Find Nearby Plumbers In Salem, Oregon

Dan's Leak Detection earns strong marks for technical skill and experience, with numerous reviewers praising the team's ability to locate leaks that other companies and plumbers could not find, often in a short amount of time and using specialized equipment. Professionalism scores well overall — punctuality, friendliness, and clear communication are frequently cited — but is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring and credible pattern of poor follow-through on callbacks and return visits, reported across multiple independent reviews spanning several years. Pricing is generally viewed as fair and transparent, with a flat-fee model and a no-find-no-charge policy appreciated by customers, though a minority felt the cost was steep relative to the service delivered. Project completion is the most penalized dimension: while the team typically locates leaks successfully on the first or second visit, at least four separate reviewers reported being ignored after requesting a callback or return visit, and one reviewer experienced a mismarked leak location that cost them an additional $1,000 — these are serious, specific, and credible complaints that cannot be dismissed.

• Three reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating (all 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• A cluster of 10 reviews share the exact same date (2024-06-09) with no distinguishing timestamps, which may indicate batch submission or review solicitation around a specific event. Language varies enough to avoid outright fake review flagging, but this pattern warrants mild caution.
• A second large cluster of reviews shares the date 2022-06-10 with no timestamps, raising similar concerns about batch submission.
• Callback and follow-through failures are reported in at least 4 independent reviews (2019, 2021, 2024 — one 1-star, one 3-star, one 1-star, one 1-star), spanning multiple years. This is a consistent and credible operational weakness, not an isolated incident.
• One review (2019, 1-star) reports a mismarked leak location that resulted in approximately $1,000 in wasted plumber costs. This is a significant quality-of-work failure and was weighted accordingly in project completion scoring.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2016–2020). While included, they were given reduced weight relative to more recent reviews from 2023–2025.

This WW Score is based on 49 reviews with usable content spanning 2016–2025, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to strong mention counts; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given a documented and recurring pattern of poor callback responsiveness and at least one verified instance of an inaccurate leak location, which represent real operational risks for prospective customers.

Bowen Plumbing receives overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism, project completion, and experience all well-represented across a large review base spanning nearly a decade. Punctuality and responsiveness are among the most frequently praised traits, with dozens of reviewers specifically calling out on-time arrivals and quick response times. Project completion scores are strong, with multiple reviewers noting jobs finished efficiently and thoroughly, including going above and beyond the original scope. Pricing is generally described as reasonable or fair, though one reviewer explicitly complained of being charged $225 for a 15-minute job, which tempers the pricing score. Two separate reviews — one from 2018 and one from 2019 — describe the same technician (Tony) as rude, unprofessional, and dismissive of complaints, which meaningfully reduces the professionalism score from what would otherwise be near-perfect.

• Two reviews (2018-09-21 and 2019-06-11) describe nearly identical negative experiences with Tony — dirty toilet water splashed on floors, unsanitary tool handling on counters, and rude behavior when complaints were raised. The similarity in detail across two separate reviews increases credibility of these complaints and they are weighted accordingly.
• One review (2018-04-12) explicitly flags overpricing for a minor drain snaking job at $225 for 15 minutes, which is a concrete pricing concern and was factored into the pricing score.
• Several reviews are older than 5 years (2014–2017), and a few are older than 1 year relative to the most recent review date. Per recency rules, more recent reviews (2022–2024) were weighted more heavily, though the older reviews were still included as supporting data.
• Multiple reviews reference different technicians by name (Tony, James, Mike, Michael), suggesting a small team rather than a single operator. Positive and negative experiences appear tied to specific individuals, which may mean quality is inconsistent depending on who is dispatched.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, tone, and rating, and include genuine negative reviews, which increases overall credibility of the review set.

This WW Score is based on 32 reviews with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and is considered moderately reliable, though users should note that two credible negative professionalism complaints and one explicit pricing complaint prevent a higher score, and the multi-technician nature of the business means individual experience may vary.

Dustin and Abiqua Irrigation receive consistently strong praise across all four scored dimensions from a small but substantive set of reviews. Professionalism scores highest, with multiple reviewers highlighting punctuality, responsiveness, friendly communication, and going above and beyond — including stopping mid-job to help a neighbor unprompted. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers noting jobs finished on schedule, same-visit repairs, and careful restoration of disturbed ground. Experience is affirmed by a 50-year construction industry veteran calling Dustin a competent craftsman, as well as reviewers citing his ability to diagnose and solve unique or complex problems. Pricing is noted positively in three reviews, with one reviewer explicitly stating he was half the price of competitors and another confirming the final charge matched the quote exactly.

• All 5 reviews are 5-star ratings, which warrants mild scrutiny; however, reviews contain specific details, varied language, and concrete scenarios that reduce the likelihood of fabrication.
• Three of the five reviews are dated 2021 or earlier, with the most recent being May 2023. The overall sample is small and may not reflect current performance.
• With only 5 total reviews, all dimension scores carry limited statistical weight and should be interpreted cautiously despite HIGH confidence labels on individual dimensions.

This WW Score is based on a small but credible review set with specific, detailed accounts; it should be treated as a promising early signal rather than a definitive assessment, and would benefit significantly from a larger volume of recent reviews.

Brad receives consistently strong feedback across all four dimensions from every reviewer. Professionalism is the standout theme — reviewers repeatedly highlight his courteous attitude, responsiveness, willingness to work evenings, and cleanliness on the job. Pricing is explicitly called out as reasonable and fair in three of four reviews, lending moderate confidence to that dimension. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing problems that were fully resolved, including multi-issue visits where Brad stayed until everything was done. Experience is evidenced by his ability to diagnose and solve problems that homeowners could not fix themselves, though the sample size of four reviews limits confidence across all dimensions.

• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings — while not conclusive, this warrants mild caution.
• One review (2021-07-02) is older than 12 months and receives slightly reduced weight; the remaining three are within the past 24 months and two are within the past 12 months.
• Review language is varied and specific enough across all four reviews to suggest authenticity — no fake review pattern detected.
• Small sample size of only 4 reviews limits overall reliability of the WW Score.

This score is based on only 4 reviews, all of which are positive and specific; the WW Score of 87.6 is directionally meaningful but should be treated with moderate caution until a larger review base is available.

Pure Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and experience across a large volume of reviews, with dozens of customers praising technicians by name for being knowledgeable, friendly, prompt, and communicative. However, pricing is a meaningful drag on the overall score: multiple negative reviews explicitly cite quotes that were significantly higher than competitors, bait-and-switch pricing (quoted $125, charged $400+), and charges described as the highest in the DFW area. Project completion is generally positive — most jobs are described as finished same-day or quickly — but several serious complaints involve misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary work, a warranty that was not honored, a no-show appointment, and a case where a $24,000 repair was disputed as excessive and possibly fraudulent. The score reflects a contractor with genuinely skilled and personable technicians but inconsistent pricing transparency and a pattern of concerning negative experiences that cannot be dismissed.

• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple explicit complaints about prices being far above competitor quotes — one reviewer cited $7,800 vs. $2,650 from another company for the same job; another was quoted $125 and charged over $400; another described charges as the highest in all of DFW. Pricing score is significantly penalized.
• WARRANTY NOT HONORED: One reviewer explicitly states Pure Plumbing advertised a 30-day warranty but refused to honor it when the issue recurred within 30 days, and a technician walked out mid-conversation.
• MISDIAGNOSIS / GROSS NEGLIGENCE: One detailed review describes a plumber misdiagnosing a hot water heater issue as a shower valve problem, leading the customer to spend thousands on an unnecessary bathroom renovation. A manager never proactively followed up.
• POTENTIAL FRAUD / PARTNER COMPANY CONCERN: One lengthy 1-star review alleges Pure Plumbing and a partner restoration company (Brigham Restoration) colluded to perform excessive mitigation work, resulting in $24,000 out-of-pocket costs and ignored phone calls. This is a serious allegation and warrants caution.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURE: One reviewer describes waiting all day for a scheduled appointment window, never receiving a callback, and being given false information about a call that was actually the customer's own outgoing call.
• MISLEADING 'FREE ESTIMATE' CLAIM: One reviewer was told the estimate was free but was charged $325 upon arrival. Follow-up calls to resolve the issue went unanswered for days.
• REVIEW POOL SPANS OVER 15 YEARS (2009–2025): Reviews reference multiple different named technicians, owners, and even different business names (GEM Plumbing, Slate Plumbing, Danny Brown, Ken, Chad, Dusten, Brice, Daron, Jacob, Bryan, Andrew, Dylan, Chase). This strongly suggests these reviews are aggregated from multiple distinct contractors or business entities operating under or associated with the 'Pure Plumbing' name at different times. Scores should be interpreted with caution as they may not reflect a single consistent business.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW AGGREGATION ACROSS MULTIPLE BUSINESSES: The presence of reviews referencing 'GEM plumbing,' 'Slate Plumbing,' 'Danny Brown (owner),' 'Ken (owner),' and 'Jacob Morgan (owner)' in the same dataset suggests this review pool may have been incorrectly merged from multiple separate contractor profiles. This significantly undermines the reliability of aggregate scoring.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Three reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of negative reviews with serious allegations (pricing, warranty, misdiagnosis, fraud) are from 2022–2025, which are the most recent and most heavily weighted reviews. This is a meaningful concern for current customers.
• OLDER REVIEWS (pre-2020): Reviews from 2009–2019 reference entirely different named technicians and owners and likely reflect a different business entity. These were included in aggregate counts but their relevance to the current operation is questionable.

This WW Score carries HIGH data volume but MODERATE practical reliability due to strong evidence that the review pool aggregates multiple distinct contractor businesses across 15+ years, combined with a pattern of serious and credible negative reviews regarding pricing transparency, warranty enforcement, and potential misdiagnosis — issues that meaningfully offset the large volume of positive feedback.

Lefty's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with responsive communication, punctual service, and courteous technicians consistently praised across 89 reviews. Project completion is solid with most jobs finished as promised, though some callbacks and scheduling issues appear in negative reviews. Technical experience is well-regarded with skilled workmanship on complex jobs like sewer line replacement and drain clearing. However, pricing is a significant weakness: multiple reviews cite aggressive upselling tactics, inflated estimates for major work, and pressure to pursue expensive solutions when simpler alternatives exist. The company shows inconsistency in pricing transparency and fairness, particularly on diagnostic work that leads to major repairs.

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple detailed negative reviews (2024-10-09, 2024-08-04, 2024-02-24, 2023-10-27, 2017-04-19, 2017-04-12) describe aggressive upselling, inflated quotes, and pressure tactics. One customer received a $5,000 quote vs. $2,000 from competitors. Another was quoted $7,200 for work completed with a $57 rental tool. Pattern suggests systematic overcharging on diagnostic-to-repair upsells.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY: Two reviews (2023-07-18) report no-call/no-show incidents on multiple occasions, contradicting the otherwise strong responsiveness narrative.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: One 2017-05-23 review describes technician abandoning job mid-installation due to frustration, leaving customer with non-functional plumbing.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: 2023-10-27 review documents promised refund ($80 cash) never delivered despite technician working on adjacent property for a week.
• CONFIDENCE FACTOR: While 89 mentions support professionalism score, the HIGH confidence is tempered by systematic pricing complaints concentrated in detailed, specific negative reviews that describe calculated upselling rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score of 78.2 is reliable for assessing technical competence and responsiveness but should be weighted heavily toward pricing concerns: Lefty's excels at execution and customer service demeanor but demonstrates a pattern of aggressive diagnostic upselling and quote inflation that materially impacts overall value proposition. Customers should obtain multiple quotes before engaging, particularly for major repairs recommended after camera inspections.