Find Nearby Plumbers In Gresham, Oregon

All N' One Plumbing has a large volume of strongly positive reviews praising professionalism, responsiveness, fair pricing, and technical competence across multiple technicians including Byron, Frank, and Alfonso. However, the review set contains a meaningful cluster of serious negative reviews — including multiple 1-star accounts describing flooded properties, failed warranty follow-through, rude communication, bait-and-switch pricing, and work left incomplete or done incorrectly. These negative reviews are detailed, specific, and credible, and they materially drag down scores across all four dimensions. The pricing dimension scores moderately well overall, as many reviewers praised fair quotes and no hidden charges, but several negative reviewers explicitly described charges exceeding original quotes. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to multiple accounts of abandoned callbacks, failed inspections, and unresolved warranty claims. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but a documented pattern of serious service failures that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• Two reviews dated 2021-05-17 from 'Nada Harrison' are nearly identical in content and were posted within 30 minutes of each other — likely a duplicate submission, counted as one unique review for scoring purposes.
• Two reviews dated 2017-12-29 describe the same flooding incident at a business from two different reviewers — these appear to be from the same event and may represent coordinated posting, though both are treated as independent accounts given differing perspectives.
• Two reviews dated 2018-05-23 from what appears to be the same reviewer are word-for-word identical — counted as one review for scoring purposes.
• Two lengthy negative reviews (2012-08-06 and 2011-07-29) describe what appears to be the same job from the same customer filed at different times — counted as one unique negative data point to avoid double-penalizing.
• The majority of 5-star reviews lack specific detail about pricing or project outcomes, relying on generic praise. While not conclusive of fake reviews, this pattern warrants moderate caution.
• A significant number of positive reviews are dated 2024-06-09 with identical timestamps, suggesting a possible batch upload or solicited review campaign — confidence in those specific reviews is reduced.
• Negative reviews span from 2011 through 2022 and describe recurring issues: poor communication, warranty non-fulfillment, work quality failures, and rude owner behavior. This is not an isolated pattern and should be weighted seriously.
• Recency note: The most recent reviews (2024) are predominantly positive, but the negative reviews extend as recently as 2022, meaning the issues are not exclusively historical.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set with HIGH data confidence across all dimensions, but the presence of multiple credible, detailed negative reviews — including warranty failures, flooding incidents, and communication breakdowns — means the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence indicator of real-world performance, and prospective customers are strongly advised to review the negative accounts in full before hiring.

Associated Plumbing receives strong praise from the majority of recent reviewers for fast response times, same-day service, and friendly technicians, which drives solid scores in professionalism and project completion. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — spanning billing disputes, overcharging, incomplete diagnoses, rude staff, and a court judgment against the company — prevents any dimension from scoring in the high 80s or above. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several customers praised affordability, multiple reviewers explicitly described hidden charges, bait-and-switch billing, charging travel time without disclosure, and labor costs they considered outrageous. Project completion is similarly mixed, with several reviews describing work that had to be redone, problems left unresolved, or a no-show after confirmation. The score reflects a contractor with a genuinely strong base of satisfied repeat customers but a documented pattern of serious service failures that cannot be ignored.

• 4 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several positive reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Great as usual!', 'Very skilled and pleasant', 'Service was outstanding!') with no specific details. While not conclusively fake, they add limited evidentiary weight and were scored conservatively.
• A notable cluster of 1-star reviews describes serious issues: billing fraud (charging more time than worked, bait-and-switch estimates), a court judgment against the company, work that had to be redone, a no-show after confirming arrival, and a receptionist described as rude and unhelpful. These are specific, credible, and materially impact all dimension scores.
• Recency note: The majority of negative reviews are from 2011–2019, while most positive reviews are from 2024–2025. This suggests possible improvement over time, but the 2024 billing dispute review (charging for more time than worked) and the 2024 refusal to quote an $8,000+ job indicate some issues persist. Older negative reviews were weighted slightly less but not dismissed.
• One reviewer explicitly states they verified with tenants and text messages that the company charged for more time than technicians were actually on-site — a serious billing integrity concern that was not addressed by the owner publicly.
• The owner was noted by one reviewer as not responding to negative reviews, which reduces confidence in accountability and dispute resolution.

This WW Score is based on 49 reviews with a wide date range (2011–2025) and a clear split between a strong majority of positive recent reviews and a credible minority of serious negative reviews; the score is moderately reliable but should be interpreted with caution given documented billing disputes and incomplete work complaints.

Pardue Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers repeatedly highlight punctuality, courteous behavior, quick response times, and going above and beyond for customers. Pricing is mentioned positively in four reviews, with terms like 'fair,' 'reasonable,' and 'agreeable,' though it is not discussed in enough reviews to carry full confidence weight. Project completion scores well, with most reviewers describing jobs that were finished thoroughly and on time, including one notable case where the team was unable to clear a drain but was transparent and professional about recommending replacement instead. Experience and technical skill are affirmed across multiple reviews referencing correct diagnosis, quality workmanship, and knowledgeable problem-solving. The primary caveat is that all reviews are dated between 2008 and 2015, meaning there is no data from the past several years to confirm whether current service quality matches historical performance.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OUTDATED: The most recent review is from August 2015 — nearly 10 years ago. This score reflects historical performance only and should not be treated as representative of current service quality.
• TWO PLACEHOLDER REVIEWS: Two reviews contain only the word 'unknown' or 'jj' with no usable content. These were excluded from scoring.
• POSSIBLE RATING INFLATION: All 15 reviews are 5-star ratings with zero negative or mixed feedback. While the detailed reviews appear genuine and specific, the complete absence of any critical feedback across a decade of reviews warrants mild caution.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE WITH NO RECENCY: Only 13 reviews contained usable data, and none are from the past 9+ years. Confidence in current performance is low regardless of historical scores.

This WW Score should be treated as a historical snapshot only — while the underlying reviews are detailed and credible enough to produce a meaningful score, the complete absence of reviews after 2015 means this score cannot reliably predict the contractor's current quality, availability, or pricing.

Accurate Backflow Testing receives consistently positive feedback across professionalism, responsiveness, and follow-through, with multiple reviewers over several years praising on-time arrivals, paperwork handling, and fast scheduling. Project completion scores are supported by specific mentions of jobs being finished promptly, paperwork submitted to the city, and same-day or next-day turnarounds. Experience is reinforced by a detailed 2015 review describing a technically skilled repair that other companies had misdiagnosed, as well as general praise for knowledgeability. However, one 1-star review from 2018 explicitly cites rudeness from both phone staff and the on-site technician, which moderates the professionalism score. Pricing data is limited to a small number of mentions but is positive, with one reviewer specifically calling the service affordable.

• 8 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• All text reviews are 5-star except one 1-star review. While this pattern could suggest selection bias, the reviews span multiple years (2015–2024) and contain enough specific detail to be considered largely authentic.
• Several reviews use generic praise phrases ('highly recommend', 'great service') without specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual data points.
• The majority of detailed reviews are older than 12 months (pre-2024), with only two substantive reviews from 2024. Recency of detailed feedback is limited.
• Owner transition mentioned in one review (new owners Rick and Alex replacing Chuck and wife). Reviews reference both eras, so scores reflect a blended picture across ownership periods.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for professionalism, project completion, and experience given sufficient mentions across multiple years, but is tempered by a high volume of blank reviews, limited recent detailed feedback, and one explicit negative professionalism incident.

John and Aquatech consistently receive praise for punctuality, responsiveness, and friendly communication, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting on-time arrivals and patient follow-through — driving a strong professionalism score. Project completion is well-supported by reviews describing work finished quickly, correctly, and without issue across many years of repeat use. Experience is moderately supported, with reviewers describing John as 'obviously very capable,' honest about what work is and is not needed, and technically proficient with backflow testing and reporting. Pricing is mentioned in only two reviews but both are positive, referencing 'very reasonable prices' and a no-charge return visit, yielding a conservative but favorable score. Overall confidence is tempered by the fact that the vast majority of reviews are more than five years old, with only one review from the past 12 months.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 of 11 reviews is from the past 12 months (October 2024). The remaining 10 reviews span 2006–2019, with 8 reviews older than 5 years and 5 reviews older than 10 years. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• LIMITED SCOPE: Nearly all reviews describe a single recurring service (backflow testing and sprinkler system maintenance), which limits the ability to assess performance across varied or complex project types.
• ONE UNUSABLE REVIEW: One review contained only the word 'unknown' with no usable content and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several older reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'no problems, completely satisfied'), which slightly reduces confidence in those individual data points, though the pattern does not rise to the level of suspected fake reviews.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review set heavily skewed toward reviews that are 5–18 years old, with only one recent data point available to confirm whether current service quality matches historical performance.

Shelton's construction shows mixed performance across a small sample of reviews. Professionalism is supported by three mentions highlighting responsiveness, friendliness, and willingness to help after hours, but significantly undermined by one critical no-show incident with no communication. Pricing appears fair based on two mentions, though limited data. Project completion is supported by two positive mentions but weakened by the no-show incident. Experience is consistently praised for technical skill and problem-solving. The overall score reflects strong technical capability offset by a serious reliability concern that raises questions about consistency.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Three of four reviews are older than 3 years (2015, 2018, 2020), with only one from 2021. Current performance may differ significantly from historical data.
• CRITICAL RELIABILITY FLAG: One review (2020-02-04) documents a no-show with no communication or callback—a severe professionalism failure that directly contradicts the positive reviews and suggests inconsistent service delivery.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Score reliability is limited and may not represent current business practices.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Review from 2018-06-27 contains minimal specific detail ('best plumber in PNW') and reads as generic endorsement without substantive evidence.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (4 reviews), significant age of most data (3+ years old), and a critical no-show incident that contradicts positive reviews and suggests inconsistent service quality; current performance may differ materially from this historical assessment.