Find Nearby Plumbers In Eugene, Oregon

Guardian Plumbing demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by poor communication (abandoning estimates, unresponsiveness), unprofessional conduct (yelling at customers), and inconsistent service quality. Pricing concerns are substantial, with evidence of overcharging for slow work and aggressive upselling of unnecessary parts. Project completion is compromised by incomplete work, lack of cleanup, and failure to follow through on commitments. Only the experience dimension shows modest strength, with one review praising honesty and skill, though this is heavily outweighed by multiple reports of slow, ineffective work. The company's reputation is severely damaged by overwhelmingly negative feedback spanning multiple years.

• Four of five reviews are 1-2 star ratings with explicit negative language; only one 5-star review from 2015 provides positive feedback
• Most reviews are older than 1 year (2012-2022 range); only one review from 2022 provides recent data
• Significant inconsistency in service quality: one review praises Dean as 'honest, experienced, and professional' while multiple others describe dishonesty, slow work, and poor cleanup
• Evidence of potentially deceptive sales practices: customer reports being pressured to buy unnecessary urinal replacement for normal calcium buildup on 1-year-old fixture
• Pattern of poor follow-through: estimate provided with no callback, multiple customer outreach attempts ignored

This score should be treated with moderate caution due to limited sample size (5 reviews) and age of most data, but the consistency of negative feedback across multiple dimensions and years suggests genuine service quality issues rather than isolated incidents.

This contractor exhibits severe professionalism deficits across multiple dimensions. Three of four reviews document serious behavioral issues including reckless driving, disrespect, rudeness, and refusal to take accountability for mistakes. The owner's conduct during a plumbing job—failing to clean up contamination and then posting a customer's private phone number online—represents egregious professional misconduct. One positive 2013 review mentions fair pricing and problem-solving, but this is heavily outweighed by consistent patterns of unprofessional behavior documented in more recent reviews. The WW Score reflects the critical failures in professionalism and project completion that dominate the feedback.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews 3 and 4 are nearly identical accounts of the same incident from 2012, posted 6 days apart. This reduces unique data points from 4 to 3 substantive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2012 (over 11 years old). Only one review is from 2022. The 2013 positive review is also significantly dated. Limited recent data.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT ISSUES: Owner allegedly posted customer's private unlisted phone number online and encouraged harassment in retaliation for negative review. This is a major red flag for business integrity.
• PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR: Multiple independent accounts (2022 and 2012) document owner's disrespectful, combative, and evasive conduct. Not isolated incidents.
• BBB AND REGULATORY COMPLAINTS: Review explicitly references existing complaints filed with BBB and State Construction Contractors Board (License #169413). Recommend independent verification.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to limited recent data (only 1 review from past 5 years) and duplicate reviews reducing unique data points, but the consistency of serious professionalism failures across independent accounts and documented regulatory complaints provides sufficient evidence that this contractor presents significant risk.

Gary's Rooter & Plumbing Service demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised, with 28 reviews documenting chronic no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, unprofessional behavior including profanity and verbal abuse toward customers, and unresponsive staff. Pricing concerns appear in 8 reviews, with customers reporting hidden charges, inflated parts markups, and unexpected fee structures. Project completion issues are evident in 10 reviews, including abandoned work, incomplete jobs, and failure to honor callbacks. While 6 reviews mention technical competence, this is heavily outweighed by systemic operational and behavioral failures. The company's WW Score of 28.4 reflects a business with fundamental problems in customer service, reliability, and ethical practices.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS AND MISSED APPOINTMENTS: 15+ reviews explicitly document failure to arrive at scheduled times without notification, representing the most consistent complaint across the dataset.
• DOCUMENTED VERBAL ABUSE AND THREATENING BEHAVIOR: Multiple reviews (2011-03-04, 2014-09-18, 2010-03-01) describe owner and employees using profanity, threatening customers, and creating intimidating situations. One customer reported being blocked from calling after complaining.
• SYSTEMATIC COMMUNICATION FAILURE: 20+ reviews cite unresponsive voicemail, unreturned calls, messages, and texts. Staff described as unable to track customer information across multiple calls.
• PRICING FRAUD INDICATORS: 8 reviews document hidden charges, inflated parts markups (retail $155 charged as $284), undisclosed fees, and charges for work not authorized. One review documents stopped payment on a check.
• INCOMPLETE AND ABANDONED WORK: Multiple reviews document jobs left unfinished after full payment, unsecured plumbing lines, work not completed as specified in estimates, and refusal to return to complete jobs.
• LEGAL COMPLAINTS FILED: At least 2 reviews mention formal complaints to Construction Contractors Board and Better Business Bureau. One review documents a lawsuit threat from tenants due to plumber conduct.
• LICENSING VIOLATION: One commercial job review (2013-03-10) documents that entire job was performed by apprentices with no journeyman plumber on site, violating legal requirements.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster between 2010-2016, with some recent complaints (2024, 2021). The 2021 reviews show the same patterns (no-shows, unresponsiveness) persisting over a decade.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ANALYSIS: Only 3 five-star and 2 four-star reviews exist among 33 total. The positive reviews (2021-05-25, 2015-02-06, 2009-09-07, 2013-01-16, 2011-12-17) are notably brief and generic compared to detailed negative reviews, though they do mention specific employee names (Travis, Mary) and describe actual work performed.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews document the owner (Gary) personally engaging in abusive behavior toward customers, including profanity, refusal to provide his last name, and aggressive confrontation.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 33 reviews with extensive, specific documentation of failures across all dimensions. The HIGH overall confidence reflects consistent patterns of misconduct documented over 14+ years, with multiple independent corroborating accounts of no-shows, communication failures, pricing fraud, incomplete work, and abusive behavior. The few positive reviews do not materially alter the overwhelming evidence of systemic operational and ethical failures. This company presents significant risk to customers.

Tom's Plumbing demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by no-shows, defensive communication, failure to honor commitments, and unprofessional conduct (workers smoking marijuana on job sites). Pricing is a major concern with multiple instances of overcharging ($1,100 for 2 hours of work, $500 for a faucet replacement, $1,100 for a toilet installation), lack of transparency, and charging for time not worked. Project completion is severely hampered by incomplete work, abandoned tasks, poor quality installations, and failure to address customer concerns despite multiple requests. Experience shows inconsistent workmanship ranging from sloppy installations to poor measurements and substandard finishing. Two positive reviews from 2016 are substantially outweighed by eight consistently negative reviews spanning 2017–2023, indicating systemic and persistent problems.

• CRITICAL: 8 of 10 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints. Only 2 positive reviews exist, both from 2016 (7+ years old). This pattern suggests genuine customer dissatisfaction rather than fake reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2022–2023 (recent), while positive reviews are from 2016 (very old). This indicates problems have persisted or worsened over time.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews mention the owner 'Tom' by name and describe defensive, dismissive behavior when questioned. One review explicitly notes the company uses multiple business names, potentially to evade negative review history.
• ETHICAL CONCERNS: Evidence of overcharging, charging for time not worked, incomplete work, and failure to honor callbacks. One review mentions a personal item was stolen from the customer's home.
• QUALITY CONTROL: Consistent reports of poor workmanship, incomplete installations, and failure to correct mistakes without escalation (licensing board complaint required in one case).

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 10 reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific complaints across all dimensions, with recent data (2022–2023) confirming ongoing problems. The score accurately reflects a contractor with severe deficiencies in professionalism, pricing transparency, project completion, and workmanship quality.

Professionalism is the most heavily evidenced dimension and paints a deeply negative picture: two reviews describe complete no-shows without prior notification, and one describes a rude receptionist who argued with the customer. Only two reviews offer positive impressions of staff attitude and communication, and both are from 2012–2013. Project completion is mixed — two positive reviews describe efficient, thorough work including proactive identification of additional issues, while two others describe repeat failures to fix problems or even arrive. Pricing drew criticism for a non-standard policy of charging a minimum fee just to provide an estimate, though one positive review praised honest, flexible billing. Experience scores modestly positive based on the two reviews that described competent, knowledgeable workmanship, but this is offset by at least one review citing a recurring unresolved problem.

• All reviews are significantly outdated — the most recent review is from January 2014, over 10 years ago. This score should not be treated as reflective of current service quality.
• The two positive reviews (4-star and 5-star) are from 2012 and 2013 respectively, while the negative reviews span 2009–2014. No recent data exists to confirm whether quality has improved or declined.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews severely limits reliability. The WW Score should be treated as indicative only.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and mixed ratings consistent with authentic feedback.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to a very small review sample (5 reviews), all of which are more than 10 years old, making it unsuitable as a guide to current contractor performance.

This contractor's review set is deeply polarized, with two strongly positive reviews from mid-2023 and two severely negative reviews from early-to-mid 2024. The two recent negative reviews describe serious failures: a botched unclogging job that caused physical damage to a travel trailer, an owner who verbally abused a customer with profanity and hung up, and a separate incident of a job left incomplete for three weeks with the owner repeatedly hanging up on the customer. These recent incidents heavily drag down professionalism and project completion scores. The two positive reviews highlight fast response times, low pricing, and good communication, but they are now over a year old and are outweighed by the severity and recency of the negative accounts. The pricing dimension scores relatively well based on the two positive mentions, but confidence is limited due to only two mentions.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (2024-03-19 and 2024-04-29) are both 1-star and describe serious misconduct. The two positive reviews are from 2023 and are now over 12 months old. Recent trend is strongly negative.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review alleges the owner used explicit profanity ('F*** you') toward a customer and hung up, which is an extreme professionalism failure and is treated as a heavily weighted negative signal.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE ALLEGATION: One reviewer alleges the contractor caused physical damage to their travel trailer and is pursuing legal action. This is an unresolved claim but is noted as a significant risk flag.
• ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Two separate reviews describe the owner failing to return to complete work and hanging up on customers when contacted. This suggests a possible pattern of job abandonment.
• LOW REVIEW COUNT: Only 4 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as directional only and not definitive. Scores based on 2 mentions carry LIMITED confidence and may shift significantly with additional data.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be treated with caution; however, the two most recent reviews describe severe and specific misconduct that meaningfully lowers confidence in this contractor's current service quality.