Find Nearby Plumbers In Corvallis, Oregon

Friesen Plumbing demonstrates consistent positive feedback across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. All three reviews explicitly praise prompt/efficient service, reasonable rates, and quick job completion. However, the sample size is very small (only 3 reviews) and all reviews are older than 2 years, with the oldest dating to 2015. While the feedback is uniformly positive, the limited recency and volume prevent high confidence in this score.

• All reviews are older than 2 years; most recent is from October 2021. No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• Sample size is very small (n=3). Score reliability is limited and could shift significantly with additional reviews.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with generic positive language. While not necessarily fake, the uniformity and lack of specific technical detail limits depth of assessment.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and significant age of the data (oldest from 2015, most recent from 2021). The score reflects historical performance but may not represent current service quality.

Linn Benton Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise across most reviews, with plumbers consistently praised for punctuality, communication, and skilled workmanship. However, the company is severely hampered by pervasive pricing complaints spanning multiple years (2018–2025), with customers repeatedly reporting charges 2–3x industry standard rates and aggressive flat-rate pricing tactics. While recent reviews (2025) show improved satisfaction, the historical pattern of price-gouging complaints—particularly targeting vulnerable customers—significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. The company's practice of sending gift cards after complaints appears to be a damage-control tactic rather than genuine service recovery.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: 20 reviews explicitly cite overpricing, with charges ranging from $608 for a 25-minute faucet install (competitors: $135–$300) to $2,200 for minor repairs. This is not isolated—complaints span 2018–2025.
• VULNERABLE CUSTOMER TARGETING: Multiple reviews describe elderly or non-technical customers being charged 2–3x fair market rates. One review explicitly states a 90+ year-old was charged $950 for $20 in parts and 1 hour of work.
• FLAT-RATE PRICING ABUSE: Customers report being quoted high flat rates for simple jobs (e.g., $1,800 for 30 minutes of PEX work; $4,000+ for house repiping vs. $5,000 competitor estimate). Company refuses to adjust when work finishes early.
• DAMAGE CONTROL TACTIC: Multiple customers report receiving $25 gift cards or thank-you letters after complaining about overcharges. One customer explicitly states: 'My guess, to butter me up in hopes of a good review. Don't be fooled.'
• RECENCY BIAS IN POSITIVE REVIEWS: Recent 2025 reviews are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2018–2022) contain detailed pricing complaints. This pattern suggests either improved practices or selective review filtering.
• QUALITY VS. PRICE DISCONNECT: Even negative reviews acknowledge work quality is good; the issue is exclusively pricing. This suggests intentional overcharging rather than incompetence.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURES: Multiple reviews report dismissive responses to pricing complaints, generic emails instead of explanations, and refusal to provide itemized breakdowns.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be trusted with HIGH confidence due to large sample size and consistent patterns, but the score masks a critical flaw: while Linn Benton Plumbing delivers quality work and professional service, the company systematically overcharges customers—particularly vulnerable populations—by 100–300% above market rates. Recent positive reviews do not negate the 7-year history of pricing complaints. Customers should obtain multiple competitive quotes before engaging this company and be extremely cautious of flat-rate pricing structures.

Albin's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by multiple credible complaints about no-shows, failure to return calls, rudeness, and billing disputes, even though many other reviewers praise punctuality and courteous service. Pricing is a notable weak point, with several reviewers explicitly calling out overcharging, billing errors, and charging for travel time in both directions — dragging the score down significantly despite some positive price mentions. Project completion is similarly split: several jobs were left incomplete or improperly tested, one drain issue required a second company to resolve, and a Navien heater issue consumed $500 without resolution — yet many other reviewers report clean, efficient, fully completed work. Experience scores modestly above the midpoint, with strong technical praise in some reviews but clear skill gaps exposed in others, particularly around specialty equipment like Navien systems and drain diagnostics. The breadth of review data (30 reviews) gives reasonable confidence in these scores, though the wide date range — spanning 2010 to 2025 — means older negative reviews may not fully reflect current performance.

• Wide date range: reviews span from 2010 to 2025. Several negative reviews are from 2012–2017 and may not reflect current business practices. More recent reviews (2023–2025) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible improvement over time.
• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2019-06-11) contains no text and was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• Two reviews from 2017 use nearly identical language and structure ('Horrible and rude customer service' / 'Really bad customer service') and reference billing errors. These may be from the same customer or a related party. Confidence in those specific complaints is slightly reduced, though the billing complaint is corroborated by an independent 2018 review.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2017–2019 are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Great Service and quality work', 'Very helpful....') with no specific details. These contribute limited scoring evidence and may inflate perceived satisfaction.
• The Navien heater complaint (2024) is a significant recent flag: the company accepted payment for work outside their expertise without disclosing the limitation upfront, which is a transparency and professionalism concern.

This WW Score is based on 29 reviews with usable data spanning 15 years and carries HIGH data confidence by volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given the wide date range, a cluster of credible negative reviews around billing and incomplete work, and several generic low-detail positive reviews that may overstate satisfaction.

The reviews present a mixed picture. Three positive reviews highlight professional, knowledgeable, and efficient work — including a same-day water heater replacement and a sewer line repair completed cleanly and thoroughly. However, the single 1-star review is a significant drag on all dimensions: it describes a serious failure in communication, scheduling, and customer service, including an inability to provide any pricing range and a last-minute cancellation after a full day of waiting. Pricing confidence is low because only two reviews touch on it — one negatively (no pricing information given) and one positively (honest and transparent). The overall score is tempered by the small review pool and the weight of the negative experience.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for high-stakes decisions.
• The three positive reviews are somewhat generic in praise (e.g., 'very professional,' 'quality satisfaction,' 'highly recommend') with limited specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in their authenticity.
• The 1-star review is highly specific and credible, describing a concrete sequence of events including miscommunication about service area, lack of pricing transparency, and poor phone support — this review carries significant weight.
• No reviews mention hidden charges or upfront quotes being honored, making the pricing dimension particularly uncertain.
• All reviews are from 2022–2023; no reviews from the past 12 months are present, which limits recency confidence.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be considered LOW reliability — do not use this score as a definitive assessment without gathering significantly more customer feedback.

Judson's Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning nearly a decade. While some customers praise professionalism and efficiency, multiple reviews document serious failures in workmanship (improper water heater installation causing gas leak, property damage during faucet replacement), deceptive billing practices (undisclosed travel and restocking fees, double-charging), and poor customer service (dismissive attitude, lost payments, refusal to remedy billing errors). The company demonstrates technical capability in some jobs but critical lapses in safety, attention to detail, and business integrity. Pricing concerns appear consistently across multiple independent reviews, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE: 2021 review documents improper gas line installation resulting in year-long gas leak causing health symptoms in family member. This is a serious liability concern.
• PATTERN OF DECEPTIVE BILLING: Multiple reviews (2014, 2018, 2019) document undisclosed fees (travel time, restocking charges) and overcharging. Customers report being charged 2-3x quoted amounts.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE: 2018 review documents damage to customer property (siding chipping, cracking, scratched fixtures) with no apparent remediation.
• POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE: 2018 review documents company accusing customer of lying about mailed payment, then discovering they lost the check. Dismissive and disrespectful communication.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 6+ years old (2014-2018), with only one recent negative review (2021). However, the 2021 safety issue is extremely serious and recent enough to warrant high concern.
• LIMITED RECENT DATA: Only 2 reviews from past 5 years; score reliability is constrained by age of most data.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent reviews and significant inconsistency in service quality. The documented safety failure (gas leak) and pattern of billing deception across multiple independent reviews are serious red flags that outweigh positive testimonials. The company's reliability appears questionable, particularly regarding transparency and attention to detail.

This contractor's review profile is sharply divided between strongly positive and strongly negative experiences, making scoring difficult. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praised promptness, friendliness, and professional conduct, and several noted satisfactory workmanship. However, two serious negative reviews — one describing vulgar and threatening language from the owner and another describing a last-minute schedule abandonment that delayed a new construction project by two weeks — significantly drag down professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing received mixed signals: one reviewer praised fair pricing while another described an aggressive and rude response when they sourced cheaper fixtures. The overall picture is of an inconsistent contractor with real red flags around owner conduct and reliability.

• Two reviews explicitly describe the owner (Ben) as rude, threatening, or using vulgar language — this is a serious professionalism red flag that cannot be dismissed.
• One review describes a critical failure in project completion: the contractor did not inform the customer he was cancelling scheduled work until 6 days before the start date, causing a 2-week delay on a new construction home.
• Review dates span from 2011 to 2022 — the majority of reviews are more than 5 years old. Only one review (2022) falls within the past 3 years, severely limiting recency reliability.
• The positive reviews tend to be brief and generic (e.g., 'prompt, courteous and professional', 'excellent work', 'arrived on time') with limited specific detail, which reduces their evidentiary weight.
• Small sample size of only 7 reviews means individual outliers — both positive and negative — have outsized influence on the score. Treat all dimension scores with caution.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution: the sample size is very small (7 reviews), most reviews are outdated (pre-2020), and the presence of two serious conduct-related complaints from different reviewers introduces meaningful risk that cannot be offset by the positive reviews.