Find Nearby Plumbers In Boise City, Idaho

McCrea Plumbing & Heating demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. The company exhibits a consistent pattern of grossly inflated pricing (parts marked up 10-15x retail cost, excessive labor charges), with 12 reviews explicitly documenting overcharging and deceptive billing practices. Project completion is compromised by incomplete work, failed repairs within days, and unfinished installations spanning multiple days. Professionalism is undermined by late arrivals without notice, dismissive attitudes toward customers, unresponsiveness to complaints, and refusal to provide itemized statements. Technical competence is questionable, with multiple reviews documenting misdiagnoses, unnecessary part replacements, and faked safety tests that were contradicted by second opinions. Only one positive review (5-star) mentions a technician named Thomas performing competent work, but this is vastly outweighed by 12 one-star reviews documenting fraud-like behavior.

• CRITICAL: Overwhelming pattern of alleged fraud and deceptive practices across 12 of 13 reviews. Multiple customers report being charged for unnecessary repairs, parts, and labor after obtaining second opinions that contradicted McCrea's diagnoses.
• CRITICAL: Systematic overpricing documented in at least 8 reviews. Examples include: $1,350 for a $100 part; $960 for a faucet replacement; $720 for a $128 control board; $4,500 for septic work later determined to be at wrong location; $4,000 for furnace replacement when system was later confirmed operational.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document faked or improper safety testing (carbon monoxide test faked on two occasions per one review), raising serious safety and legal concerns.
• CRITICAL: Ownership change noted in reviews (pre-2019) correlates with quality decline. Company appears to have deteriorated significantly after ownership transition.
• Pattern of non-responsiveness: Owner ignores customer emails; office staff unable/unwilling to provide itemized statements; no apologies for late arrivals.
• Only 1 positive review (5-star) out of 13, with minimal detail. All other 12 reviews are 1-2 stars with extensive, specific documentation of problems. This is NOT a fake review pattern but rather a genuine reputation crisis.
• Review dates span 2019-2022, with most concentrated in 2019-2021. No recent positive reviews to suggest improvement.

This WW Score of 24.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 13 detailed reviews with consistent, specific allegations of overcharging, misdiagnosis, incomplete work, and unprofessional conduct. The overwhelming consensus across independent reviewers, corroborated by second opinions from competing contractors, indicates systemic problems rather than isolated incidents. This company presents significant financial and safety risks to consumers.

The overwhelming pattern across these reviews is one of no-shows, unreturned calls, and abandoned jobs — a catastrophic failure in both professionalism and project completion. Six of seven reviews describe the contractor failing to appear for scheduled appointments without any communication or follow-up, which drives the professionalism and project completion scores to near-zero levels. The single positive review does mention timely arrival, reasonable pricing, and competent repair work, providing a small amount of favorable data for pricing and experience, but it is far outweighed by the volume and severity of the negative accounts. The WW Score of 22.1 reflects a contractor whose core reliability is deeply compromised based on the available evidence.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are from 2017–2021, with no reviews in the past 12 months. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• PATTERN FLAG: A highly consistent pattern of no-show behavior and non-responsiveness appears across 6 of 7 reviews spanning multiple years, suggesting this is a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• SINGLE POSITIVE REVIEW: The one 5-star review (2017-03-22) is notably brief and generic compared to the detailed negative accounts. While not conclusively fake, it carries very low weight given the volume of contradicting evidence.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 total reviews were available. While sufficient to calculate a WW Score, the pricing and experience dimensions are based on 1–2 mentions each and should be treated as low-confidence data points.

The WW Score carries HIGH confidence for the professionalism and project completion dimensions due to consistent, detailed, multi-year evidence from 6 independent reviewers, but the overall score should be interpreted cautiously given the small total review pool and the age of the most recent reviews.

All three reviews are strongly negative, painting a consistent picture of a contractor with serious deficiencies across every dimension. Professionalism is rated near zero due to rude owner behavior, property damage with no accountability, and aggressive legal retaliation against a disputing customer. Pricing concerns are severe, with one reviewer alleging double-charging and delivery of used or broken equipment from another job. Project completion is critically poor — in all three cases the original problem was left unresolved or made worse, and two reviewers explicitly had to hire a second company to correct the work. Workmanship and technical experience are also deeply questionable, with reviewers citing failure to diagnose problems, broken equipment, and substandard repairs leaving systems operating at a fraction of normal capacity.

• All three reviews are 1-star with highly specific, credible negative details — no fake review pattern detected; these appear to be genuine complaints.
• Two of the three reviews are dated 2021, making them over 3 years old; only one review (2024) falls within the past 12 months. The 2024 review is the most severe and most recent, suggesting problems have not improved.
• Reviewer from 2024 alleges property lien and legal action taken against a disputing customer — this is a significant red flag indicating potential predatory business practices.
• Multiple reviewers report being forced to hire a second contractor to fix work done by this company — a strong pattern of incomplete or failed project delivery.
• Allegation of delivering open-box or previously used equipment from another job and charging full price warrants serious caution.

With only 3 reviews, the sample size is very small and confidence is limited; however, the consistency and specificity of the negative feedback across all three reviews — spanning professionalism, pricing, completion, and workmanship — makes the low WW Score directionally reliable as a warning signal.

This business is NOT a plumbing contractor but rather a commercial HVAC and plumbing supply distributor (Ferguson). The reviews reveal severe professionalism issues including unresponsiveness, refusal to serve customers without accounts despite no prior disclosure, and poor customer service. Pricing data is minimal and mixed. No meaningful data exists on project completion or technical experience as this is a parts supplier, not a service contractor. The WW Score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient dimensional coverage and the fundamental mismatch between the business model and the scoring framework designed for service contractors.

• CRITICAL: This business is a commercial supply distributor (Ferguson), NOT a plumbing contractor or service provider. The WW Score framework is designed for service contractors and is fundamentally misaligned with this business model.
• Multiple reviews (2019, 2010) describe refusal to sell parts to customers without pre-established accounts, with no prior disclosure of this requirement during phone inquiries. This represents a serious professionalism and customer service failure.
• One review (2024-06-20) describes a threatening incident involving a gun and motorcycle, which is a serious safety and conduct concern unrelated to business operations but reflects on the environment.
• Review from 2013 appears to be about a Kitchen-Aid refrigerator product complaint, not Ferguson services—likely misattributed or cross-posted review.
• Review from 2016 contains only 'unknown' text with a 5-star rating—insufficient data, treated as unusable.
• Most reviews are older than 1 year (5 of 7 usable reviews from 2010-2019). Only 1 recent review from 2024.
• Professionalism score of 42 is driven by explicit mentions of poor communication, unresponsiveness, and refusal to serve. This is well-evidenced but represents a supply distributor context, not a service contractor.

This score is unreliable and should not be used. The business is a commercial supply distributor, not a plumbing service contractor, making the WW Score framework inappropriate. Additionally, only 2 of 4 dimensions have data, most reviews are 5+ years old, and the business model does not align with service-based scoring criteria.

All five reviews are from 2012–2013 (11–12 years old), which significantly limits the reliability of this assessment. Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with explicit mentions of punctuality, cleanliness, honesty, and responsiveness across four reviews. Experience is supported by three reviews praising skill and workmanship. Pricing is mentioned in only two reviews, both positively. Project completion is mentioned in only two reviews with positive outcomes. The uniformly high ratings (all 5-star) with minimal specificity and the age of the reviews raise concerns about data freshness and representativeness.

• All reviews are 11–12 years old (2012–2013). No recent data available to assess current performance or reliability.
• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or critical detail. This uniformity, combined with age, limits confidence in current accuracy.
• Insufficient recent data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Recommend collecting current reviews before making contractor decisions.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient recent data and the absence of any critical or mixed feedback. Reviews from 2012–2013 do not reflect current performance, and all five being perfect 5-star ratings without substantive detail raises questions about representativeness. Do not rely on this assessment for current contractor evaluation.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 4 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews needed for a reliable WW Score calculation. While the reviews present are uniformly positive, they lack sufficient volume and specificity across dimensions to establish trustworthy scoring. Professionalism and project completion each have only 2 mentions, and experience has only 1 mention. Pricing is not addressed in any review.

• CRITICAL: Only 4 total reviews — sample size is too small for reliable scoring
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Review from 2018-08-06 contains generic, flowery language ('most amazing and wonderful companies') with no specific technical details; appears potentially promotional or fake
• RECENCY ISSUE: 50% of reviews are older than 3 years (2018 and 2019); only 2 reviews from past 12 months
• PRICING DIMENSION: Zero mentions across all reviews — cannot assess value or fairness
• All reviews are 5-star with minimal critical detail — lack of balanced feedback raises authenticity concerns

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=4) and suspicious patterns suggesting potential fake or promotional reviews; do not rely on this assessment for contractor selection.