Find Nearby Plumbers In Boise City, Idaho

John's Plumbing shows strong professionalism and reasonable pricing based on positive reviews, with easy scheduling, clear communication, and responsive service noted. However, a critical 1-star review from 2019 raises serious concerns about project completion and quality control—specifically a loose fitting that caused crawlspace flooding after repair work, with the contractor refusing to take responsibility. This failure to stand behind work and make things right directly contradicts the quality expectations of a professional contractor. The small sample size (3 reviews) and age of reviews (all from 2019–2020) further limit confidence in this assessment.

• CRITICAL: One severe negative review (1-star, 2019) describes incomplete/defective work resulting in property damage (crawlspace flooding). Contractor allegedly refused to take responsibility for a loose fitting left during repair work.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All three reviews are from 2019–2020 (4–5 years old). No recent reviews available to assess current performance or whether issues have been corrected.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Score reliability is inherently limited with this few data points.
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: Two 5-star reviews praise professionalism and pricing, but one 1-star review describes serious quality and accountability failures. This suggests inconsistent service delivery or a significant incident that damaged trust.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews), age of all reviews (4–5 years), and a critical quality/accountability failure documented in one review that directly contradicts the positive claims in others. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed without recent reviews.

Perfect Plumbing's review corpus reveals a deeply polarized customer base, with a significant majority of negative reviews centered on pricing and alleged fraudulent diagnostic practices. The pricing dimension is the most damaging, with over 40 reviews explicitly citing extreme overcharging, hidden fees, and high-pressure upselling — including multiple independent accounts of fabricated heat exchanger cracks used to sell unnecessary system replacements. Project completion and follow-through are severely undermined by repeated no-show incidents, broken scheduling promises, unresolved callbacks, and at least one case of work that failed shortly after completion. Professionalism scores slightly higher due to a consistent pattern of individual technicians being described as friendly and courteous, but this is heavily offset by systemic failures in communication, scheduling, and management responsiveness. Experience scores are mixed: positive reviews praise thorough and knowledgeable technicians, while multiple negative reviews describe misdiagnoses, incorrect work placement, and technical errors that required correction by competitors.

• FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: At least 7 independent reviews across multiple years describe the same alleged scam — technicians claiming cracked heat exchangers with photographic 'evidence,' red-tagging functional furnaces, and immediately dispatching a sales representative. Second opinions in every documented case found no issues. This is a highly specific, repeated pattern consistent with a systemic deceptive sales practice rather than isolated technician error.
• VULNERABLE ADULT EXPLOITATION: One review explicitly describes a $13,000 HVAC system sold to a legally incapacitated adult under guardianship, with pre-filled rebate documentation containing false information about the old system. This is a serious ethical and potentially legal flag.
• PRICING OUTLIERS: Numerous reviews cite quotes 2x to 10x above market rate for standard jobs (e.g., $545 for a $7 drain stopper, $2,600 labor-only for a warranted compressor vs. $425 from a competitor, $1,900 for a water heater vs. $900 elsewhere). The company's own staff acknowledged 'they are not known for their bargains.'
• SCHEDULING AND FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe repeated no-shows across consecutive days, broken promises of callback, and failure to honor service plan commitments — including one customer left without hot water despite an active paid maintenance plan.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most severe fraud-related reviews (heat exchanger scam, vulnerable adult exploitation, high-pressure upselling) are concentrated in the 2020–2024 date range, suggesting these are not legacy issues but ongoing practices. Older reviews (2016–2018) show a higher proportion of positive experiences, indicating a possible decline in service quality and ethics over time.
• POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: The positive reviews, while genuine in tone and specific in detail, are heavily outnumbered and largely describe individual technician interactions rather than company-wide practices. Several positive reviewers note they would recommend the plumbing side but not the HVAC side, suggesting departmental inconsistency.
• NO SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Positive reviews contain specific technician names, dates, and situational details consistent with authentic experiences. They are not flagged as fake, but they represent a minority voice against a substantial body of serious complaints.

This WW Score of 38.2 is based on 63 reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this company's overall service quality; the score is likely accurate or possibly even generous given the volume and specificity of fraud-related complaints, extreme pricing concerns, and systemic follow-through failures documented across multiple years.

Professionalism receives a moderate score as all four reviews mention courteous, respectful staff, but two reviews involve situations where no work was ultimately performed, limiting the full picture. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with two reviewers explicitly describing quotes as shockingly high and one noting hidden charges not disclosed upfront, driving that score down significantly. Project completion data is thin — only two reviews describe completed work, both of which were positive, but the small sample warrants conservative scoring. Experience scores similarly conservatively: the two reviews describing completed work praised quality and thoroughness, but the limited sample and age of those reviews (2015 and 2019) reduce confidence.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Two of the four reviews describe situations where no work was completed due to pricing disputes, meaning project completion and experience data are drawn from only 2 reviews.
• The most positive review (5-star, detailed praise) is dated 2015 — nearly a decade old — and should be weighted less heavily than more recent reviews.
• The second-oldest usable review is from 2019. The two most recent reviews (2020, 2022) are both negative, suggesting a possible decline in pricing transparency over time.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, which is consistent with authentic feedback.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 7 years, with the most recent data skewing negative on pricing; the score should be considered highly preliminary and insufficient for confident contractor evaluation.

Top Dog Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 38.2, driven by severe and consistent failures across all dimensions. The company demonstrates poor professionalism through rude communication, unresponsiveness, and aggressive collection tactics. Pricing is a major weakness with multiple complaints of overcharging (double market rates, $450 for simple cleanouts, $6,100 main replacements that competitors completed for $300). Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete work, failed repairs, and refusal to honor callbacks or warranty obligations. While some technicians (Joe Rosario, Matthew) show competence, the majority of reviews describe incompetent workmanship, failed diagnostics, and shoddy repairs. The company's business license was revoked according to one review, and multiple reviews describe harassment and coercive payment collection.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews describe aggressive and potentially illegal collection practices, including refusing to leave property without payment, depositing multiple checks without authorization, and harassment via voicemails and property visits.
• CRITICAL: One review (2023) indicates the company's plumbing license was revoked and phones were disconnected, suggesting potential business closure or regulatory action.
• PATTERN: Consistent overcharging across multiple reviews ($450 cleanout, $6,100 main replacement vs. $300 competitor quote, $450 for poor drywall repair).
• PATTERN: Multiple reports of failed work requiring re-repair by other contractors, indicating systemic quality issues.
• RECENCY: Most negative reviews are from 2022-2024 (recent), while positive reviews are older (2021 and earlier), suggesting deterioration in service quality over time.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing reviews (Joe Rosario, Matthew, 10-year customer) and severe complaints, suggesting highly variable service quality or possible selective positive review posting.

This score is highly reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 10 reviews with consistent negative patterns across all dimensions, particularly regarding pricing, completion, and professionalism. However, the presence of some genuinely positive reviews (Joe Rosario, Matthew) indicates the company may have had competent technicians, though overall organizational practices appear deeply problematic. The apparent license revocation and business disruption noted in recent reviews further validate the low score.

This contractor shows severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Multiple reviews document incomplete projects, non-responsiveness to customer calls and emails, and significant quality issues with major installations ($12k–$18k systems). Pricing concerns include overbilling for minor work and customer perception of scam attempts. While two older positive reviews (2015, 2021) praise professionalism and fair pricing, they are heavily outweighed by five recent negative reviews (2018–2023) documenting abandoned work, licensing violations, installation failures, and poor communication. The pattern of complaints is specific and detailed, not generic, suggesting legitimate grievances rather than fake reviews.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document incomplete project work and customer abandonment. Review from 2022-05-09 explicitly states contractor is not licensed for electrical/plumbing services performed.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2021–2023 (recent period), while positive reviews are from 2015 and 2021. Recent trend is strongly negative.
• PATTERN OF NON-RESPONSIVENESS: Three separate reviews mention failure to return calls, texts, or emails after large payments ($12k–$18k).
• QUALITY FAILURES: Multiple installation defects documented (freezing water, improper drainage, cooling failures, water leaks into walls) on high-value systems.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Evidence of overbilling (charging for 2 people when 1 worked, charging for 1 hour when 0.5 hours worked) and threat of legal action when questioned.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS APPEAR GENERIC: The 2015 and 2021 positive reviews lack specific technical detail compared to the detailed complaints in negative reviews, though they do not show identical phrasing patterns.

This WW Score of 38.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted. The score is based on consistent, specific, and detailed complaints across multiple recent reviews documenting serious failures in project completion, communication, and professionalism, corroborated by evidence of licensing violations and billing disputes. The few positive reviews are older and insufficient to offset the pattern of documented harm.

This contractor shows severe and consistent deficiencies in professionalism and project completion. Two of three reviews (both from 2019-2021) document critical failures: no-shows, unresponsiveness to calls/texts/emails, unprepared work, and theft of customer property. The single positive review from 2016 praises pricing and technical knowledge, but is significantly outweighed by recent documented failures. The contractor's admission that plumbing is a 'side job' appears correlated with poor service delivery. Overall reliability is severely compromised.

• CRITICAL: Two recent reviews (2019, 2021) document serious professional failures including no-shows, non-responsiveness, and alleged theft of customer property. These are not minor complaints.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The single positive review is from 2016 (8+ years old). The two negative reviews are from 2019 and 2021, suggesting deterioration in service quality over time.
• PATTERN ALERT: Both negative reviews explicitly mention the contractor treating plumbing as a 'side job,' suggesting systemic lack of commitment to customer service.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Multiple mentions of ignoring customer communications (calls, texts, emails) and no-shows to scheduled appointments indicate fundamental business practice failures.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total limits confidence, but the consistency of recent failures is concerning.

This score should be trusted with moderate confidence. While the sample size is small, the pattern of recent critical failures (no-shows, non-responsiveness, property disputes) is consistent and documented across multiple reviews, outweighing the single older positive review. The contractor appears unreliable for professional plumbing work.