Find Nearby Plumbers In Coeur D'Alene, Idaho

Mr. Faucet (Pat/Nick) generally receives positive feedback for fair pricing, technical competence, and quick turnaround on smaller jobs like disposal replacements and faucet repairs. Several reviewers specifically praised honesty and value, including one notable instance where the plumber talked a customer through a fix for free rather than charging a service call. However, one serious negative review from 2019 describes a deeply concerning incident of aggressive, threatening behavior by Pat Crowley toward a tenant, which significantly weighs down the professionalism score. Project completion is also tempered by one review noting a walk-in shower job that took four months to finish, suggesting potential issues with larger, longer-term projects.

• SERIOUS CONDUCT FLAG: One review (2019-11-20) describes the plumber physically invading a tenant's personal space, making contact with their face, and using abusive language. This is a significant professionalism and safety concern that cannot be dismissed.
• ONE BLANK REVIEW: The review dated 2015-06-11 contains only a period with no text. It was excluded from usable data as it provides no actionable information.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Several reviews are more than 3 years old (2011, 2015, 2016, 2019, 2020, 2021). Only 3 reviews fall within the past 24 months (2022–2023), limiting confidence in current service quality.
• DUAL TECHNICIAN NAMES: Reviews reference both 'Pat' and 'Nick' as the plumber, suggesting either multiple technicians or inconsistent identification. This makes it difficult to attribute all reviews to a single individual's performance.
• PROJECT TIMELINE CONCERN: One reviewer noted a 4-month completion time for a walk-in shower, which may indicate capacity or scheduling issues on larger projects.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review pool, significant age of many reviews, a serious unresolved conduct complaint, and ambiguity around whether 'Pat' and 'Nick' represent the same or different technicians — prospective customers should weigh the harassment incident heavily before hiring.

H2O Well Service demonstrates mixed performance across all dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down by billing disputes, poor communication (hung-up calls), and inconsistent responsiveness, though many reviews praise staff courtesy and quick dispatch. Pricing concerns are significant, with multiple complaints about unnecessary charges, overpriced services, and billing for work not completed or items not delivered. Project completion is problematic—several reviews document incomplete troubleshooting, abandoned follow-ups, and work that required redoing by competitors. Experience is the strongest dimension, with consistent praise for knowledgeable technicians like Mark, Vince, and Tad, though some reviews indicate inconsistent quality depending on which technician is assigned. The company appears to have 1-2 exceptional technicians but struggles with consistency across the team.

• Significant recency bias: 5 of 12 reviews are from 2018 or earlier (more than 5 years old); only 3 reviews from 2024. Recent reviews are more positive, but historical pattern shows serious billing and completion issues.
• Billing and billing communication is a recurring problem across multiple reviews (3 separate complaints about charges, unpaid bills, billing for undelivered services, and poor manager communication).
• Inconsistent quality: Multiple reviews indicate that outcome depends heavily on which technician is assigned; some are excellent (Mark, Tad, Vince), others appear less competent.
• Diagnostic competency concerns: Two detailed reviews (2018-11-28 and 2018-08-17) describe inadequate troubleshooting that led to unnecessary repairs and customer dissatisfaction.
• No fake review pattern detected, but positive reviews tend to be generic praise while negative reviews are highly detailed and specific, suggesting negative reviews may be more reliable.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias (most detailed reviews are 5+ years old) and a pattern of serious billing/completion issues that appear to have persisted over time. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting evidence: strong technical skill in select technicians versus systemic problems in diagnostics, billing practices, and follow-through. Recent 2024 reviews are more positive, but insufficient volume to determine if problems have been resolved.

All three reviews speak positively to professionalism, noting promptness, clear communication, friendly attitudes, and strong office staff — this is the best-supported dimension. Project completion and experience are backed by two reviews each, most notably the detailed account of Matt persisting through a severely clogged drain with multiple techniques until the job was done. Pricing is mentioned in two reviews but with nuance: one reviewer noted the company was 'not the cheapest' while another described costs as 'within typical costs,' suggesting fair but not budget pricing. Overall the picture is positive, but the very small review pool and the age of some reviews (one from 2017, one from 2022) significantly limit reliability.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution.
• One review is from 2017 (over 6 years old) and one from 2022 (over 1 year old) — only one review falls within the past 12 months, reducing recency confidence.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings. While the reviews contain specific details and do not appear to be fake, the absence of any critical feedback means the score may not reflect a complete picture of performance.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning a 6-year period, with just one review from the past 12 months, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be treated as a definitive assessment of current performance.

Burkhart Plumbing shows generally positive signals across all four dimensions, but the review base is too small to draw firm conclusions. Professionalism is supported by explicit mentions of punctuality, friendliness, and clear communication in the most detailed review. Pricing received a mixed signal — the bid was noted as the lowest among competitors, but the reviewer also found it higher than personally expected and criticized a lack of itemization, which tempers the score. Project completion and experience are supported only by brief, generic praise in two reviews with no specific detail about work quality or outcomes. The overall picture is cautiously positive but not yet substantiated.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated as preliminary only.
• Two of the three reviews (dated 2024-03-07) are brief and generic with no specific details about the work performed, pricing, or outcomes. This pattern is consistent with low-effort or potentially unverified reviews.
• All three reviews are 4–5 stars with no critical feedback beyond one minor pricing note, which warrants mild caution about review authenticity or selection bias.
• Recency: All three reviews are within the past 12 months (2024), which is a positive signal, but the sample size remains insufficient for reliable scoring.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which lack substantive detail, and should be considered highly preliminary — do not rely on this score without gathering significantly more review data.

Rants Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and also the most damaging: numerous reviews across multiple years describe rude technicians, failure to return calls, no-call no-shows, and dismissive or hostile behavior toward female homeowners and elderly customers — dragging the score well below average despite a meaningful number of positive mentions praising responsiveness and courtesy. Pricing scores moderately, with several reviewers praising fair and honest pricing, but offset by credible complaints of overbilling, charging for work not performed, and hidden labor charges. Project completion is mixed: many positive reviews describe same-day or next-day service and completed jobs, but recurring complaints about no-shows, abandoned appointments, unresolved callbacks, and at least one serious safety/code violation incident lower the score significantly. Experience similarly splits between genuine praise for skilled, knowledgeable technicians like Michael and Danny, and serious negative accounts including a dropped and broken toilet, an improperly installed disposal, and a dangerous electrical disconnect wiring failure. The volume and specificity of negative reviews across a long time span prevent this contractor from scoring in the upper range on any dimension.

• 10 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• One review (2024-06-09, 1-star) explicitly states the reviewer has never used the business and is complaining about a personal confrontation in a park. This review was excluded from all dimension scoring as it does not reflect service quality.
• One review (2017-09-21, 5-star) consists entirely of dots/periods with no content. Excluded from scoring.
• One review (2014-02-03, 5-star) states 'I know the Rants Family' — this may reflect a personal relationship rather than an objective customer experience and should be treated with caution.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2022-2024 are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Honest!!!', 'Quick and efficient', 'Michael was great! Very nice and tidy') with no specific detail. While not conclusively fake, their low specificity limits their evidentiary weight.
• A cluster of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09 includes both strongly positive and strongly negative reviews, suggesting a possible review solicitation or review bombing event around that date.
• The majority of reviews older than 2020 carry reduced weight per recency rules. However, negative patterns (rudeness, no-shows, overbilling) appear consistently across all time periods including 2024 and 2025, indicating these are not isolated historical issues.
• The most recent reviews (2025) are both 1-star complaints about attitude and unprofessionalism, which is a concerning recency signal.

This WW Score is based on a large review set with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the persistent and specific nature of negative reviews spanning over a decade through to 2025, suggesting systemic rather than isolated service quality issues.

This contractor exhibits a stark and troubling pattern of inconsistency. Positive reviews (3 of 7) praise professionalism, responsiveness, technical skill, and project completion. However, negative reviews (4 of 7) document serious behavioral issues including verbal threats, physical aggression, abusive owner conduct, and condescending communication. Pricing complaints are consistent across multiple reviews, with allegations of hidden charges, overcharging, and lack of transparency. The most recent positive review is from 2023, while negative reviews span 2013–2016, suggesting possible past issues, but the 2023 review does not address pricing or owner interaction directly. The contractor's professionalism score is heavily dragged down by documented aggressive and disrespectful behavior toward customers.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document verbal threats, physical aggression, and abusive behavior by the owner. One review explicitly states the owner 'threatened me in front of my daughter' and 'got physically aggressive' with language about putting the customer 'in the hospital.' This is a serious red flag for customer safety and business ethics.
• PRICING PATTERN: Four separate reviews cite overcharging, hidden fees, lack of transparency on costs, and condescending responses when customers questioned pricing. This suggests a systemic pricing issue, not isolated incidents.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple reviews specifically name the owner (Michael Poole) as rude, disrespectful, condescending, and abusive in direct customer interactions. This is a leadership and culture issue.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Negative reviews are from 2013–2016 (7–10 years old), while the most recent positive review is from 2023. However, the 2023 review does not address pricing or direct owner interaction, so it does not fully contradict the historical pattern.
• INCONSISTENCY: The stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and 1-star reviews with detailed allegations suggests either highly variable service quality or that the contractor treats different customer segments very differently (e.g., 'big clients and wealthy clients' vs. walk-in customers).

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 54.8 reflects the mixed data, the underlying pattern is more concerning than the score suggests: documented aggressive and threatening behavior, consistent pricing complaints, and owner conduct issues represent serious red flags that transcend typical service quality variation. The positive reviews do not address or refute the behavioral and pricing allegations. Potential customers should review the detailed negative reviews and BBB complaints before engaging this contractor.