Find Nearby Plumbers In Medford, Oregon

The review pool is heavily split between two distinct operator profiles — a highly praised 'Alex' associated with recent reviews (2024–2025) and a significantly problematic 'Dustin' associated with older reviews (2022–2023). Alex's reviews consistently highlight punctuality, responsiveness, professionalism, and quality workmanship, driving scores upward. However, Dustin's reviews include serious allegations: abandoned jobs, non-refunded advance payments, work not up to code, property damage, and blocked customer contact — all of which substantially drag down professionalism, project completion, and pricing scores. The mixed operator history under the same business name creates meaningful uncertainty about the reliability of the overall score. Recency favors Alex's positive pattern, but the negative Dustin reviews cannot be dismissed as they represent documented failures.

• MULTIPLE OPERATOR CONCERN: Reviews reference at least three different named individuals (Alex, Dustin, John) operating under or associated with Pure Water Plumbing. Scores reflect the combined history of all operators, which may not represent current service quality.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE PATTERN — DUSTIN: Multiple 1-star reviews allege Dustin took advance payment and disappeared, failed to return calls, blocked a customer's number, performed work not up to code, damaged customer property, and left jobs incomplete. These are not minor complaints — they represent potential fraud and abandonment.
• RECENCY SPLIT: All 1-star reviews are dated 2022–2023. All recent reviews (2024–2025) are 5-star and reference Alex exclusively. This may indicate a personnel change or business restructuring, but the negative history is part of the public record.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW SIGNAL — POSITIVE CLUSTER: Several 5-star reviews for Alex share the exact same date (2025-05-10), which is unusual and may suggest a coordinated review push. Language varies enough to avoid a definitive fake flag, but this warrants caution.
• OLDER REVIEWS (2017–2018): Two reviews referencing 'John' are more than 6 years old and were given reduced weight in scoring due to age. They cannot be considered representative of current operations.
• HIDDEN CHARGE ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly states they were charged double the quoted price after work was completed, which is a direct pricing transparency violation and was factored into the pricing score.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — recent reviews suggest a competent and professional current operator (Alex), but documented serious failures under a prior operator (Dustin) and a suspicious same-day review cluster prevent a high-confidence endorsement without further vetting.

On It Plumbing receives strong praise across most reviews for responsiveness, communication, and timeliness, with multiple reviewers specifically naming staff members and highlighting prompt emergency service. However, one detailed 1-star review significantly tempers the scores across all dimensions, describing poor workmanship, property damage, an arrogant technician, and an owner who dismissed legitimate complaints — this is a serious and credible negative data point that cannot be ignored. Pricing received only two mentions: one positive (described as reasonable) and one strongly negative ($2,185 for a tub relocation described as exorbitant), resulting in a conservative and low-confidence pricing score. Project completion is similarly impacted by the 1-star review, which described incomplete, careless, and substandard work left unresolved. The overall picture is a contractor with a generally responsive and professional team but a documented instance of significant failure in workmanship, customer care, and owner accountability.

• One highly detailed 1-star review (2024-05-08) describes serious workmanship failures, property damage, dismissive technician behavior, and inadequate owner response — this review is credible and specific and has been weighted heavily in scoring.
• Several 5-star reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 2022-06-02, 2023-06-03, 2024-03-19), which slightly reduces confidence in the positive signal, though they do not appear to be coordinated fake reviews.
• Two reviews are older than 12 months (2022-06-02, 2023-06-03) and have been given reduced weight per recency rules.
• The 2023-12-19 review mentions Glendale, Oregon, which may indicate a different service area or crew than other reviews — minor geographic inconsistency noted but not flagged as suspicious.

This WW Score is moderately reliable given 10 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions, but the presence of one serious and detailed negative review alongside several low-detail positive reviews means the score should be treated as a cautious indicator rather than a strong endorsement.

Teck Plumbing shows strong professionalism with courteous, punctual, and respectful service noted across multiple reviews. However, a critical negative review reveals serious concerns about pricing transparency (undisclosed charges for estimates), project execution (damaged sprinkler line), and technical judgment (locating wrong equipment). The company's WW Score of 72.1 reflects mixed performance: excellent interpersonal skills undermined by a significant service failure that damaged customer property and involved billing disputes. With only 3 reviews and one highly negative experience, confidence in this score is moderate.

• CRITICAL: One review (2020-10-22) describes deceptive billing practices ('free estimate' that resulted in $120 charge), property damage caused by technician error, and failure to follow proper procedures (not calling for locates). This is a serious red flag for reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All three reviews are from 2020-2021 (2-3 years old). No recent reviews available to assess current performance or whether issues have been corrected.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews limits statistical reliability. The single negative review carries disproportionate weight.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between two 5-star reviews praising service and one 1-star review describing deception and damage suggests either inconsistent service delivery or potential issues with specific technicians.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews), age of data (2-3 years), and a critical negative review describing billing deception and property damage that directly contradicts the positive reviews; the score may not reflect current company performance.

Mountain View Plumbing receives strong positive feedback across three recent reviews, with Mark (owner/operator) praised for responsiveness, arriving early, transparent labor-based quotes, and completing jobs same-day including additional work beyond the original scope. However, one 2024 review explicitly describes a failure to respond to both a voicemail and a website email, which is a meaningful professionalism concern that meaningfully drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing feedback is consistently positive, with customers noting fair hourly rates and no nickel-and-diming on small materials. The experience dimension is supported by specific mentions of problem-solving, explaining system details, and correctly diagnosing issues on the first visit. Overall confidence is limited due to the very small review pool of only 5 reviews spanning nearly two decades.

• Very small review pool (5 reviews total) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• One review is dated 2006-06-06, making it approximately 18 years old. This review was given minimal weight as it reflects conditions that may no longer be relevant to current operations.
• The 2006 review uses all-caps formatting and contains no specific details, making it low-value for scoring purposes.
• The 2024 no-response complaint is the most recent review in the dataset and carries elevated weight — it represents a real and documented failure in communication and responsiveness.
• No fake review patterns detected; the positive reviews contain specific, credible details and varied language.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 18 years, with one recent negative experience and one very old low-detail review, making the score directionally useful but statistically unreliable — more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted with confidence.

Curtius Huntley Plumbing receives consistently positive marks for professionalism across all four reviews, with multiple reviewers specifically noting punctuality, polite demeanor, and considerate practices such as wearing booties indoors. Pricing is generally described as reasonable and fair, though only briefly mentioned. Project completion scores are tempered by one notable negative review describing serious billing and collections issues with the office staff, which dragged down an otherwise solid completion picture. Technical workmanship is praised in three reviews, with specific mentions of quality repairs and helpful advice, supporting a solid experience score. The overall score is conservative given the small review pool and the fact that the most recent review is from January 2021, meaning all reviews are more than three years old.

• All 4 reviews are older than 3 years (most recent: January 2021), with two reviews dating back to 2015 and 2016. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability of this score for current service quality.
• Small sample size of only 4 reviews. WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully representative.
• One 1-star review (2016) raises a significant concern about office billing practices, collections behavior, and lack of customer compassion — this is a distinct operational risk separate from field plumber quality.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review sample of only 4 reviews, all of which are over 3 years old, and should not be used as a definitive assessment of current service quality without more recent data.

Two recent positive reviews (2023–2024) describe Shawn as skilled, dedicated, and offering competitive pricing, with successful completion of a water heater replacement, bath remodel plumbing, and gas line installation. However, a 1-star review from 2015 explicitly describes three missed appointments, which is a serious professionalism and project completion concern. The no-show pattern significantly drags down both the professionalism and project completion scores despite the positive recent experiences. Pricing data is based on only one mention and should be treated with caution. The overall picture is mixed, with strong recent signals but a notable historical reliability failure.

• One review explicitly reports three missed/no-show appointments — this is a serious reliability red flag for both professionalism and project completion dimensions.
• The no-show review is from 2015 and is nearly 9 years old; recent reviews (2023–2024) are more positive, suggesting possible improvement over time, but the pattern cannot be ignored.
• Only 3 total reviews are available, making this score statistically unreliable. Treat with caution.
• Pricing score is based on a single mention and should not be considered representative.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning nearly a decade and should be considered low-reliability; significantly more recent reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as representative of current service quality.