Find Nearby Plumbers In Salem, Oregon

Action Drain and Rooter Service demonstrates strong technical capability and responsive field technicians, with many reviewers praising named individuals like Loel, Corey, David, and Larry for their skill, friendliness, and efficiency. However, the company is significantly dragged down by a persistent and recurring pattern of poor office/receptionist communication, with multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly describing the front-desk staff as rude, condescending, and unhelpful. Project completion is further undermined by several serious complaints: one customer was charged $5,100 over the original bid with no written change order, another experienced two months of delays before abandoning the company, one customer had a drain re-clog within four days with no free callback honored, and one reviewer reported a broken snake left in their pipe. Pricing is mixed — many reviewers praise fair and reasonable costs, but the hidden mileage fee complaint and the large unauthorized cost overrun are meaningful negatives that prevent a higher score. The overall picture is a company with genuinely skilled field workers but inconsistent office professionalism and notable project management failures that create real risk for customers on larger jobs.

• RECURRING OFFICE STAFF COMPLAINTS: At least 5 independent reviews across multiple years (2018, 2019, 2020, 2023) explicitly describe the receptionist or office staff as rude, condescending, argumentative, or unhelpful. This is a systemic pattern, not an isolated incident.
• SERIOUS PRICING TRANSPARENCY FAILURE: One detailed 1-star review (2023) describes a $5,100 cost overrun above a $12,000 bid, communicated only by text after work had begun, with no written change order provided — a potential CCB violation as noted by the reviewer.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite incomplete or ineffective work — one drain re-clogged within 4 days with no free callback honored (2018), one customer spent 2 months trying to get repairs completed (2024), and one reviewer had a broken snake left in their pipe (2014).
• HIDDEN FEES FLAG: One reviewer (2024) was charged an undisclosed $42 mileage fee on top of a $187 invoice for a 15-mile service call, with no prior disclosure.
• DISHONESTY ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2017) alleges the technician falsified the invoice to the landlord, claiming the clog was caused by the tenant's behavior when no evidence was found.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2019 and earlier. Of the 8 most recent reviews (2022–2024), 3 are 1-star and 1 is a mixed 5-star with a noted complaint about speed. This suggests a possible decline in service quality in recent years and warrants caution.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, specificity, named technicians, and sentiment. No coordinated fake review activity suspected.

This WW Score is based on 58 reviews spanning 14 years with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the mathematical score reliable; however, the recency trend toward more negative reviews and the severity of individual complaints — particularly around billing transparency and project completion on larger jobs — means prospective customers should treat this score as a moderate-confidence indicator and exercise extra caution when hiring Action Drain for complex or high-cost projects.

Judson's demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship (82/100), with many customers praising skilled plumbers and electricians who solve problems efficiently. Project completion is solid (75/100), with most jobs finished as promised, though some no-shows and scheduling failures are documented. However, professionalism is significantly dragged down by persistent customer service issues (71/100)—rude phone staff, missed appointments, poor communication, and unprofessional behavior are mentioned across multiple years. Pricing remains a major pain point (62/100), with numerous complaints about high costs, hidden charges, travel time billing, and markups on parts. The company shows a stark divide: excellent field technicians versus problematic office operations.

• CRITICAL: Severe and recurring customer service failures documented across 2006–2025. Multiple reviews cite rude/dismissive phone staff, no-call no-shows, missed appointments, and poor communication. This is not isolated—it is systemic and persistent.
• PRICING PATTERN: Consistent complaints about high labor rates ($85–$98/hour), inflated parts markups (e.g., $86 part available at Lowe's for $48), travel time charged at professional rates, and 1-hour minimums. Many customers report being significantly undercut by competitors.
• APPOINTMENT/SCHEDULING CRISIS: At least 8 reviews explicitly mention no-shows, cancellations at last minute, or failure to honor scheduled appointments. One customer waited all day three separate times with no-shows.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Reviews mention 'A-team' vs. lower-quality plumbers; some jobs require callbacks or rework. One customer needed 6 service calls to resolve a heating issue.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Multiple reviews contain only generic text ('unknown', '.', '...', 'Great 👍', 'fine it went fine') with 5-star ratings and no substantive detail. These appear to be placeholder or low-effort reviews and reduce confidence slightly in the overall positive skew.
• RECENCY: Recent reviews (2025, 2024) show the same problems (no-shows, rude staff, cancellations) that plagued the company in 2006–2010, indicating systemic issues have NOT been resolved.
• STAFF BEHAVIOR: Multiple reports of dismissive, rude, or condescending phone staff and field technicians (e.g., refusing to wear masks, speaking in raised voice, hanging up on customers, asking to speak to husband instead of female homeowner).

This WW Score of 72.8 is reliable but masks a deeply polarized company: exceptional field technicians and workmanship are consistently undermined by chronic customer service failures, high pricing, and scheduling dysfunction. The HIGH confidence reflects substantial data (176 reviews, 51–68 mentions per dimension), but customers should be aware that positive technical reviews often come with caveats about cost and office experience. Use Judson's only if you can tolerate high prices, poor communication, and risk of no-shows; do not rely on them for time-sensitive work or if customer service matters to you.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

The aggregate review pool spans multiple businesses operating under similar names (Pro Plumbing, Oro Pro Plumbing, Pro Plumbing Heating and Air), which introduces noise but also reflects a broad pattern of service quality. The majority of positive reviews praise punctuality, politeness, and clear communication, driving a moderate-to-good professionalism score. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews — including complaints about rude staff, missed appointments, no-shows, and unresponsive management — prevents a high professionalism score. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly called out overcharging, non-itemized invoices, inflated quotes (sometimes 4x competitors), and questionable billing practices, pulling the pricing score down significantly. Project completion is mixed — many jobs were completed well and on time, but several reviews describe abandoned work, failed inspections, jobs requiring correction by other companies, and warranty disputes. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers praising knowledgeable technicians, but offset by reviews citing misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and work that failed inspection multiple times.

• MULTIPLE BUSINESS ENTITIES: Reviews appear to reference at least three distinct businesses — 'Pro Plumbing', 'Oro Pro Plumbing', and 'Pro Plumbing Heating and Air' — operating under similar names. Scores may reflect blended performance across different companies and should be interpreted with caution.
• 25 reviews contain no text (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews dated 2024-06-09 and 2025-05-10 share very similar generic phrasing ('great job', 'very professional', 'highly recommend') with no specific job details. While not conclusive, this pattern warrants reduced confidence in the upper end of positive scores.
• DRIVER CONDUCT REVIEWS: At least 4 reviews (2019, 2023, 2024) describe dangerous or rude driving by company vehicle operators. These are not directly scorable under the four dimensions but reflect negatively on overall brand professionalism.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2009 to 2025. A large volume of reviews are from 2024-2025 and carry full recency weight. Older reviews (pre-2020) were down-weighted in scoring. Negative patterns (overcharging, incomplete work, warranty disputes) appear consistently across all time periods, suggesting systemic rather than isolated issues.
• BILLING AND WARRANTY CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers across different years explicitly describe non-itemized invoices, charges for work not performed, warranty fees on warranted equipment, and refusal to provide cost breakdowns. This is a recurring and credible pattern that materially depresses the pricing score.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 4 reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required a second company to finish or correct, or failed inspection multiple times. This is a credible and recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.

This WW Score is based on a large review volume (196 total, 171 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the score direction, but reliability is moderated by the likely blending of multiple business entities under similar names, a detectable cluster of generic positive reviews suggesting possible review inflation, and consistent negative patterns around pricing transparency and project completion that appear across independent reviewers and multiple time periods.

This contractor has a strong base of satisfied customers who frequently praise friendliness, punctuality, and responsiveness, with many reviewers noting same-day or next-day service. However, pricing is a significant and recurring concern — multiple detailed negative reviews across many years describe charges perceived as excessive, hidden fees (e.g., undisclosed crawlspace inspection fees, high flat-rate labor), and instances where customers felt pressured or taken advantage of, dragging the pricing score down substantially. Project completion is mixed: the majority of jobs appear to be finished satisfactorily, but there are credible, specific accounts of work left incomplete, problems recurring shortly after service, and in at least two cases plumbers being called back multiple times without resolution. Experience scores moderately well overall, with many reviewers praising knowledgeable technicians, but offset by several detailed accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and use of used parts on new equipment. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths in responsiveness and customer-facing professionalism, but meaningful and consistent weaknesses in pricing transparency and job completion reliability.

• 15 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• Several reviews marked 'unknown' as text were also excluded from dimension scoring.
• Pricing complaints are numerous, specific, and span the full date range of reviews (2015–2025), indicating a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents. Multiple reviewers independently describe undisclosed fees, flat-rate charges perceived as far exceeding market rates, and refusal to negotiate.
• At least 4 reviews describe work that was not completed or that failed shortly after service, with the contractor being unresponsive or unwilling to return under warranty — a meaningful project completion risk signal.
• One review (2023-09-26, 0.5 stars) describes 4 failed trips for a single shower handle repair, a replaced water heater with a cheaper brand under warranty, and property damage left uncleaned — this is a serious multi-dimension failure.
• One review (2018-05-25) describes a plumber manipulating a urinal during inspection, causing it to leak over a weekend and resulting in approximately $5,000 in building damage, with the company refusing liability — a significant workmanship and accountability flag.
• One review (2024-04-28) alleges the contractor took a vanity left for installation and did not complete the agreed work — a potential integrity concern.
• One review (2020-12-23) alleges the plumber let the customer's dogs out of a secured area and left the gate open, then was rude when confronted — a professionalism and safety concern.
• The review pool spans from 2013 to 2025. Reviews older than 2 years (pre-June 2023) were given reduced weight in scoring. The majority of recent reviews (2024–2025) skew more positive, suggesting possible improvement over time, but pricing complaints persist into 2025.
• Some positive reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Great service', 'Fast friendly and efficient', 'Keep up the good work') with no specifics. While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, the volume of low-detail 5-star reviews warrants mild caution. No strong coordinated fake review pattern was detected, but confidence in the upper end of positive scores is modestly reduced.
• The business appears to operate under multiple names across reviews (A-1 Plumbing, I Need A Plumber Now), which may indicate a rebranding or franchise structure. Reviewers reference different staff names and locations, suggesting this may be a composite of related but distinct business entities. Scores should be interpreted with this in mind.

This WW Score is based on a large review pool (163 reviews, 148 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the significant volume of detailed negative reviews around pricing and project completion, the multi-name business identity, and the presence of numerous content-free reviews that could not be scored.

Reliable Plumbing has a large and broadly positive review base, with many customers praising prompt response times, courteous technicians, and successful job completions — particularly for water heater replacements, leak repairs, and emergency calls. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (approximately 20–22 reviews) describe serious concerns including incomplete or failed repairs requiring callbacks, warranty denials after poor workmanship, rude owner interactions, and pricing disputes involving non-itemized invoices and unexpected charges. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing overquoting, lack of transparency, and charges inconsistent with initial quotes. Project completion is also dragged down by several credible accounts of work left unfinished, recurring leaks after paid repairs, and technicians who lacked the skill to complete assigned jobs. The overall score reflects a company with genuine strengths in responsiveness and many capable technicians, offset by a persistent pattern of quality control and owner-level customer service failures.

• Approximately 35 reviews contain no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimensional scoring — these blank reviews inflate the raw review count and cannot be used as evidence of quality.
• Several reviews appear to originate from different geographic markets (Charlotte NC, Baton Rouge LA, El Paso TX) suggesting this may be a shared business name across unrelated companies — scores may reflect mixed entities rather than a single contractor.
• A recurring pattern of negative reviews specifically names the owner 'Raymond' or 'Ramon' as rude, condescending, or dishonest in pricing disputes — this is a consistent and credible signal across multiple independent reviewers spanning 2013–2025.
• Multiple reviews describe warranty denials after failed repairs, with the company refusing callbacks or not answering phones — this is a serious project completion red flag.
• Pricing complaints include: non-itemized receipts, charges inconsistent with initial quotes, and alleged price gouging on water heater installations — these are consistent across multiple reviewers and time periods.
• Some older reviews (2005–2016) may not reflect current business practices and were given reduced weight in scoring; the majority of scoring weight was placed on reviews from 2020 onward.
• No strong fake review pattern detected, though the volume of brief generic 5-star reviews (e.g. 'Professional job. Well done', 'Great service as always') with no specifics warrants mild caution — these were scored conservatively.

This WW Score is based on a large review dataset (155 total, ~120 with usable content) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given credible and recurring negative patterns around pricing transparency, warranty honoring, and owner conduct that meaningfully offset the many positive technician-level experiences.