Find Nearby Plumbers In Salem, Oregon

NW Backflow has two older positive reviews praising professionalism, timeliness, and expertise, but a significant 2022 complaint heavily drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. The most recent review describes the owner acting without client consent, refusing to apologize, and showing a dismissive attitude — serious professionalism failures that cannot be ignored. Pricing was mentioned positively in one review as 'reasonably priced' and negatively in the 2022 review only in the context of a refused refund, yielding a cautious mid-range score. Experience was noted positively in older reviews but the 2022 incident raises questions about judgment and care in the field. Because two of the three positive reviews are from 2017–2018 and the most recent data point is a 1-star complaint, the overall score skews conservative.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of the three positive reviews are from 2017 and 2018 — more than 5 years old. The only recent review (2022) is a 1-star complaint. The score should be interpreted with this recency imbalance in mind.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. This is the minimum threshold for calculation, and results are highly sensitive to individual reviews. The WW Score should not be treated as reliable.
• CONDUCT CONCERN: The 2022 review describes the owner physically altering a customer's property (cutting a tree) without consent and refusing to apologize or offer any remedy. This is a notable red flag for professionalism and client relations.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS DETECTED: The three reviews are sufficiently distinct in language, detail, and rating to appear genuine.

This score has LOW reliability due to only 3 reviews spanning a wide date range, with the sole recent review being a serious complaint — prospective customers should seek more current data before making a hiring decision.

R&M Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple explicit complaints of unprofessional behavior, lack of urgency, and failure to respond to follow-up contacts, though several positive reviews praise punctuality, politeness, and clear communication. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with at least three reviews explicitly describing incomplete or incorrect work, one abandoned job requiring the customer to self-repair, and one instance where the owner did intervene to finish an incomplete job. Experience scores reflect a similar split — some reviewers describe quick, effective repairs while others report the root cause of their problem was never identified or correctly addressed. Pricing received only two mentions, both positive, yielding a LIMITED confidence score that should not be weighted heavily.

• Four of the eight reviews are 1-star complaints describing serious failures: incomplete work, inability to diagnose the problem, refusal to return for callbacks, and unprofessional conduct. This is a significant red flag.
• The most recent negative review (2024-02-27) and a positive review (2024-01-19) are both within the past 12 months, suggesting mixed recent performance rather than improvement over time.
• Three reviews are from 2021 or earlier and carry reduced recency weight. The 2019 5-star review, while positive, is over 5 years old and should be treated with caution.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic submissions.
• The callback/follow-through failure described in the 2021 1-star review ('would not come out to fix it, contacted multiple times and nothing') is a serious project completion concern that directly contradicts the owner's responsiveness praised in the 2019 review.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review count is low (8 reviews), spans multiple years with recency concerns, and the sharp split between positive and negative experiences introduces meaningful uncertainty about consistent service quality.

Woodward Heating shows significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While professionalism scores moderately (65) with 18 mentions reflecting mixed experiences—some praising punctuality and friendliness, others citing rude office staff and poor communication—pricing is a major weakness (42) with 8 explicit complaints about overcharging, hidden fees, and inflated labor rates. Project completion (58) reveals serious concerns: multiple reviews document incomplete repairs, abandoned work, failed diagnostics, and follow-up failures. Experience (62) is similarly mixed, with skilled technicians praised in some reviews but critical failures in gas safety, misdiagnosis, and inadequate problem-solving documented in others. The company's pattern of defensive responses, conditional refunds tied to review removal, and unresolved safety issues significantly undermines trust.

• CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE: Multiple reviews (Dec 2023, Jan 2021, fireplace repair) document gas leaks left unaddressed by technicians, including one case where a home reached 10% gas concentration (explosion risk range). Owner response was inadequate in at least one case.
• ETHICAL VIOLATION: Review from Jan 2021 documents owner Scott Woodward conditioning refund on removal of negative reviews, violating Yelp Terms of Service and indicating potential review manipulation.
• PATTERN OF MISDIAGNOSIS: At least 3 reviews document incorrect diagnoses (motherboard vs. breaker, furnace replacement vs. thermostat, parts ordering vs. simple reset) costing customers hundreds to thousands in unnecessary charges.
• SUSPICIOUS POSITIVE REVIEW: The 'In Total Appreciation' review (July 2022) uses highly stylized poetry format with generic praise and no specifics—potential fake review. However, insufficient pattern to definitively flag as coordinated fake review campaign.
• OFFICE STAFF ISSUES: Multiple reviews cite rude, dismissive, or incompetent office personnel (Jen, unnamed office manager, scheduler) who allegedly called customers liars and refused to escalate issues.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews document jobs requiring multiple visits due to poor communication, incomplete installations (blocked filter access, misplaced AC units with foundation damage), and unfinished repairs.
• RECENCY: 14 of 35 reviews are from 2021 or earlier (40%+). However, negative patterns persist through 2024, suggesting ongoing issues rather than historical problems.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence but interpreted as a warning signal. The score is pulled down by consistent, specific, and documented failures in safety (gas leaks), pricing transparency (overcharges, hidden fees), and project completion (misdiagnosis, abandoned work). While some customers report positive experiences, the frequency and severity of negative outcomes—particularly safety-critical failures—suggest significant operational and management issues. The company's defensive posture and apparent attempt to suppress negative reviews further erodes credibility. Prospective customers should seek alternative providers and, if using Woodward, obtain all quotes in writing, verify work independently, and document all communications.

Einstein Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with strong positive feedback on technical skill and honesty in some cases, but serious concerns about pricing practices, scheduling reliability, and service area misrepresentation. Multiple customers report being overcharged for minor work or pressured into unnecessary replacements, while others praise fair pricing and expert diagnostics. Project completion is generally achieved but marred by appointment cancellations and rescheduling issues. The company's professionalism varies dramatically by technician and situation, with some staff showing excellent customer care while others display dismissive or evasive behavior.

• CRITICAL: One 2016 review (Eugene, OR) alleges systematic review fraud—identical reviews reposted across multiple locations with same plumber names and customer names, and use of wholesaler addresses as business addresses. This is a serious red flag for review manipulation.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews (2017, 2016) report excessive charges for minor work ($234 for caulking and tightening bolts; $67 diagnostic fee for simple valve issue). Pattern suggests aggressive upselling and overcharging on small jobs.
• SCHEDULING ISSUES: Multiple reports of appointment cancellations, rescheduling, and failure to show or serve stated service areas (2017 emergency service review, 2022 drain cleaning review).
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising honesty and fair pricing versus 1-star reviews alleging deceptive practices and overcharging. This suggests either highly variable service quality by technician or potential review authenticity issues.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2016–2017 (7–8 years old). More recent reviews (2022–2023) are predominantly positive, but sample size is small. Cannot determine if company has genuinely improved or if older negative reviews reflect different business practices.
• EMPLOYMENT REVIEW CONTAMINATION: One review (2021) is about employment/hiring, not customer service. This is not relevant to plumbing service quality and should be disregarded, but it was included in the dataset.

This score should be treated with caution. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and occasional exceptional customer service, the alleged review fraud allegation, consistent pricing complaints, and scheduling failures significantly undermine confidence. The WW Score of 58.2 reflects a company with real capability but serious trust and business practice concerns; customers should independently verify current service quality and pricing before engaging.

Peak Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Positive reviews consistently praise responsiveness, same-day or next-day service, professionalism, and fair pricing — with several customers highlighting honest billing and efficient workmanship. However, a significant cluster of 1-star reviews — many involving home warranty jobs — describes a pattern of non-communication, broken commitments, failure to complete or document work, hanging up on customers, and in one case alleged property damage. The project completion dimension is severely dragged down by multiple accounts of abandoned or unfinished work, unreturned calls over weeks, and failure to submit required documentation. Pricing scores moderately well but only because the negative pricing mentions are indirect (disputed trade fees) rather than explicit overcharging complaints. The overall WW Score of 47.2 reflects a contractor with genuine capability but a serious and documented reliability problem.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with nearly identical full text (the long home warranty complaint) were submitted on consecutive dates (2020-05-08 and 2020-05-09). These appear to be the same reviewer submitting twice. Only one instance was counted per dimension to avoid double-weighting.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2011–2016, with only two positive reviews from 2018 and 2024. The negative reviews cluster around 2018–2020. The most recent review (2024) is positive but is a single data point and insufficient to override the broader negative pattern.
• HOME WARRANTY PATTERN: Multiple 1-star reviews explicitly involve home warranty assignments. This may indicate the contractor performs differently for direct-hire vs. warranty-dispatched jobs, but the pattern of non-communication and incomplete work is consistent enough across those reviews to be treated as credible.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: The 'Tony's Tacos' review (2022) is highly informal and humorous in tone with no verifiable specifics beyond a toilet clog being resolved. While entertaining, it provides minimal scoreable data and its authenticity cannot be confirmed. It was given minimal weight.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE ALLEGATION: One review (2016) states the reviewer filed suit against the company's insurance for damage caused to their home. This is a serious allegation and contributes to the lowered project completion score.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews spanning 13 years and carries HIGH confidence due to mention volume, but users should note that the contractor's performance appears to have been inconsistent across job types and time periods, and the score should be interpreted as a warning signal rather than a reliable endorsement.

Bassin Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its reviews. Older positive reviews (2016–2018) consistently praise fair pricing, responsiveness, and solid workmanship on smaller jobs, while more recent reviews (2020–2022) describe serious failures including improper installations, water damage, financial disputes, and unprofessional blame-shifting behavior. The three detailed 1-star reviews are highly specific, credible, and describe recurring patterns of poor quality control, failure to test work, and refusal to honor commitments — significantly dragging down project completion and professionalism scores. Pricing scores remain relatively higher due to consistent positive mentions across both positive and negative reviewers, though one negative reviewer alleges deliberate over-ordering of materials for commission. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with a troubling track record of serious failures that outweigh the praise found in earlier, less detailed reviews.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The three most recent reviews (2020–2022) are all 1-star and contain highly specific, credible allegations of defective work, financial misconduct, and unprofessional conduct. These should be weighted more heavily than the older 5-star reviews.
• CREDIBILITY IMBALANCE: The 5-star reviews are generally brief and lack specific detail, while the 1-star reviews are lengthy, detailed, and describe consistent behavioral patterns (blame-shifting, refusal to accept responsibility, financial disputes). This asymmetry reduces confidence in the positive reviews.
• PATTERN OF SERIOUS MISCONDUCT: Multiple independent reviewers describe Mario Bassin refusing to honor financial obligations, deflecting blame onto other tradespeople, and failing to properly test completed plumbing work — suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• CCB COMPLAINTS NOTED: At least two reviewers explicitly reference CCB (Oregon Construction Contractors Board) complaints filed against this contractor, and one mentions a BBB complaint. This is a significant external red flag beyond the review content itself.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The 5-star reviews from 2016–2018 are not identical in phrasing but are notably brief and generic compared to the detailed negative reviews. While not conclusively fake, their lack of specificity reduces their evidentiary weight.
• TEMPORAL GAP: All 5-star reviews are from 2016–2018 (6–8 years old). All 1-star reviews are from 2020–2022. This pattern may indicate a genuine decline in service quality over time and the older positive reviews should be discounted accordingly.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review volume is small (8 reviews), but the negative reviews are highly detailed and credible, the positive reviews are older and less specific, and external complaint records corroborate the negative accounts, making the lower score directionally trustworthy despite limited total data.