Find Nearby Plumbers In Salem, Oregon

Forbes Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism, with consistently positive feedback on workmanship, responsiveness, and staff knowledge. However, the company is significantly hampered by pricing concerns—numerous reviews cite unexpectedly high charges, opaque flat-rate structures, and billing practices that feel unfair to customers. Project completion is generally solid, though several reviews document follow-up failures, missed appointments, and abandoned work. The company shows a stark quality variance: many reviews praise specific technicians (Alan, Brian, Eric, Dave) while others report poor communication, rude staff, and unresolved issues. Recent reviews (2024–2025) show both exceptional service and serious failures, suggesting inconsistency in execution.

• PRICING VOLATILITY: Multiple reviews (2021–2023) report dramatic price increases after company transitioned to flat-rate billing. Customers report $300–$400+ charges for simple 15–30 minute jobs, creating strong negative sentiment around value.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 8 reviews document promised callbacks that never materialized, missed appointments without notice, and abandoned work (e.g., marked yard for water main replacement, never returned; promised overnight parts, no follow-up for 7 days).
• STAFF INCONSISTENCY: Named technicians (Alan, Brian, Eric, Dave, Jeff) receive consistent praise; unnamed or different technicians receive complaints about rudeness, poor attitude, and incompetence. Suggests quality control issues.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews cite overcharging (charging for drive time, inflated labor hours, incorrect math on invoices, minimum charges for trivial work). At least 3 reviews mention difficulty obtaining refunds or corrections.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE COMPLAINTS: Several reviews report rude receptionists, staff talking over customers, hanging up on callers, and dismissive responses to complaints. One review explicitly states receptionist called customer a 'horrible person.'
• DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS: At least 3 reviews document incorrect diagnoses (recommending full pump replacement when only a $15 part was needed; recommending full toilet replacement when only flapper needed; recommending full tub replacement when only pipe tightening needed). Suggests potential for unnecessary upsells.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2018–2023. Recent reviews (2024–2025) show mixed results—some exceptional, some serious failures. Pattern suggests company may have undergone ownership/management changes with inconsistent results.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Approximately 15–20 reviews contain only a rating with no text or extremely generic praise ('Great service,' 'No problems,' 'unknown'). While not conclusive, this pattern warrants caution. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews with specific complaints suggests overall authenticity of dataset.

This WW Score of 76.8 is reliable but reflects a company in transition with significant quality variance. The HIGH confidence is justified by the large sample size (365 reviews, 127+ mentions per dimension) and consistency of specific complaints (pricing, follow-up failures, staff inconsistency). However, customers should be aware that Forbes Plumbing appears to deliver excellent work when the right technician is assigned and pricing is transparent, but carries elevated risk of billing disputes, missed appointments, and poor communication. Request specific technicians by name if possible, obtain detailed written estimates before work begins, and confirm pricing structure in advance. The company's recent history (2024–2025) shows both exceptional and poor service, suggesting ongoing operational challenges.

DoneRite demonstrates strong professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise across most reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, responsiveness, friendliness, and quality workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with numerous explicit complaints about charges being excessive, non-transparent, or substantially higher than competitors. While the company excels at customer service and completing jobs efficiently, the pricing concerns—mentioned in 28 reviews with specific dollar amounts cited—substantially drag down the overall score. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are predominantly 5-star automotive service reviews, while older plumbing reviews show more balanced feedback including serious pricing complaints.

• POTENTIAL REVIEW BIAS: Approximately 35 recent reviews (June 2025 and May 2025) are all 5-star automotive service reviews with minimal detail. These appear to be from a different business line (automotive repair) than the plumbing services that dominate earlier reviews. This creates a skewed dataset favoring recent high ratings.
• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews explicitly cite high hourly rates ($250/hr equivalent), excessive service call charges ($60-$200 dispatch fees), and quotes 2-8x higher than competitors. Examples: $567 for sink fixture (customer did for $100), $285 for single sink unclog, $200 for simple $25 fixture install, $12,000 for plumbing work quoted at $6,000 elsewhere.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT ISSUES: One 2022 review documents employee caught going through customer's desk drawer during renovation, with inconsistent follow-up from management and conflicting accounts of termination.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite failure to call back, poor receptionist communication, and lack of responsiveness despite initial contact.
• MIXED QUALITY ON COMPLEX JOBS: One whole-home renovation review (2022) notes incomplete work (missing air purge valve, incorrect hose bib length) and refusal to service equipment they installed.
• RECENCY BIAS: The dataset is heavily weighted toward recent 5-star automotive reviews (35+ reviews from May-June 2025) versus older, more detailed plumbing reviews with mixed ratings. This inflates recent confidence but may not reflect actual service quality consistency.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be interpreted with caution: while professionalism and completion metrics are strong (HIGH confidence), the pricing dimension is a critical vulnerability with consistent, specific complaints across 28 reviews. The recent surge of 5-star automotive reviews appears to be from a different service line and may not reflect plumbing service quality. The company excels at customer interaction and job execution but has a documented pattern of pricing significantly above market rates and occasional serious lapses in follow-up and conduct. Customers should expect high-quality work but should obtain multiple quotes and clarify all pricing before committing.

Garcia Plumbing demonstrates solid overall performance with a WW Score of 76.8, driven primarily by strong professionalism and pricing practices. The company excels in responsiveness, honesty, and fair pricing, with many long-term customers praising reliability and reasonable rates. However, project completion shows notable weakness, with multiple reviews documenting incomplete work, callbacks that weren't honored, and follow-through issues. Several negative reviews describe abandoned jobs, unnecessary upsells, and poor communication. Experience/workmanship is generally strong but inconsistent, with some installations requiring significant rework. The company's performance appears to vary significantly by technician and situation.

• INCONSISTENCY ALERT: Stark polarization in reviews—many 5-star reviews lack specific detail (generic praise), while detailed negative reviews describe serious issues (incomplete work, overcharging, rude behavior). This pattern suggests potential review manipulation or significant quality variance by technician.
• MULTIPLE SERIOUS COMPLAINTS: At least 5 detailed 1-2 star reviews document: incomplete work (shower valve not needed, pipes messed up), overcharging ($675 reduced to $500 for unnecessary callback), failure to honor callbacks (6 requests to snake shower never completed), and unprofessional owner behavior (shouting, rudeness, refusing quotes).
• EMPTY/GENERIC REVIEWS: 11 reviews contain no text or only 1-2 words ('Outstanding', 'Great!', 'unknown'), all rated 5 stars. These provide zero evidence and inflate apparent satisfaction artificially.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS: At least 2 identical reviews appear (Coachella festival rental property job, kitchen sink clog with Joe and Diego), suggesting possible fake review padding.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most detailed positive reviews are from 2019-2023; most detailed negative reviews span 2014-2023. Recent reviews (2024) include both a 5-star and a scathing 1-star, indicating ongoing inconsistency.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR ISSUES: Multiple reviews describe Joe Garcia as rude, condescending, or unprofessional during interactions (shouting about wasted time, arguing about repairs, refusing to provide receipts).
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Documented cases of incomplete work (holes in walls not patched, water shut off without restoration, equipment not turned on, shower never snaked despite 6 requests).

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH caution. While the score of 76.8 reflects genuine strengths in professionalism and pricing, the presence of 11 empty/generic 5-star reviews, duplicate reviews, and stark polarization between glowing generic praise and detailed serious complaints suggests the review pool is compromised. The documented project completion failures and owner behavior issues are credible and specific, indicating real problems that offset positive testimonials. Prospective customers should heavily weight the detailed negative reviews describing incomplete work and overcharging, and should request multiple references and written scope agreements before hiring.

Lefty's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship, with consistent praise for quality installations and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by recurring communication failures, missed appointments, and scheduling inconsistencies that appear across multiple reviews spanning several years. Pricing practices are inconsistent—some customers report excellent value while others describe overcharging and questionable estimates, particularly for simple jobs. Project completion is generally reliable when work begins, but follow-through on callbacks and responsiveness to customer concerns shows notable gaps.

• RECURRING PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2016, 2022, 2023) cite identical professionalism failures—missed appointments, poor scheduling communication, and receptionist unresponsiveness. This pattern suggests systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between reviews praising 'unbeatable' prices and reviews alleging overcharging (e.g., $700 for simple faucet extension, $500+ for toilet/sink install vs. competitor's $150). Suggests either inconsistent quoting practices or targeting of vulnerable customers (elderly customers explicitly mentioned).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2015–2018 (older than 5 years). Recent reviews (2023, 2022) show higher proportion of 1-star ratings citing professionalism and pricing issues, suggesting potential service decline.
• CALLBACK FAILURES: Review from 2019 documents week-and-a-half delay with repeated 'waiting for part number' excuses and failure to resolve customer issue. Review from 2023 documents multiple unanswered callback attempts.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: One review documents work defect (valve not turned on, inappropriate faucet for elderly customer) with poor follow-up. Another documents leak caused during installation. Suggests variable quality control.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical expertise is genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), the company exhibits a persistent and documented pattern of communication and scheduling failures that directly contradicts professionalism claims. The pricing dimension shows evidence of inconsistent or potentially exploitative quoting practices. The recency of negative reviews and the systemic nature of operational failures suggest the current service experience may be worse than the overall score indicates.

The overwhelming majority of reviews praise friendly, courteous, and responsive technicians — professionalism is the strongest and most consistently mentioned dimension across the entire review set. Pricing receives mixed signals: many reviewers highlight fair or budget-friendly costs, but several credible negative reviews describe significant overcharging ($844 for a simple clog, $2,000 overcharge on a slab leak, $1,600 for 20 minutes of hydrojetting), which meaningfully drags the pricing score down. Project completion is generally positive — same-day and prompt service is frequently cited — but there are serious red flags including an abandoned repipe job where the kitchen was left unconnected, a toilet repair left non-functional for weeks with no follow-up, and a flooded bedroom with no remediation for over a year. Experience scores moderately well, with multiple reviews citing knowledgeable and skilled technicians, though a handful of negative reviews describe poor diagnostic decisions and incomplete or incorrect work. The score reflects a business with genuine strengths in responsiveness and staff attitude, offset by a meaningful minority of serious service failures.

• 13 reviews contain no text (blank or placeholder entries such as 'unknown', '.', or empty) — these were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (dating back to 2009–2019) and may not reflect current service quality. A significant portion of negative reviews are from 2015–2020, while recent 2024–2025 reviews are predominantly positive — possible improvement over time, but older negatives still inform the score.
• SERIOUS FLAG — Project Completion: One reviewer (Jan 2025) paid over $12,000 for a full repipe and the kitchen was left unconnected to the plumbing system. The company's fix was an external pump, which the customer considers inadequate. Legal action was mentioned. This is a severe workmanship failure.
• SERIOUS FLAG — Project Completion: One reviewer (2017) reported toilets left non-functional after a $183 repair, with weeks of unreturned calls and no resolution. Another reviewer (2015) reported a flooded bedroom caused by a technician error, with no remediation after one year.
• SERIOUS FLAG — Pricing: A reviewer (2019) paid $844.77 for approximately one hour of work across two visits to clear a simple clog. Another reviewer (2016) alleges a $2,000 overcharge on a slab leak corroborated by multiple contractors. A third reviewer paid $1,600 for 20 minutes of hydrojetting.
• SERIOUS FLAG — Professionalism: One reviewer (May 2025) reported that a technician ignored explicit instructions not to discuss the problem with a tenant, resulting in financial harm to the property owner.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The recent 2025 reviews are heavily positive and many mention specific technician names (Colby, Brett, Flannery, Gabe), which adds authenticity. However, the volume of 5-star reviews with minimal detail and several blank 5-star entries warrants mild caution. No strong evidence of coordinated fake reviews, but the blank entries reduce usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews from 2025 and late 2024 are predominantly 5-star with specific positive details. The most serious complaints are concentrated in 2015–2020. This may indicate genuine service improvement, but the Jan 2025 repipe complaint confirms serious failures remain possible.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (101 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in direction, but consumers should weigh the serious unresolved complaints about project abandonment, overcharging, and property damage heavily before hiring for large or complex jobs.

Mr. Rooter of Salem earns strong marks for professionalism, with dozens of reviewers praising friendly, courteous, and communicative technicians — particularly Colby, Brett, and Jeremy by name. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern: multiple reviewers across many years describe charges they felt were excessive, opaque, or inconsistent with verbal quotes, including one serious allegation of a tenfold billing discrepancy that was not resolved to the customer's satisfaction. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished promptly and thoroughly, but there are notable failures including an incomplete repipe that left a kitchen disconnected, a wrong water heater installation that created a carbon monoxide hazard, and a PRV replacement that failed within the warranty period. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge, but offset by several incidents of poor diagnosis, equipment getting lodged in pipes, and a plumber who gave dangerously incorrect advice about water shutoffs. The score reflects a company with genuinely skilled and personable field staff but meaningful systemic issues around pricing transparency and quality control on larger jobs.

• 5 reviews contained no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring — these blank 5-star entries slightly inflate the average star rating without providing usable data.
• A cluster of reviews from 2025-05-26 all praise technician Colby and share similar enthusiastic language; while some appear genuine and specific, the volume on a single date warrants mild scrutiny for possible solicited reviews.
• Pricing complaints span from 2011 through 2024, indicating a long-standing and systemic issue rather than isolated incidents — this is a structural concern, not an outlier.
• One review (2025-01-14) describes a $12,000+ repipe job where the kitchen was left unconnected and the company's remedy was an exterior pump — this is a serious workmanship and project completion failure.
• One review (2023-10-14) describes a wrong water heater installation that caused a carbon monoxide hazard over two years — this is a significant safety and experience concern.
• One review (2024-11-01) alleges a billing amount 10x the verbal quote with no satisfactory resolution from management — this is a serious pricing integrity concern.
• Several reviews are older than 3 years (2011–2021); while included for pattern context, they are weighted less heavily than 2024–2025 reviews in the scoring assessment.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews (approximately 40+) are from 2025 and late 2024, which provides good recent signal. Older negative reviews (2011–2021) suggest some long-standing issues with pricing and quality control that may or may not have been addressed.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (75 reviews spanning 2011–2025) with strong recency weighting, yielding HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given credible, specific, and recurring complaints about pricing transparency and serious workmanship failures on larger projects that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong professionalism ratings.