Find Nearby Plumbers In Portland, Oregon

B&G Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile, with a significant number of highly positive reviews offset by a substantial and serious cluster of negative reviews describing predatory billing, hidden charges, rude behavior, and incomplete or substandard work. Professionalism scores are dragged down sharply by multiple explicit accounts of the owner being rude and dismissive, workers behaving unprofessionally, and a pattern of disrespectful communication when customers raise concerns. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous reviewers describing undisclosed after-hours charges, verbal-only quotes that ballooned dramatically, billing for services never rendered, and charges called in a year after the fact — a pattern that suggests systemic pricing dishonesty rather than isolated incidents. Project completion is mixed: positive reviewers frequently praise fast turnaround and responsiveness, but negative reviewers describe jobs left incomplete, return visits required, poor coordination, and work that failed inspection. Experience scores reflect genuine skill acknowledged by satisfied customers, but are tempered by reviews citing code violations, undersized gas lines, non-level water heater installations, and work that required correction by other contractors.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe undisclosed charges, verbal quotes that were not honored, bills arriving long after service, and charges for services never requested or rendered. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• HIDDEN AFTER-HOURS CHARGES: At least two reviewers explicitly describe being charged significant after-hours premiums ($1,400 in one case) without prior disclosure, which constitutes a transparency failure.
• BILLING FOR UNRENDERED SERVICES: One reviewer received an additional bill for 'restoration services' that were explicitly declined and never performed, followed by collection threats.
• CODE VIOLATIONS CITED: One reviewer explicitly states that B&G workers told them no permits were needed for new gas lines (incorrect per code), and that 3 of 4 new gas lines were undersized — a potentially dangerous workmanship failure.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews cite the owner (Bobo) being rude, dismissive, or manipulative when customers raised concerns, including one review describing courtroom conduct involving alleged fabricated paperwork.
• LEGAL ACTION: At least one reviewer describes a small claims court case against B&G related to billing disputes, with the reviewer alleging the owner presented fabricated documentation.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, and lack any specific job detail (e.g., 'So excited to have gotten to know David at Gresham Chamber'). This review in particular appears to be a community/networking endorsement with no service experience described and should be discounted. A handful of other positive reviews are suspiciously effusive without specifics.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023) are both 1-star and describe rude owner behavior and hidden charges. The positive reviews are more concentrated in the 2016–2021 period. The trend appears to be worsening over time.
• ONE REVIEW EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: The review about a dangerous driver in a B&G-branded truck was noted but not scored against any service dimension, as it does not reflect on plumbing service quality directly.
• ONE REVIEW EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: The Gresham Chamber networking review ('So excited to have gotten to know David') contains no service experience and was excluded from dimension scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (55 reviews) spanning approximately 7 years, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in terms of volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the severe and credible nature of the negative reviews, a worsening recency trend, and multiple flags suggesting systemic billing dishonesty rather than random service variability.

Rayborn's Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily flagged dimension, with numerous reviews citing no-shows for confirmed appointments, rude phone interactions including hang-ups, and poor communication — though a meaningful subset of positive reviews praise courteous, prompt technicians like Chuy and Pete. Pricing is a significant concern, with multiple reviewers alleging hidden charges (undisclosed truck fees), billing for time not worked, and charges far exceeding original quotes — though a handful of reviewers describe pricing as fair and reasonable. Project completion is similarly mixed: several reviews describe incomplete or incorrect work requiring a second plumber, abandoned jobs, and unresolved callbacks, while others praise same-day responsiveness and thorough follow-through. Experience scores slightly higher than the other dimensions due to specific praise for knowledgeable technicians solving complex problems, but is undercut by multiple accounts of shoddy workmanship, incorrect installations, and technicians arriving unprepared without basic parts.

• OWNERSHIP CHANGE NOTE: Multiple reviews reference 'new owners,' suggesting the business underwent a transition around mid-2024. Reviews from 2024-2025 skew more positive, while the bulk of negative reviews span 2015-2021. Scores may not fully reflect current operations.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2018-06-11 and 2018-04-24 are nearly word-for-word identical, both 1-star, both referencing being a 'repeating contractor.' This may be a duplicate submission by the same reviewer and was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY BIAS CONSIDERATION: The most recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive and reference specific named staff, suggesting possible improvement under new ownership. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews from prior years is substantial and cannot be ignored.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Positive reviews vary in detail and specificity. Negative reviews are highly specific with detailed complaints. No coordinated fake review pattern identified, though the ownership-change dynamic may naturally skew recent reviews positively.
• SCORE CONSERVATISM APPLIED: Given the high volume of serious complaints across all dimensions — including billing fraud allegations, no-shows, and work requiring correction by other plumbers — scores were held conservative even where positive reviews exist.

This WW Score is based on 46 reviews spanning over a decade and carries HIGH data confidence due to mention volume, but consumers should weigh it cautiously given the significant ownership change around 2024 and the stark contrast between pre- and post-transition review sentiment.

Anctil Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by multiple reviews citing failure to return calls, rude or unfriendly technicians, hidden fees, and one extremely serious allegation of threatening behavior by the owner — though a handful of reviews do praise specific plumbers like Randy, Brian, and Bryan for punctuality and pleasant demeanor. Project completion is similarly split: several reviews describe abandoned callbacks, a defective repair that was never followed up on despite four calls, a plumber who left without finishing the job, and a site visit that resulted in no work being done, while positive reviews describe timely and thorough completions. Pricing receives moderate marks — a few reviewers found prices fair or reasonable, but others explicitly called pricing outrageous or complained about undisclosed fees and overbilling for time not worked. Experience scores reflect a pattern of skilled individual plumbers praised by name contrasted with documented workmanship failures including a gas leak, water leak, bent water heater, and a leaking toilet — all on the same job — as well as a missed major issue flagged by a competing company.

• Several positive reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Fast, efficient and professional'), which slightly raises concern about authenticity, though most positive reviews do name specific plumbers which adds some credibility.
• The review dated 2024-08-30 contains a serious allegation that the owner threatened a customer to prevent a police report. This is a significant character and integrity flag for the business owner specifically.
• Multiple reviews (2017, 2018) independently cite failure to return phone calls, suggesting a systemic responsiveness problem rather than isolated incidents.
• One review (2018-04-09) describes four unanswered callbacks for a defective repair that caused a doubled water bill — a serious project completion and customer service failure.
• One review (2017-08-12) documents multiple workmanship failures on a single job including a gas leak, water leak, and bent water heater installation — a significant safety and quality concern.
• One review (2018-10-23) states that a competing company identified major issues that Anctil completely missed during an initial consultation, raising concerns about diagnostic thoroughness.
• A majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with only two reviews from the past 12 months (2024-07-29 and 2024-08-30). Recency data is limited and the two most recent reviews are sharply contradictory — one very positive, one extremely negative.
• The highly praised plumber Bryan is noted in a 2017 review as having retired, meaning the quality associated with him may no longer be available.

This WW Score is based on 22 reviews spanning over a decade, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be treated with caution given the wide variance in reviewer experiences, the age of most reviews, the serious owner conduct allegation, and documented safety-related workmanship failures.

Rose City Plumbing shows a mixed and concerning picture across all four dimensions. On professionalism, there are genuine positives — same-day and prompt responses, on-time arrivals, and easy communication — but these are undercut by two reviews where technicians gave poor or suspicious diagnoses rather than attempting straightforward repairs. Pricing is a significant red flag: two reviewers explicitly flagged costs as high or excessive, and one review describes what appears to be an upsell attempt for a $1,500 toilet replacement when a simple fill valve fix costing a fraction of that was all that was needed. Project completion is inconsistent — one job required a callback before resolution, one was completed cleanly, and two jobs were effectively abandoned or deflected with recommendations to buy new fixtures rather than repair existing ones. Experience is the most damaging dimension: in two out of three relevant reviews, the technician failed to diagnose or attempt a repair that a competing plumber handled easily and affordably, suggesting a pattern of either skill gaps or deliberate upselling.

• UPSELL CONCERN: In the most recent review (Oct 2024), the technician claimed parts from a 1998-built home were from the 1970s and could not be serviced — a claim contradicted by a second plumber who completed the repair easily for a standard service fee. This is a significant red flag for dishonest upselling.
• PATTERN OF DEFLECTION: Two separate reviews (Oct 2024 and Nov 2017) describe technicians recommending replacement of fixtures rather than attempting repair. In both cases, a competing plumber resolved the issue quickly and cheaply. This pattern across multiple years suggests a systemic issue.
• RECENCY NOTE: Only one review is from the past 12 months (Oct 2024), and it is the most negative. Two reviews are from 2021 and one from 2017. The score is weighted toward more recent data, which skews negative.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews are available. While the WW Score has been calculated, it should be treated with caution due to the small sample size. Scores based on 4 reviews carry inherently limited reliability.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail level, rating, and date. Language is distinct across all four. No artificial inflation suspected.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 7 years, which significantly limits its reliability — treat it as a directional signal only, and seek additional references or reviews before hiring.

Mesher Supply's reviews are dominated by repeated, explicit complaints about rude, condescending, and unhelpful staff, which severely drags down the professionalism score across the majority of reviews spanning multiple years. A consistent pattern emerges of customers — particularly non-commercial or walk-in customers — feeling unwelcome, dismissed, or actively mistreated by counter staff, with only a small minority of reviewers (primarily trade professionals) reporting positive service experiences. Pricing receives a moderately positive score, with at least one reviewer praising competitive copper prices and others noting reasonable pricing for the inventory offered, though this dimension is mentioned in only a handful of reviews. Experience and technical knowledge scores are mixed: some trade-oriented reviewers praise the depth of inventory and staff fluency, while multiple retail customers describe staff who brought out wrong parts, failed to identify correct components, or were unable to locate requested items. Project completion is entirely inapplicable to this supply store context and has been scored as null. Overall, the business appears to serve trade professionals adequately but consistently fails retail and walk-in customers on both professionalism and technical assistance.

• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary significantly in length, detail, tone, and rating, suggesting authentic customer experiences.
• Several reviews are older than 12 months (some dating back to 2012–2019); recency weighting applied, with 2023 reviews given higher weight. The most recent reviews (2023) continue to reflect the same negative professionalism patterns seen in older reviews, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.
• Project completion dimension is not applicable to a plumbing supply store context and has been scored null — this dimension is designed for contractor/plumber service providers, not retail suppliers.
• A clear bifurcation exists between trade/contractor customers (generally positive) and retail/homeowner customers (overwhelmingly negative), which may skew aggregate scores. The majority of reviewers appear to be retail or walk-in customers.
• One reviewer explicitly describes a bait-and-switch complaint (2023), which is a serious service integrity concern and was factored into the professionalism score.

This WW Score carries HIGH overall confidence given 12 reviews with strong, specific, and consistent detail across multiple dimensions and spanning over a decade, though the score should be interpreted with the caveat that this is a supply store rather than a contractor, making the project completion dimension entirely inapplicable and reducing the formula's full representational power.

Of the three reviews analyzed, one describes a fully successful water heater installation with courteous, professional service, fair pricing, and clean workmanship. However, two separate reviews describe Rob failing to follow through — one instance of a no-show appointment with no callback, and one instance of promising a bid after an inspection and then going completely silent. These reliability failures are a serious pattern across two-thirds of the reviews. The professionalism and project completion scores are heavily dragged down by the documented no-show and ghosting incidents, which represent a fundamental breakdown in contractor accountability.

• RELIABILITY PATTERN: Two out of three reviewers explicitly report Rob failing to follow through — one no-show with no callback, one inspection with a promised bid that never materialized. This is a significant red flag for dependability.
• RECENCY WARNING: All three reviews are from 2015–2016, making them over 8 years old. No recent reviews were provided. This score should not be treated as reflective of current performance.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total. The WW Score is statistically unreliable at this sample size and should be interpreted with extreme caution.
• PRICING AND EXPERIENCE scores are each based on only 1 review (the single positive review) and carry very limited evidentiary weight.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all more than 8 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable — the score reflects a deeply mixed and outdated picture of this contractor's performance.