interactions and specific named technicians such as Kris, Carlos, Kyle, Konnor, Tim, and Kevin — describe skilled, punctual, courteous, and fairly priced service. However, these are heavily counterbalanced by a large volume of serious negative reviews describing rude and abusive office staff (particularly a woman named Kimberly and others), systematic contract non-honoring, hidden charges, price gouging, abandoned work, warranty refusals, and repeated failures to complete jobs correctly. The professionalism and pricing scores are severely dragged down by consistent, detailed complaints about deceptive billing practices, upselling, and hostile customer service at the administrative level. Project completion suffers significantly due to multiple documented cases of unfinished work, no-shows, and warranty abandonment. Experience scores slightly higher because individual field technicians frequently receive praise, but this is offset by numerous accounts of incompetent diagnoses and faulty installations.

• SEVERE SPLIT IDENTITY: Reviews appear to describe at least two distinct operational entities — a plumbing division (generally more positive) and an HVAC/appliance service contract division (overwhelmingly negative). Scores reflect the combined entity as presented.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: Multiple positive reviews are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific detail (e.g., 'Great!!', 'Excellent!', 'Nice job!', 'Amazing service!'). One negative reviewer explicitly states the company asks customers to leave 5-star reviews in exchange for money. This inflates the positive review count and warrants reduced confidence in the positive signals.
• BUSINESS CONTINUITY CONCERN: Multiple reviews from 2024-2025 allege the company has gone out of business, changed its name to '2 Doors South', or is otherwise no longer operating under the Atlas Home Services brand. This raises serious questions about the relevance of historical positive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly negative and include allegations of business closure, abandoned work, and unresponsive management. Positive reviews are disproportionately older or from a different operational context.
• PATTERN OF PREDATORY PRACTICES: Numerous independent reviewers across multiple years describe nearly identical patterns — contract non-honoring, hidden charges, rude owner/staff named Kimberly, threats of legal action against reviewers, and targeting of elderly customers. This consistency across unrelated reviewers strongly suggests systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• NAME CHANGE / REPUTATION LAUNDERING: Multiple reviewers allege the company has operated under several names including Atlas Services, Atlas Mechanical, Atlas Home Services, Blue Air Mechanical, and 2 Doors South, potentially to escape negative reputations. One review includes detailed public court record citations supporting this pattern.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text about a water pressure service call (dated 2019-04-09 and 2019-04-10) appear to be the same reviewer submitting twice. These were counted as one unique mention.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical text about the emergency Sunday AC service complaint (dated 2020-06-08 and 2020-06-10) appear to be the same reviewer submitting twice. These were counted as one unique mention.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be treated with caution given strong evidence of fake or incentivized positive reviews, a possible split between two distinct business divisions, credible allegations of business closure or name change, and a systemic pattern of predatory practices documented across many years and independent reviewers — prospective customers should exercise extreme caution.

CJ's Plumbing shows severe deficiencies in project completion and professionalism, with a WW Score of 42.8 indicating below-average performance. Multiple reviews document chronic issues with follow-through, missed appointments, no-shows, poor communication, and unresponsiveness to callbacks—patterns that appear across different time periods. While pricing is fair when work is completed and some technical competence is evident, the company's inability to finish jobs reliably, honor commitments, and maintain professional communication standards significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. The owner's behavior—including hanging up on customers and blaming employees—further damages the professionalism dimension.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (2018-11-17 and 2015-10-21) are flagged as potentially fake. The 2018 review uses generic, repetitive phrasing ('thousands have before,' 'cut the headaches out') with no specific details about actual work performed. The 2015 review contains only 'unknown' as text. These were excluded from scoring but noted for context.
• SEVERE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews across 2016-2024 document identical failure modes: no-shows, missed appointments, lack of callback responsiveness, and job abandonment. This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2014-2018, but the most recent review (2024-01-04) replicates the same problems (non-responsiveness, warranty work avoidance, false claims about third-party involvement). This suggests ongoing issues.
• HEALTH/SAFETY FLAG: One review documents the owner instructing an employee to install a shower over black mold to cut corners, creating potential health hazards.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe unprofessional owner behavior including hanging up on customers, throwing employees under the bus, and prioritizing payment collection over job completion.

This WW Score of 42.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 10 usable reviews with consistent, corroborating evidence of systemic failures in project completion and professionalism across an 8-year period. The pattern of no-shows, missed deadlines, poor communication, and job abandonment is documented repeatedly by independent reviewers with specific details. While sample size is moderate, the consistency and severity of complaints, combined with recent corroboration, indicate this score accurately reflects genuine operational deficiencies.

Villa Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 38.2, driven by severe and consistent failures across all dimensions. Project completion is the weakest area (32.0), with overwhelming evidence of abandoned work, multiple failed appointments, extended delays, and incomplete repairs requiring customer follow-up or alternative contractors. Professionalism scores only 42.0, marked by poor phone responsiveness, rude staff, unprofessional attitudes, and lack of accountability. Experience (45.0) and pricing (48.0) are similarly problematic, with numerous reports of incompetent diagnostics, unnecessary part replacements, damage to customer property, and hidden charges. The company shows a pattern of collecting payment then becoming unresponsive, particularly evident in warranty-referred work.

• CRITICAL: Extremely high volume of 1-star reviews (approximately 70+ out of 100 reviews) with consistent, detailed complaints spanning 2008-2024. This is NOT a fake review pattern—complaints are specific, varied, and independently corroborated across multiple reviewers.
• OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT ISSUE: Multiple reviews name owner 'AJ' or 'JJ' as directly responsible for non-responsiveness, theft of deposits ($3,000+ mentioned), and refusal to return calls or complete work. This suggests systemic leadership failure.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Recurring theme across 40+ reviews: company collects payment, then becomes completely unresponsive to follow-up calls, emails, and voicemails. Some customers report 2-6 week gaps with zero communication.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: At least 15 reviews document Villa causing additional damage (broken pipes, holes in walls/ceilings, water damage, flooded homes, damaged hardware) and refusing to take responsibility or make repairs.
• PHONE ACCESSIBILITY CRISIS: 20+ reviews explicitly state the company is nearly impossible to reach—30+ minute hold times, calls not returned for weeks, voicemail systems that don't connect to staff.
• WARRANTY COMPANY DEPENDENCY: ~80% of reviews involve home warranty referrals (First American, American Home Shield, Old Republic). Company appears to rely on warranty work where customer relationships are minimal and accountability is diffused.
• QUALITY CONTROL ABSENT: Multiple reviews describe technicians lacking basic knowledge (e.g., never seen tankless water heaters), using inappropriate tools (power saw on bronze hardware), making incorrect diagnoses, and leaving jobs incomplete.
• RECENCY: While oldest reviews are from 2008, negative patterns persist through 2024 (most recent review: Aug 2024). No evidence of systematic improvement over 16-year period.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ANOMALY: ~15 positive reviews (mostly 5-star) mention specific technicians by name (Andrew, Trevor, Jacob, Alonso, Richard). These appear genuine but represent exceptions; same technicians are NOT mentioned in negative reviews, suggesting inconsistent service quality by individual rather than company-wide competence.

This WW Score of 38.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 100 detailed reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, spanning 16 years with consistent corroboration of failures. The overwhelming volume of specific, independently-documented complaints about project abandonment, unresponsiveness, property damage, and poor workmanship far outweighs the small number of positive experiences. This company presents substantial risk to customers.

Two positive reviews highlight punctuality, friendliness, fair pricing, and solid workmanship, including proactively identifying and fixing an unrelated leak. However, the third review — a detailed and credible 1-star account — describes a severe failure in communication, repeated no-shows, an unanswered phone with a full voicemail, and complete lack of follow-through over the course of more than a week. This single negative review carries significant weight because it directly contradicts the positive pattern and describes a systemic breakdown in both professionalism and project completion. The mixed record across only three reviews makes it impossible to establish a reliable baseline, and the WW Score reflects this uncertainty with a conservative result.

• Very small sample size (3 reviews only) — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and not representative of consistent performance.
• The 1-star review is detailed, specific, and credible, describing repeated no-shows, a full voicemail box, and over 60 unanswered calls — this is a serious red flag for reliability and responsiveness.
• The two positive reviews are relatively brief and generic in praise, though they do include some specific details (early arrival, leak identification) that reduce fake review concern.
• Review dates span from 2022 to 2024 — the negative review is the oldest (2022) and the most recent review (2024) is positive, but three data points are insufficient to confirm an improvement trend.
• No patterns of fake reviews detected, but the low volume means no meaningful pattern analysis is possible.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use it as a definitive assessment of this contractor's quality without gathering significantly more customer feedback.

Dear Services receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven by severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is compromised by chronic no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, and rude technicians (score: 38). Pricing is the most damaging dimension (score: 18), with overwhelming evidence of extreme price gouging—quotes routinely 3–5x market rates ($23k–$59k for work priced $3k–$15k elsewhere), aggressive high-pressure sales tactics, and predatory targeting of elderly customers. Project completion suffers (score: 35) with abandoned work, rescheduled appointments (sometimes 4+ times), and failure to honor callbacks or warranties. Experience is the only relatively stronger dimension (score: 62), as individual technicians like Gerardo, Nathan, and Jeremy demonstrate genuine skill and professionalism, but this is overshadowed by systemic company-wide misconduct.

• CRITICAL: Fake review pattern detected. Approximately 20 reviews (20%) contain suspiciously generic praise with minimal detail, identical phrasing ('great job,' 'highly recommend,' 'professional'), and come from profiles with no review history. These cluster around dates 2024-02-29, 2024-04-01, 2024-06-25, 2024-07-09, 2024-08-04, and others. This suggests incentivized or fabricated reviews.
• PREDATORY BUSINESS PRACTICES: 65+ reviews document systematic price gouging, bait-and-switch tactics, aggressive same-day contract signing under pressure, and targeting of vulnerable populations (elderly, first-time homeowners, those in emergency situations). Multiple reviews cite quotes 3–5x legitimate market rates.
• REGULATORY VIOLATIONS: Multiple reviews reference 56+ L&I violations since 2017, unpaid citations from 2020–2021, failure to obtain permits, use of unqualified personnel, and violations of elder abuse laws. Washington State Attorney General involvement mentioned.
• DECEPTIVE SALES PRACTICES: Documented pattern of technicians using scare tactics (fire hazard claims, carbon monoxide threats), showing fake/misleading evidence, refusing to provide itemized invoices, bundling services to obscure costs, and pressuring customers to sign contracts without copies provided.
• SYSTEMATIC SERVICE FAILURES: 40+ reviews document chronic no-shows, rescheduled appointments (up to 4 times), failure to return calls, and abandonment of customers post-payment. One customer waited 1 year for a unit to be fixed.
• FAKE REVIEW SOLICITATION: Multiple reviews describe technicians requesting Google/online reviews on-site, sometimes with photos, and one review mentions the company offering $50 gift cards for reviews (FTC violation).
• RECENCY: 85% of reviews are from 2023–2024 (past 12 months), indicating ongoing, current misconduct rather than historical issues.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 28–52 mentions each). The score reflects systematic, documented patterns of predatory pricing, deceptive sales practices, service failures, and regulatory violations corroborated across 65+ independent negative reviews. While 20 reviews appear fabricated, the remaining 80 reviews provide overwhelming, consistent evidence of serious consumer harm. This company should be considered high-risk; the low score is conservative and trustworthy.