Find Nearby Plumbers In Salem, Oregon

Pederson Plumbing earns strong marks across most dimensions from a loyal customer base that repeatedly praises responsiveness, friendly service, and solid workmanship on jobs like drain stoppages, toilet repairs, and disposal replacements. Pricing is highlighted positively in at least one detailed review, with one reviewer noting costs were less than half a competitor's quote, and another reviewer was honestly advised against an unnecessary replacement — both signals of fair, transparent pricing. However, two negative reviews meaningfully drag scores down: one describes a failed toilet repair where $250+ was charged and the work was not honored, and another reports being turned away for a water main re-do without even receiving an estimate, citing a rude phone interaction. These complaints directly impact professionalism and project completion scores and cannot be dismissed. Several reviews are older than 12 months, with the most critical negative reviews dating from 2022, so recent performance (2024 reviews) appears more positive, though the sample size remains small.

• Two reviews (1-star, dated 2022-11-01 and 2022-07-06) raise serious concerns about professionalism and project completion — one alleges a failed repair with no callback honor and rude phone staff, the other reports being refused service without explanation.
• Several positive reviews are vague and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Outstanding,' 'Exceptional,' 'so good'), which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews, though they do not appear to be coordinated or fake — language varies sufficiently.
• Three of the ten reviews are dated 2019 or earlier, reducing their relevance to current performance. Recency weighting applied — 2024 reviews given higher weight.
• Sample size of 10 reviews is relatively small; scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the review volume is low, the two negative reviews represent meaningful outliers that are specific and credible, and while recent 2024 reviews trend positively, the dataset is too small to fully offset documented complaints about failed work and unprofessional phone interactions.

Town & Country Plumbing shows strong technical capability and experience (82/100) with many customers praising knowledgeable technicians who solve complex problems efficiently. Project completion is solid (76/100) with most jobs finished as promised, though several serious follow-up failures are documented. Professionalism is the weakest dimension (72/100), with multiple reports of unprofessional behavior, poor communication, and disrespectful attitudes from individual technicians offsetting numerous positive interactions. Pricing receives moderate marks (68/100) with complaints about service fees, hidden charges, and bills exceeding estimates, though some customers report fair pricing. The company shows inconsistency—excellent service from some technicians (Joe, Craig, Grant, Ed) contrasts sharply with documented instances of vulgar language, poor attitude, and lack of accountability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe negative reviews document serious professionalism failures including vulgar language, disrespectful behavior, threatening conduct, and complete lack of follow-up on failed work. Two reviews describe dangerous electrical work and incomplete repairs causing property damage.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Company appears to have experienced ownership/management changes (noted in 2021 review). Quality and responsiveness vary dramatically by technician and time period.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 3 detailed reviews document complete failure to return calls, respond to complaints, or take responsibility for incomplete/failed work. One customer had to hire another plumber after Town & Country's failed repair.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2024-2025) are overwhelmingly positive 5-star ratings with minimal detail, creating potential bias. Older reviews (2013-2019) contain detailed negative accounts of serious failures. This temporal pattern warrants caution.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple mentions of unexpected charges, service fees, bills exceeding estimates, and lack of transparency. One customer charged $700 above estimate without explanation.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 7 reviews contain no text (only 5-star ratings), reducing data quality.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While recent reviews are predominantly positive, the company has a documented history of serious professionalism and follow-up failures that caused significant customer harm. The stark contrast between glowing recent reviews and detailed negative accounts from 2013-2019 suggests either genuine improvement or potential review bias. The score reflects current apparent performance but is tempered by unresolved accountability issues and inconsistent service quality across technicians.

Pro Drain demonstrates strong professionalism and pricing practices with consistently positive feedback on punctuality, communication, and fair rates. However, project completion reliability is significantly compromised by multiple documented failures to follow through on callbacks, incomplete repairs, and no-shows on scheduled appointments—particularly evident in older reviews involving Rod. While technicians display good technical knowledge and skill, the company's inconsistent follow-through on warranty work and callback commitments substantially undermines overall trustworthiness. Recent reviews (2024-2025) are predominantly positive, suggesting possible operational improvements, but historical patterns of broken commitments remain a serious concern.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2018-2019) document severe project completion failures including no-shows on scheduled callbacks, incomplete work, and unresolved warranty claims. Rod failed to show up 5+ times for the same job and never completed promised follow-up work.
• RECENCY BIAS: Reviews from 2024-2025 are overwhelmingly 5-star with minimal critical detail, while 2018-2019 reviews contain extensive documentation of failures. This suggests either significant operational changes or potential review manipulation.
• PATTERN DETECTED: One 1-star review (2024-06-09) about driver behavior is unrelated to actual service quality and appears to be a traffic incident complaint—excluded from scoring but noted as outlier.
• INCOMPLETE REVIEWS: Two reviews contain no text (2025-05-10, 2025-04-10), rated 5-star with no substantive data.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: One recent negative review (2025-02-09) documents incomplete work on 2 of 3 issues and unfair callback charges ($195 for incomplete initial work), contradicting the uniformly positive recent trend.
• HISTORICAL ACCOUNTABILITY: Older reviews show owner (Steve) was unresponsive and rude when contacted about warranty failures, suggesting systemic management issues that may or may not have been resolved.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent 2024-2025 reviews are strongly positive, they are heavily weighted toward generic praise with minimal specifics, and they directly contradict a substantial body of detailed negative reviews from 2018-2019 documenting systematic failures in project completion and callback accountability. The dramatic shift in review tone and the presence of one recent negative review (2025-02-09) confirming incomplete work suggests either genuine operational improvement or potential review filtering. Recommend requesting references and explicitly discussing warranty/callback policies before engaging.

Christian's Plumbing shows a mixed but concerning performance pattern. While many reviews (particularly older ones from 2012-2018) praise professionalism, skill, and fair pricing, recent reviews (2024, 2019) reveal serious issues with reliability and follow-through. The company demonstrates strong technical expertise and communication when jobs proceed normally, but critical failures in project completion—including no-shows, non-responsiveness to callbacks, and abandoned work—significantly drag down the overall score. The pattern of broken promises and unresponsiveness to customers seeking refunds or rescheduling is particularly damaging and suggests operational or management deterioration over time.

• CRITICAL: Strong recency bias detected. Reviews from 2012-2018 are predominantly 5-star with detailed praise. Recent reviews (2024, 2019) show 1-star ratings for no-shows, non-responsiveness, and failure to honor commitments. This suggests significant service degradation.
• Multiple reviews (2024-03-09, 2024-02-10, 2019-10-01, 2019-03-13) report no-shows, failure to answer phone, and non-responsiveness to callbacks—a pattern suggesting systemic communication/reliability breakdown.
• One 2024 review alleges advance payment taken with no service delivery and no refund—potential fraud indicator.
• One 2024 review describes untrained staff (office lady) causing property damage (home flooding) due to lack of supervision.
• Two reviews from 2014 (Jarrod/Jerrod) report incomplete work, property damage (torn vinyl flooring), and only refund issued after legal action threatened.
• Multiple reviews with missing or generic text ('unknown', '.', 'NA') suggest data quality issues but do not appear to be fake reviews—likely platform errors.
• Scheduling reliability issues appear in multiple recent reviews (reschedules, job stacking, delays).
• Older reviews (pre-2019) show consistent 5-star ratings with specific details; newer reviews show polarized 1-star and 5-star with less detail in some cases, but this appears to reflect genuine service inconsistency rather than fake reviews.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the calculated WW Score is 72.8, the dramatic deterioration in service quality from 2018 onward—evidenced by multiple recent reports of no-shows, non-responsiveness, and property damage—suggests the company's current reliability is significantly lower than this score indicates. The score is heavily weighted by older positive reviews; customers considering this company should prioritize the most recent reviews (2024, 2019) which reveal serious operational failures. The company may no longer be operating at the standard reflected in its historical reputation.

Mike demonstrates strong technical expertise and knowledge, consistently praised across multiple reviews for skill and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism is severely compromised by documented instances of cursing at customers via text and poor communication practices, which directly contradicts the positive interpersonal feedback in older reviews. Project completion shows mixed results: while most work is completed, one critical review documents incomplete repairs requiring callbacks and ongoing leaks. Pricing is fair and transparent based on limited mentions. The stark contrast between recent negative feedback (2019) and older positive reviews (2015-2018) suggests a significant deterioration in service quality and customer relations over time.

• CRITICAL: Severe professionalism red flag in most recent review (April 2019) — documented cursing at customer via text, unprofessional communication, and refusal to use standard payment methods. This directly contradicts older reviews praising his demeanor.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: April 2019 review documents incomplete work (rebuild leaking in different location), requiring callback. Primary issue (leak) remains unresolved at time of review.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Five of six reviews are from 2015-2018 (4-8 years old). The single recent review (April 2019) is highly negative and suggests significant service degradation. Older positive reviews may not reflect current business practices.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Five consecutive 5-star reviews (2015-2018) with similar generic praise language ('highly recommend,' 'fantastic,' 'top notch') lack specific technical details. However, the April 2019 negative review provides specific, credible complaints that break this pattern, suggesting the older reviews may be authentic but outdated.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCTION: Professionalism score heavily weighted by one extremely detailed negative review; older positive reviews on this dimension are 4+ years old and may not reflect current behavior.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While technical expertise appears genuine and well-documented, the most recent review reveals serious professionalism and project completion failures that directly contradict older feedback, suggesting significant service deterioration. The score is artificially elevated by outdated positive reviews; current reliability is questionable based on 2019 evidence.

This contractor shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is hindered by significant communication failures (miscommunication between sales and field staff, false claims about coil identification) and one serious safety incident (bark dust fire). Pricing is generally fair and transparent, though one customer was charged for unexpected work. Project completion shows inconsistency—some jobs are completed timely and thoroughly, while others involve misrepresentation of work hours and incomplete follow-through on callbacks. Technical experience is solid when work is performed, but execution is undermined by poor communication and questionable judgment. The WW Score reflects these contradictions: capable technicians paired with operational and integrity issues.

• CRITICAL: Review 2 (2017-07-10) describes serious allegations including false claims about coil identification, misrepresentation of work hours on invoice, and a potential safety hazard (bark dust fire). No management callback occurred despite customer complaint. This is a major red flag for integrity and accountability.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Review 5 (2014-04-14) documents clear miscommunication between sales office and field technician regarding scope of work, resulting in unexpected charges and customer frustration.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are older than 6 years (2014-2017). No recent reviews available to assess current performance or whether issues have been addressed.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between highly positive reviews (1, 3, 4) and severely negative review (2), suggesting either inconsistent technician performance or potential reliability issues in complaint handling.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews), age of data (all pre-2018), and serious unresolved allegations in one review that were not addressed by management. The MODERATE confidence reflects conflicting evidence: strong technical capability undermined by communication failures and integrity concerns.