Find Nearby Plumbers In Tigard, Oregon

Professionalism received a mixed signal: one review praised friendliness, communication, and punctuality, while another noted the contractor never responded to a bid request at all, which is a significant failure. Project completion was similarly uneven — one job required a second visit due to the crew arriving unprepared with wrong or failing equipment, and one review noted a faucet began loosening months after installation, suggesting incomplete quality assurance. The one review that praised timely, efficient completion and another that highlighted strong communication from a supervisor provide some positive balance. Experience scores moderately, with evidence of competent sewer inspection and faucet replacement, but the equipment failure on arrival and the post-installation loosening issue temper confidence in consistent workmanship. Pricing data was entirely absent across all reviews, so that dimension could not be scored.

• All reviews are older than 10 years (most recent: 2013, oldest: 2009). These scores reflect a contractor's historical performance only and should not be treated as representative of current service quality.
• Only 5 reviews total — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores.
• One review (2010) notes a branding discrepancy: the company is listed as '503 Plumber' but operates as 'Lovett Services.' This may cause confusion for consumers verifying identity or credentials.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review. The pricing dimension cannot be scored and is excluded from the WW Score calculation.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence due to a very small review sample of only 5 reviews, all of which are over a decade old and therefore unlikely to reflect the contractor's current capabilities or practices.

Professionalism is the dominant concern across these reviews and drags the score down significantly. Two out of three reviews explicitly describe serious communication failures — an unanswered voicemail, a full mailbox, and multiple ignored emails and messages over several days — painting a picture of chronic unresponsiveness. The one positive review praises promptness and personability, but it is outnumbered and dated to 2017. Workmanship quality received limited but positive mentions, with one reviewer describing the roof cleaning result as beautiful and A-1. Pricing was not mentioned in any review, so that dimension could not be scored.

• All three reviews are from 2017 or 2021 — none are within the past 12 months. This score may not reflect current business performance.
• Very small sample size (3 reviews) severely limits reliability. The WW Score should be treated as indicative only.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and mixed ratings, suggesting authenticity.
• The single 1-star review describes a referral source being burned and a contract being cancelled as a downstream consequence — this is a significant reputational flag beyond just a bad experience.

With only 3 reviews spanning a 4-year window and no recent data, this WW Score carries very low reliability and should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

This contractor demonstrates significant and consistent problems across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by poor communication (missed callbacks, scheduling errors, account mix-ups), failure to follow up on promised calls, and lack of responsiveness to customer concerns. Project completion is undermined by incomplete work, failure to honor callbacks, and unresolved billing disputes. Experience is questionable due to a technician's failure to correctly identify water valves despite customer guidance, resulting in damage and unnecessary charges. Pricing concerns include unexplained extra charges for correcting technician errors. The one positive review from 2013 is substantially outweighed by three negative experiences, with the most recent reviews (2022-2023) showing ongoing operational failures.

• Company appears to have ceased operations or significantly changed ownership between 2013 and 2022, as noted in first review
• Most recent reviews (2022-2023) show severe deterioration in service quality compared to older positive review (2013)
• Pattern of communication failures: missed callbacks, voicemail non-responses, and broken promises to call back same day
• Technician error (wrong valve turned off) combined with inappropriate billing for correction suggests lack of quality control
• Customer service responsiveness is poor; manager intervention required to resolve billing dispute
• Small sample size (4 reviews) limits confidence; however, consistency of negative patterns across multiple recent reviews is concerning

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume, but the consistency of negative patterns across recent reviews (2022-2023) and the severity of communication and operational failures suggest the low score is reliable and reflects genuine service quality issues.

Oregon Backflow Testing receives overwhelmingly negative feedback across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily documented concern, with four of five reviewers citing missed appointments, poor communication, disorganization, or dismissive attitudes — only one reviewer reported a positive on-time experience. Pricing drew a serious red flag from one reviewer who alleged a quote of $1,200 for a job that cost under $350, along with accusations of overselling unnecessary services. Project completion was inconsistent: while the work was technically completed in most cases, it was frequently delayed, required customer follow-up, and in one case the company failed to show up at all. The single positive review, dated 2015, describes a smooth experience but is now nearly a decade old and is outweighed by more recent negative accounts.

• The sole positive review is from 2015 — nearly 10 years old — and should be weighted minimally given the recency rule.
• Four of five reviews are negative (1–2 stars), suggesting a persistent pattern of service failures rather than isolated incidents.
• One reviewer explicitly alleges price gouging: a $1,200 quote for a repair that cost under $350, and upselling of unnecessary services. This is a serious consumer warning.
• The most recent review (2021) confirms the pattern of unreliability has continued over multiple years, indicating no meaningful improvement over time.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and a range of ratings consistent with authentic feedback.

This WW Score is based on a small sample of 5 reviews spanning 2014–2021, but the consistency of negative feedback across professionalism, pricing, and project completion gives moderate-to-high confidence that the low score accurately reflects the contractor's service quality.

Only one review contains actionable plumbing service data; the second review concerns a traffic incident unrelated to plumbing work and is excluded from scoring. The single usable review (2024-03-24) documents severe failures across professionalism, pricing, and project completion: the contractor provided an inadequate bid without identifying critical access issues, failed to complete the primary job, charged full price despite incomplete work, and ignored follow-up communications. With only one data point and no positive mentions of technical skill, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Insufficient data: only 1 review contains plumbing service information; second review (2019-05-02) is a traffic/driving incident unrelated to plumbing work and excluded from analysis
• Single review is heavily negative with no counterbalancing positive feedback; confidence in any score is severely limited
• Review date 2024-03-24 is recent (within 12 months), but sample size of 1 is insufficient for reliable scoring
• No mentions of technical experience or workmanship quality in usable review

This analysis is unreliable due to insufficient data (n=1 usable review). A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a trustworthy WW Score. Current data suggests serious service and communication issues, but cannot be generalized without additional independent reviews.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. Additionally, the single review contains only vague criticism ('crappy job') without specific evidence tied to any of the four scoring dimensions (professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience).

• Only 1 review provided; minimum 3 reviews required for WW Score calculation
• Review lacks specificity and detail; no explicit mention of which dimension(s) were problematic
• Review is from 2020 (over 3 years old); recency is a concern
• Generic negative language without actionable evidence

This score cannot be calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume and lack of specific, dimension-linked evidence in the single review provided.