Find Nearby Plumbers In Vancouver, Washington

Sharp's Plumbing demonstrates significant and consistent problems across all dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by documented instances of rudeness, yelling, non-responsiveness to callbacks, missed appointments, and poor job-site conduct (leaving lights on, doors open, mud on floors). Pricing is a major red flag with multiple complaints of bait-and-switch tactics, undisclosed service fees, hourly rates quoted at $95 but charged at $170-$240, and charges for work not authorized. Project completion suffers from incomplete work, abandoned jobs, failure to follow up on promised callbacks, and work that created additional damage requiring customer remediation. While some reviews praise quick response times and technical competence (particularly Riley Baker), the overwhelming majority document poor workmanship, unresolved issues, and lack of accountability. The business shows a pattern of taking payment upfront or mid-project then failing to complete work or return for promised follow-ups.

• CRITICAL: Consistent pattern of pricing deception across 11 reviews spanning 2015-2020. Multiple customers report undisclosed fees, bait-and-switch hourly rates, and unexpected bills received weeks after service.
• CRITICAL: Severe professionalism issues including documented verbal abuse (yelling, mocking customers), rudeness from office manager, and systematic non-responsiveness to callbacks and messages.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document incomplete work, abandoned projects, and failure to return for promised follow-up appointments despite customer payment.
• Pattern of work quality issues: loosened tank washers causing water damage, poor flapper replacement, work that required customer remediation by family members at lower cost.
• Recency concern: Most damaging reviews are from 2015-2020 (older than 1 year), but recent reviews (2023) also show non-responsiveness and communication failures, suggesting ongoing systemic issues.
• One positive review (Riley Baker, 2015) stands out as notably different in tone and detail from the overwhelmingly negative pattern, but represents only 1 of 21 reviews.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected; complaints are specific, detailed, and consistent in describing similar problematic behaviors across different time periods.

This WW Score of 42.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning indicator. The score is based on 21 reviews with consistent, specific, and detailed complaints across all four dimensions, particularly regarding pricing deception and professionalism failures. The HIGH overall confidence reflects substantial mention counts (8-13 per dimension) and a clear, repeating pattern of documented problems rather than isolated incidents.

This contractor's review record is deeply divided, with a cluster of strongly positive reviews from 2016–2020 offset by severe negative reviews spanning 2016–2023. The negative reviews are highly detailed and credible, citing unlicensed operation with documented Washington State L&I fines, work that failed to meet code, abandoned or incomplete jobs, significant cost overruns, and repeated failure to honor warranty commitments. Professionalism scores were dragged down sharply by consistent reports of late arrivals, no-shows, bringing unqualified workers and pets onto client property, and disappearing after payment. Project completion is the lowest-confidence area given multiple explicit accounts of unfinished work, jobs lasting far longer than quoted, and warranty calls going unanswered. The positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are largely older and describe smaller-scope jobs, and they do not outweigh the volume and specificity of the negative accounts.

• LICENSING FRAUD: Multiple reviewers independently report and confirm that this contractor operated without an active Washington State contractor's license. One reviewer documented his FOURTH L&I citation resulting in a $5,000 fine plus a $500 plumbing fine. This is a serious legal and safety concern.
• CODE VIOLATIONS: At least two detailed reviews explicitly state that completed work was not to code, including use of ABS pipe for dryer venting instead of required metal ducting.
• WARRANTY ABANDONMENT: Multiple independent reviews (2019, 2023) describe the contractor becoming unresponsive after payment and refusing to honor stated warranty commitments.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (2022, 2023) are both highly negative and detailed. The positive reviews are predominantly from 2016–2020, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. More weight has been given to the 2022–2023 reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW SCREENING: The positive reviews do not appear to be fake — they vary in length, detail, and writing style. However, the contrast between the detailed, specific negative reviews and the brief, generic positive ones (e.g., 'Garth was fabulous! Wonderful person and very skilled.') warrants caution when weighting the positive side.
• PATTERN OF HARM TO PROPERTY: At least three reviews describe physical property damage resulting from improper installation, including water intrusion through walls and non-code venting that required full replacement at the client's expense.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence given 19 reviews with broad dimensional coverage, but the score should be treated as a serious warning signal — the negative reviews are unusually specific, legally corroborated, and span multiple years, making this contractor a high-risk hire.

The overwhelming majority of reviews across both Budget Rooter and Carter Plumbing (which appear to be related or the same entity operating under different names in different periods) describe catastrophic failures in professionalism, including rude office staff, no-shows, broken appointments, unanswered phones, and in at least one case a technician verbally assaulting a customer. Project completion is the lowest-performing dimension, with dozens of reviews describing abandoned work orders, jobs left unfinished for weeks or months, and outright refusal to return after initial visits. Pricing drew consistent complaints about significant overcharging, hidden fees, and billing for work never performed — including at least two allegations of insurance fraud. A small number of individual technicians (Carlos, Andy, John M., Les, Derek, Steve, Randy in isolated cases) received genuine praise for skill and courtesy, which is the only reason experience and professionalism scores are not at zero. The volume and consistency of negative reviews spanning over a decade across multiple review periods leaves no reasonable doubt about the systemic nature of these failures.

• SUSPECTED MIXED ENTITY: Reviews appear to cover two related companies — 'Budget Rooter' (more recent, 2022–2025) and 'Carter Plumbing' (older, 2008–2020) — which may be the same ownership operating under different names or a successor entity. Several reviewers and at least one review explicitly suggest Carter Plumbing operates under a different name with home warranty companies.
• FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers allege the company billed home warranty companies (AHS, Fidelity, Old Republic) for work never performed. One reviewer states Budget Rooter claimed to have completed a repair they never made in order to collect insurance payment. Another reviewer states CarterPlumbing billed for a nonexistent service call.
• PATTERN OF INSURANCE GAMING: A recurring pattern across dozens of reviews suggests the company deliberately misdiagnoses problems as uncovered by warranty, abandons jobs after collecting service fees, and submits false completion reports to warranty companies.
• EXTREME VOLUME OF NEGATIVE REVIEWS: Of approximately 125 reviews analyzed, roughly 85–90 carry 1-star ratings with substantive complaints. This is not a statistical anomaly — it represents a systemic and sustained pattern of poor service.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews contain no review text (blank body, rating only). These blank 5-star reviews inflate the average rating without providing any verifiable information and are flagged as potentially inauthentic.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are present across the full date range from 2008 through June 2025, indicating no meaningful improvement over time. The most recent reviews (2025) continue to describe the same patterns of no-shows, rude staff, and incomplete work.
• BBB F-RATING: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods reference an F rating from the Better Business Bureau, corroborating the pattern seen in these reviews.
• PHYSICAL THREAT INCIDENT: One detailed 2014 review describes a technician using profane and threatening language toward a homeowner and throwing a check in her face. A police report was filed according to the reviewer. This is an extreme safety flag.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2012-11-28 appear to be exact duplicates (same text, same date, same rating) and were counted only once for scoring purposes.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on an exceptionally large volume of reviews (125 total) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered highly reliable — this contractor demonstrates a well-documented, decade-long pattern of unprofessionalism, incomplete work, deceptive billing practices, and poor workmanship that poses significant risk to any consumer.

Cannot calculate WW Score: Insufficient review data. While 7 reviews were analyzed, all reviews are older than 12 months (oldest from 2019, most recent from 2022). More critically, the review set exhibits strong patterns of fake or artificially positive reviews: all 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever, repetitive generic praise language ("amazing job," "highly recommend," "super helpful"), suspiciously enthusiastic formatting (excessive punctuation, all-caps phrases), and absence of any substantive criticism or balanced perspective. No reviews explicitly mention specific dimensions (professionalism, pricing, project completion, experience) with sufficient detail to score independently.

• FAKE REVIEW ALERT: All 7 reviews are 5-star ratings with zero critical feedback — statistically implausible for any service business
• REPETITIVE LANGUAGE: Multiple reviews use identical praise phrases ("amazing job," "highly recommend," "super helpful," "very professional") suggesting coordinated or templated responses
• LACK OF SPECIFICITY: Reviews contain generic compliments but minimal concrete details about actual work quality, pricing transparency, or problem-solving
• RECENCY ISSUE: All reviews are 2+ years old (2019-2022); no recent reviews available to assess current service quality
• SUSPICIOUS FORMATTING: Review 4 contains unusual capitalization and punctuation patterns inconsistent with authentic customer voice
• NO NEGATIVE FEEDBACK: Complete absence of any complaints, delays, cost concerns, or quality issues is a red flag for review authenticity

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient data and strong indicators of review manipulation; the review set appears artificially positive and lacks the critical feedback patterns typical of authentic customer reviews, making any scoring highly unreliable.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Three of four reviews are 1-star ratings citing abandonment of work, non-responsiveness, rudeness, and questionable diagnostic practices. One positive 4-star review from March 2024 describes timely completion of two projects with fair pricing adjustments, but this is heavily outweighed by documented failures. The February 2024 review describes catastrophic project abandonment with a destroyed home and complete communication breakdown. The January 2024 review alleges aggressive upselling tactics tied to insurance claims. With only 4 total reviews and predominantly negative evidence, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated, but the pattern of complaints is severe and consistent.

• CRITICAL: Three of four reviews are 1-star ratings with serious allegations including project abandonment, non-responsiveness, and rudeness. This is not a pattern of isolated complaints but systemic failure.
• ABANDONMENT RISK: February 2024 review documents complete project abandonment mid-work, leaving home uninhabitable, with subsequent communication breakdown and contradictory statements from company.
• QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES: January 2024 review alleges insurance-chasing behavior with aggressive upselling (full system replacement for frozen pipe) and poor follow-up on non-insurance claims.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total limits statistical reliability, but the severity and consistency of negative feedback is concerning regardless of sample size.
• RECENCY: Three of four negative reviews are from the past 12 months (January-February 2024), indicating ongoing issues rather than historical problems.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient reviews (n=4), but the overwhelming preponderance of severe, documented failures (abandonment, non-responsiveness, rudeness, questionable diagnostics) across three independent 1-star reviews from 2024 strongly suggests this contractor poses significant risk and should not be trusted without independent verification and caution.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism (responsiveness, customer service, going above and beyond), project completion (multiple jobs completed, future work planned), and experience (technical knowledge, licensing, journeyman level). However, pricing is not addressed in either review, and the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. All reviews are recent (within past 12 months) and from 2024.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or pricing discussion. No negative or neutral reviews present to balance assessment.
• NO PRICING DATA: Price Friendly dimension cannot be evaluated — no reviews mention cost, value, or pricing transparency.
• LIMITED CONFIDENCE: All scored dimensions based on only 2 mentions each, resulting in LIMITED confidence across the board.

This assessment cannot be considered reliable due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews) and absence of any critical feedback or pricing information. A minimum of 5-10 reviews with diverse perspectives is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.