Find Nearby Plumbers In Salem, Oregon

Jim's Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with a polarized pattern of 5-star and 1-star ratings. Professionalism is severely compromised by documented instances of confrontational behavior, poor communication (missed appointments, no call-ahead), and unprofessional conduct (yelling at customers, complaining about dogs). Pricing is a major weakness, with multiple customers reporting excessive charges for travel time, labor padding, and unexplained fees—creating a pattern of perceived unfair billing practices. Project completion is mixed; work is technically finished but often involves scope creep and unnecessary upselling. Experience shows competent technical execution when work is actually performed, but poor judgment in problem-solving and customer interaction undermines overall credibility. The oldest reviews (2014–2017) are more positive, while recent reviews (2020–2024) are predominantly negative, suggesting service quality has declined.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 4+ years old (2015–2020), but two recent 1-star reviews (2020) show similar patterns of poor communication and billing disputes, indicating ongoing issues.
• POLARIZATION PATTERN: 5 one-star reviews vs. 3 five-star reviews with no middle ground—suggests either highly inconsistent service delivery or different customer expectations.
• BILLING PRACTICE RED FLAG: Multiple independent reviews (2016, 2015, 2017) cite identical complaint patterns: excessive travel time charges, labor padding, and surprise fees. This is not isolated—it appears systemic.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Documented instances of missed calls, no-show scheduling, and failure to honor appointment windows across multiple reviews.
• CONFRONTATIONAL BEHAVIOR: Owner documented as yelling at customers (2020 review) and becoming confrontational over billing disputes (2016 review)—suggests poor conflict resolution.
• SCOPE CREEP: Multiple reviews describe technicians attempting to upsell unnecessary work or refusing to perform simple jobs as quoted (2020, 2017 reviews).

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to the small sample size (8 reviews) and extreme polarization, but the consistency of specific complaints across independent reviews (billing practices, communication failures, confrontational behavior) suggests real operational issues rather than random variation. The recent negative reviews and documented pattern of billing disputes make this company a higher-risk choice.

This company exhibits severe professionalism issues, including a documented sexual harassment incident, unprofessional management conduct, and poor employee vetting practices. While pricing appears fair and some technicians demonstrate technical competence, project completion is inconsistent with multiple reports of incomplete work, missed appointments, and unresolved issues. The company shows capability in responsiveness and customer service in some instances, but critical failures in employee conduct and follow-through significantly undermine overall trustworthiness. Recent reviews (2020-2023) reveal ongoing problems rather than improvement.

• CRITICAL: Sexual harassment allegation documented in Nov 2023 — employee attempted inappropriate physical contact at customer's home. Customer expressed safety concerns and fear of retaliation.
• CRITICAL: Management professionalism issue — service manager Andy Gragert reported as unprofessional, inappropriate, and dishonest about parts ordering (Sept 2022).
• Project completion failure: 30 of 112 AC/heat units failed within first month of installation; company refused full inspection; one unit remained unrepaired after 1.5+ years; technician no-show on promised repair date (May 2018).
• Suspected fake review detected: Review dated 2021-11-26 uses repetitive generic praise ('very perfect' appears twice, 'awesome,' 'totally beautiful') with no specific details about service, technician, or actual work performed. Inconsistent capitalization in another 5-star review (2020-06-11) suggests possible manipulation.
• Recency concern: Most positive reviews are from 2020-2021 (3+ years old). Most recent substantive reviews (2022-2023) are negative, suggesting deterioration in service quality or company standards.

This score should be treated with caution due to serious safety and conduct concerns that transcend typical service metrics. The sexual harassment allegation and management professionalism issues represent fundamental failures in employee vetting and company culture that make this company high-risk regardless of technical capability. The WW Score reflects mixed technical performance, but the documented misconduct issues warrant independent verification before engaging this contractor.

ACT Plumbing has two positive reviews praising professionalism and responsiveness, but a detailed 1-star review raises serious concerns about workmanship quality, follow-through, and communication. The negative review explicitly describes a toilet installation left in a substandard condition, ignored callbacks, unanswered emails, and no receipts provided — all of which directly impact professionalism, project completion, and experience scores. Pricing was only mentioned positively in one review, giving it very limited confidence. With only 3 reviews total and one being a detailed, specific complaint, the score skews conservatively downward per scoring rules.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for reliability and should be treated with caution.
• The two positive reviews lack specific detail about the work performed, which limits their evidentiary weight compared to the detailed negative review.
• The negative review describes ignored phone calls, unanswered emails, and no receipts issued — these are serious operational and professionalism red flags.
• All reviews are dated 2022 — no reviews from the past 12 months are present, meaning recency cannot be assessed and the score may not reflect current business practices.
• The two 5-star reviews use somewhat generic praise with limited specifics, which slightly reduces their confidence weighting, though they are not conclusively fake.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all from 2022, and should be considered low-reliability — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional recent references before hiring.

The review set for Pro Fleet NW and Pro Plumb NW paints a deeply concerning picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism is heavily penalized by multiple accounts of ignored calls and emails, a technician hanging up on a customer, a crew abandoning a job site without communication, and management responses that were dismissive or combative — though a handful of positive reviews do note friendly and punctual technicians. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviews describing incomplete work, abandoned jobs, safety hazards left unaddressed (including a carbon monoxide incident caused by improper installation), and a pattern of refusing to honor callbacks or fix faulty work. Pricing received mixed signals — one reviewer praised a reasonable and accurate bid, while others reported surprise charges, prices increasing between visits, and paying for work that was never completed. Experience scores are dragged down significantly by a severe case of improper water heater installation that endangered a family's lives, incorrect flooring installation, and a fence repair that left the gate inoperable, though a few positive reviews do cite skilled and knowledgeable workmanship.

• SAFETY CONCERN: One review describes a life-threatening carbon monoxide incident directly caused by improper water heater installation, including wrong pipe sizing, missing exhaust port, and use of a potentially damaged unit. The company allegedly failed to pull required permits for this job.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Multiple reviews across different years describe the company agreeing to fix problems, then going silent — not returning calls, emails, or showing up as promised. This appears to be a recurring operational pattern rather than isolated incidents.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Several reviews describe management responses as dismissive, combative, or dishonest. One review documents contradictory statements from the company owner versus the estimator regarding why a job was abandoned.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2022–2023) are negative, suggesting the company's performance has not improved over time. Positive reviews are concentrated in 2017–2021 and may reflect an earlier period of better service.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The 5-star reviews tend to be generic in praise ('great work,' 'excellent service,' 'always on time') with limited specific detail, while negative reviews are highly detailed and specific. This asymmetry warrants caution when weighting positive reviews.
• LEGAL AND REGULATORY RISK: At least two reviews mention pursuing legal counsel or filing complaints with the CCB, Better Business Bureau, and Oregon State licensing bodies. This is a significant red flag for prospective customers.

This WW Score is based on 15 reviews spanning 2017–2023 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score statistically grounded; however, the overwhelming weight of detailed, specific negative reviews — including a documented safety incident — means the low score should be taken seriously and prospective customers are strongly advised to exercise caution.

This contractor's review profile is dominated by strongly negative feedback across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple accounts of rude employees (berating a gas station attendant, reckless driving), poor communication, lack of follow-through on promises, and failure to return calls. Pricing received the lowest score due to explicit complaints about hidden charges, undisclosed driving time fees, surprise disposal charges, and billing practices described as questionable and not forthright. Project completion is poor, with multiple reviews describing unresolved problems, failed diagnoses, and jobs that required a second company to finish correctly. Experience scores slightly higher due to a handful of genuinely positive mentions of specific skilled technicians (Randy G, Tim Wingo, Eric), but these bright spots are heavily outweighed by accounts of technicians lacking basic knowledge of the products they were sent to install.

• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most dating from 2016–2018 and only one from 2021. Recency weighting significantly limits the reliability of this score for current performance.
• The three 5-star reviews are highly specific and name individual technicians, which reduces fake review suspicion for those entries. However, the contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and scathing 1-star reviews is extreme, suggesting inconsistent service quality rather than fake reviews.
• Multiple independent reviewers describe a pattern of billing irregularities (undisclosed charges, overbilling, charging for failed work), which constitutes a systemic concern beyond isolated incidents.
• One review alleges a hit-and-run vehicle incident with no resolution after a month, and another documents reckless driving through red lights and crosswalks — both represent serious liability and conduct concerns beyond typical service quality issues.
• Only 12 reviews total were available. While scoring thresholds are met, the small sample size limits the statistical reliability of all dimension scores.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review pool of 12 reviews, the majority of which are more than 5 years old, though the consistent and specific nature of the negative feedback across multiple independent reviewers lends credibility to the low scores assigned.

NW Sundance Services has an overwhelmingly negative review profile across all four scored dimensions, with the vast majority of reviews describing serious failures. Professionalism is severely damaged by pervasive reports of no-call no-shows, appointment cancellations without notice, rude office staff (multiple named individuals cited repeatedly), technicians leaving mid-job, and supervisors refusing to return calls — offset only by a meaningful minority of reviews praising specific friendly and punctual technicians. Pricing is a major red flag, with dozens of reviewers describing inflated non-covered charges, lack of itemized billing, charges for work not performed, double-billing incidents, and refusal to refund deposits — with only a handful of reviews describing fair or transparent pricing. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with an extensive pattern of abandoned work, misdiagnoses, parts never ordered or delivered, jobs closed as complete when work was not done, and customers waiting weeks to months without resolution — positive completion experiences exist but are a clear minority. Experience scores slightly higher than other dimensions due to a subset of reviews praising specific named technicians as knowledgeable and skilled, but this is heavily counterbalanced by accounts of misdiagnoses, incorrect part installations, work that created new damage (gas leaks, flooding, broken components), and technicians described as inexperienced or incompetent.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: The positive reviews are heavily concentrated around specific named technicians (John, Rafael, David, Jason, Ralph, Josh, Ali, Blake, Jeremy, Eric, Ryan, Carlos, Chuck, George, Ray, Mike) and contain specific, credible detail. However, the volume of generic 5-star reviews with no text or minimal text (e.g., 'Great service.', 'Technician was fantastic!', blank reviews) is suspicious and may inflate the positive signal. These have been discounted in scoring.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2017 to June 2025. The negative pattern is consistent across all years and continues through the most recent reviews (2025), indicating no meaningful improvement over time. Recent positive reviews (2025) exist but remain a minority.
• SYSTEMIC FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years allege that NW Sundance misreports job status to home warranty companies (marking jobs complete when not done), fabricates reasons to deny warranty coverage, and inflates non-covered charges — constituting a potential systemic billing fraud pattern that should be treated as a serious red flag.
• HOME WARRANTY DEPENDENCY: The overwhelming majority of customers were assigned NW Sundance through home warranty companies (American Home Shield, First American, 2-10, etc.). This captive customer base may explain the company's apparent lack of incentive to improve service quality, as noted by multiple reviewers.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Dozens of reviews describe technicians leaving jobs incomplete, failing to return, or closing work orders as complete without performing the work. This is the single most consistent complaint across the review corpus.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviews name specific office staff (Hailey/Hayley, Jade, Talon, Nina, Jane, Jackie, Sam) as rude, dismissive, or deceptive. Supervisors are described as routinely unavailable or refusing to call back. This suggests a systemic management and culture problem, not isolated incidents.
• SAFETY CONCERNS FLAGGED: At least three reviews describe NW Sundance work resulting in active gas leaks left unaddressed, one involving a newborn in the home and one involving an elderly resident. These are serious safety allegations that significantly reduce trust in the company's technical competence and ethical standards.
• SCORE RELIABILITY: Despite the large review volume providing HIGH statistical confidence, the score should be interpreted as reflecting a company with deeply embedded operational and ethical problems. The minority of positive experiences appear genuine but represent a small fraction of total customer interactions.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on 155 reviews spanning 2017–2025 with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable and conservative assessment of a contractor with serious, well-documented, and persistent failures in professionalism, pricing transparency, project completion, and consistent technical quality.