Find Nearby Plumbers In Gresham, Oregon

CS Plumbing has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. The majority of positive reviews are older than 5 years, with the most recent reviews (2024 and 2022) being strongly negative, describing abandoned work, unreturned calls, stolen money, and overcharging. The standout positive reviews — particularly the 2019 sewage line and drain clog stories — demonstrate genuine technical skill and responsiveness, but these are now several years old. The two most critical failures involve contractors taking payment and never returning to complete or fix the work, which severely drags down project completion and professionalism scores. Pricing feedback is split, with some customers praising competitive rates and others explicitly calling the company overpriced and deceptive.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (Oct 2024 and Sep 2022) are both 1-star and describe serious misconduct including abandoned repairs, non-returned calls, and money taken without service rendered. This is a significant red flag about current business practices.
• PATTERN WARNING: Multiple reviews across different years describe the same failure pattern — contractor takes payment, promises to return, never does, and stops returning calls. This is not an isolated incident and suggests a systemic issue.
• ABANDONED WORK: Two separate reviews (2024 and 2014) explicitly describe money taken with no completed work and no refund issued, which is a serious integrity concern.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several older 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Great, fast and did great work!!!!', 'unknown', 'Good communication, Dependable and did a Great job!!') contain little to no specific detail and may reflect low-effort or unverifiable feedback.
• RECENCY SKEW: The majority of positive reviews are from 2016–2019, making them 5–8 years old. Only one positive review is from the past 12 months (Aug 2024), and it lacks specific detail. The score should be interpreted with this aging data in mind.
• ONE REVIEW MARKED UNUSABLE: The review with text 'unknown' and a 5-star rating was excluded from scoring due to no usable content.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while the volume of reviews is sufficient for calculation, the most recent evidence points to a pattern of non-completion and financial misconduct that is not reflected in the older positive reviews, meaning the score likely overstates current service quality.

With only three reviews, the dataset is minimal and conclusions must be treated with caution. Two reviews are broadly positive, praising reliability, knowledge, and fair pricing, while one detailed negative review raises serious concerns about unauthorized work, lack of communication, and questionable billing practices totaling nearly $3,500. The negative review is specific and credible, describing a situation where the owner performed an unapproved temporary fix and then sought additional payment for the permanent repair, which significantly drags down professionalism and pricing scores. The positive reviews lack granular detail, limiting their ability to offset the substantive complaint. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with some demonstrated capability but a meaningful red flag around transparency and client communication.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as highly provisional.
• One review (2023-03-19) contains a serious allegation of unauthorized work performed without client approval, followed by unexpected billing of approximately $1,000 for an unapproved temporary fix plus $2,500 for the actual repair. This is a significant trust and ethics concern.
• The two positive reviews are relatively generic and lack specific detail about the work performed, which limits their evidentiary weight.
• One review is from 2022, which is outside the preferred 12-month recency window. Only one review (2024-07-20) falls within the past 12 months.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning multiple years and should not be considered reliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references before hiring.

The professionalism score is heavily dragged down by a detailed and credible 2024 complaint describing complete communication failure — the contractor went silent after promising to show up, and the reviewer noted a pattern of similar complaints on another platform. Pricing feedback is consistently positive across all three reviews, with one reviewer receiving a specific written estimate range and others describing competitive or great value. Project completion is mixed: two older reviews describe completed jobs with no issues, but the most recent review describes an abandoned job with no follow-through, which is a serious red flag. Experience scores are modestly positive based on two reviews praising skill and quality, but neither provides enough technical detail to warrant a high score, and the recency of those reviews (2021–2022) reduces their weight.

• The most recent review (Feb 2024) describes a clear case of job abandonment and communication ghosting, which is the most temporally relevant data point and should be weighted heavily.
• Two of the three positive reviews are from 2021 and 2022 — over 2 years old at time of analysis — reducing their reliability for assessing current contractor behavior.
• The 1-star reviewer explicitly references a second similar complaint on Yelp under a variant business name ('1Up'), suggesting a possible pattern of unreliability rather than an isolated incident.
• The two 5-star reviews are brief and lack specific operational detail, which limits their evidentiary value. While not conclusively fake, they do not provide strong corroborating evidence of consistent quality.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 3 years, with the most recent being a serious negative account; the score should be treated as low-confidence and prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional recent references before hiring.

This contractor's review set is small (4 reviews) and deeply mixed, making confident scoring difficult. Professionalism is dragged down significantly by one reviewer describing misleading cost framing and unprofessional conduct, and another reporting complete non-communication for over two months after a job was left incomplete — offset only partially by two positive reviews praising friendliness and responsiveness. Project completion is a serious concern: one job was explicitly abandoned with no follow-up, forcing the customer to hire another plumber, while the positive reviews do suggest successful completions in other cases. Pricing receives the lowest score, as the one review that addresses it describes a charge of $1,400 for under an hour of work on a $60 part, with a potentially manipulative pricing structure presented to the customer. Experience scores modestly, with two reviews indicating competent work but no strong technical detail to justify a high score.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly provisional and low confidence.
• Two of the four reviews are dated 2021 and one from 2023, meaning only one review falls within the past 12 months (July 2024). Recency weighting favors the negative pricing review.
• The two positive reviews (2021 and 2023) are warm but relatively generic in praise — limited specific detail about workmanship or process, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight.
• One review explicitly describes a job abandonment with no communication for 2+ months and a blocked email address on the invoice — this is a significant operational red flag.
• The pricing structure described in the 1-star July 2024 review (cartridge vs. valve framing leading to $1,400 charge) raises concerns about transparency and potential upselling tactics.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with significant recency gaps and should be considered very low reliability — prospective customers should seek additional independent sources before making a hiring decision.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe deeply troubling patterns across all four dimensions, including fraudulent billing, abandoned or incomplete work, theft by workers, property damage, lien threats, and hostile management behavior. Positive reviews exist but are a clear minority and several lack specific detail, raising authenticity concerns. Pricing is the lowest-scoring dimension, with repeated allegations of inflated invoices, charges for work never performed, and billing for square footage that did not exist. Project completion scores are nearly as low, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating jobs were left unfinished, insulation was omitted, subfloors were left temporary, and follow-through was nonexistent. Professionalism and experience scores are marginally higher only because a small cluster of positive reviews describe responsive, courteous crews — but these are vastly outweighed by accounts of no-shows, missed appointments, ignored communications, and management threatening customers with liens.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR LOW-QUALITY REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews are vague, generic, and lack specific job details (e.g., 'They have done an amazing job with my friend's house' — secondhand account with no specifics; 'They are quick to respond, knowledgeable, friendly and get the job done' — no detail). These reviews contrast sharply in tone and specificity with the detailed negative reviews.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews span 2013–2024. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are all 1-star and describe fraud, inflated billing, and unauthorized work. No positive reviews exist from 2021 or later, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple independent reviewers across different years allege that 911 Restoration submitted invoices to insurance companies for work never performed, billed for incorrect square footage, used photographs not belonging to the customer's property, and negotiated settlements directly with insurers while excluding the homeowner.
• LIEN THREAT PATTERN: At least four separate reviewers report being threatened with or having liens placed on their homes, often before jobs were completed or disputes were resolved. This is a significant consumer protection concern.
• THEFT ALLEGATIONS: Two reviewers report missing valuables after workers were in their homes, including an antique coin collection, autographed memorabilia, and a report of a home robbery with no forced entry after the company had key access.
• WORKER QUALITY CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states workers were sourced from a temp agency rather than trained professionals, which may explain inconsistent workmanship quality across reviews.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviewers across different years and locations report the same specific failure — insulation and vapor barriers not reinstalled after remediation — suggesting a systemic operational shortcut rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is based on 32 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH confidence given the volume of data; the score of 28.1 should be treated as a serious warning signal, as the negative patterns are consistent, specific, multi-dimensional, and reported by independent reviewers across multiple years.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe severely deficient performance across all four dimensions. Professionalism is critically undermined by repeated no-shows, chronic lateness, poor communication, and dishonest billing practices documented across multiple independent reviews. Project completion is dismal, with multiple reviewers reporting abandoned work, pre-payments never refunded, and at least one catastrophic failure (pipe slip causing basement flooding). Experience and workmanship are described as dangerous and code-violating — including backwards pipe slopes, unsealed connections, improper wiring, and structural damage — with multiple customers forced to hire replacement contractors to redo all of the work. The three positive reviews are vague, lack specific detail, and one is entirely off-topic (car repair), raising serious concerns about their authenticity and relevance.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Three 5-star reviews are suspiciously generic and lack specific, verifiable detail compared to the highly detailed negative reviews. One 5-star review (2019-01-06) describes car repair, which is unrelated to plumbing or contracting — this is a significant credibility red flag for a plumbing/contracting business profile.
• UNLICENSED OPERATOR: At least two independent reviewers explicitly state the contractor is NOT licensed, bonded, or insured, and one review references multiple CCB claims and fines. This is a serious legal and safety warning.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT: Multiple reviewers report pre-payments or deposits were never refunded after work was abandoned or canceled. One reviewer explicitly calls the owner a 'crook' and 'con artist' over an unreturned concrete deposit.
• DANGEROUS WORKMANSHIP: Documented safety hazards include a pipe failure causing basement flooding, live wiring without protective plates, unsealed pipe connections, backwards drain slope, and compromised structural floor joists. These represent genuine risk of property damage or personal injury.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative review (2024-06-12) is within the past 12 months and describes a catastrophic pipe failure, indicating problems are ongoing and not historical. Positive reviews are all from 2019 and may be significantly outdated.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Multiple reviews describe the contractor failing to show up, showing up late, or disappearing mid-project — a consistent behavioral pattern across multiple years and multiple customers.
• PHOTO FRAUD ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly states that the majority of photos on the contractor's profile are not of his own work, suggesting deliberate misrepresentation of skill level.

This WW Score is based on 10 reviews with strong cross-dimensional coverage and should be treated as highly reliable in its negative assessment; the score of approximately 22 reflects a contractor with documented patterns of dangerous workmanship, financial misconduct, chronic unreliability, and unlicensed operation — prospective customers are strongly advised against hiring this contractor.