Find Nearby Plumbers In Grangeville, Idaho

Aqua Plumbing and Rick Marion receive overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers consistently highlight punctuality, responsiveness, courteous communication, and willingness to go above and beyond (including weekend and vacation-time responses). Pricing is described as fair, honest, and transparent across many reviews, with one detailed comparison showing Rick completing three jobs for $196 versus a competitor's quote of over $1,000. Project completion scores are strong, with multiple reviewers noting jobs finished quickly, cleanly, and with follow-through on callbacks and warranty issues. Experience and workmanship are praised extensively, with Rick described as a third-generation master plumber who diagnoses problems accurately and solves them efficiently. Two negative or mixed reviews temper the score slightly: one 1-star review citing no callback on a serious issue, and one 3-star review citing unresponsiveness during a project and a disputed claim about a faucet component.

• 9 reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', or extremely minimal text (e.g., 'Very well.', 'One word!! EXCELLENT') and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• The vast majority of reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback, which warrants mild fake-review awareness scrutiny. However, most reviews contain specific job details, named individuals, and varied phrasing, which reduces the likelihood of systematic fabrication.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years, with many dating back to 2007–2019. Recency weighting was applied: the 12 reviews from 2024–2025 were given higher weight in scoring, and they remain consistently positive, suggesting sustained quality.
• One 1-star review (2022) describes two unreturned voicemails for a serious plumbing issue — a notable responsiveness failure that was factored into the professionalism score.
• One 3-star review (2019) describes unresponsiveness during a project, a refusal to install a customer-supplied disposal, and an alleged false statement about a faucet component — this was factored into both professionalism and experience scores.
• The reviewer named 'Scott' in one review (2013) may refer to a different technician, not Rick — this review was included but noted as potentially referencing a different worker.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over 15 years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and consistent recent positive feedback, making it a HIGH confidence assessment — though users should note that two credible negative reviews raise minor concerns about responsiveness and honesty in isolated incidents.

Noble Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising courteous, punctual technicians and attentive office staff. Project completion scores well overall, with the majority of jobs described as finished efficiently and thoroughly, though a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite missed appointments, no-shows, failed repairs requiring return visits, and at least one job that failed city inspection multiple times. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers praise fair or competitive rates, several credible negative reviews describe charges perceived as excessive, billing for travel time to buy parts, and a $500 charge for a 30-minute repair, pulling the score down significantly. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers noting knowledgeable and skilled technicians, but offset by documented cases of incorrect parts installed, failed repairs, and work that did not pass inspection. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but a consistent pattern of service failures that cannot be ignored.

• 18 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews from 2013–2016 are labeled 'unknown' with no review text and appear to be placeholder or imported records with no substantive content. These were excluded.
• One review (2014-04-23) appears to describe a medical clinic or urgent care facility, not a plumbing company ('campus,' 'kids,' 'injury,' 'schedule depending on the injury'). This review is almost certainly misattributed or fraudulent and was excluded from scoring.
• A cluster of reviews from 2025-05-10 (approximately 8 reviews posted on the same date, several with no text) raises a mild concern about review manipulation or bulk solicitation, though the dated reviews with text on that day appear genuine.
• Multiple negative reviews describe missed appointments and no-shows (2019-10-03, 2020-05-06, 2024-12-11), suggesting a recurring operational issue with scheduling reliability.
• One detailed negative review (2020-12-22) describes a failed repair, an incorrect part installed, a $750 upsell attempt, and a $300 charge for unresolved work — this is a significant quality and ethics flag.
• One review (2017-11-03) describes a water line replacement that failed city inspection three times due to improper fittings, inconsistent technician assignments, a missed callback appointment, and an unresolved leak — a serious project completion failure.
• One review (2024-09-29, 2-star) raises a specific pricing concern: the customer was charged $250/hr labor rate and billed for over an hour of time during which the technician drove to Home Depot to buy parts. The promised itemized receipt was also never delivered.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text span 2018–2025, with the most recent cluster in 2025. Reviews from 2013–2016 are sparse and mostly text-free. Scoring is appropriately weighted toward the more recent and detailed reviews.
• No strong evidence of fully fabricated bot reviews, but the volume of brief, generic 5-star reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Amazing service!!!', 'excellent job', 'Fast and prompt service') moderately inflates the apparent positivity of the review set.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 total, ~107 with usable data) spanning multiple years, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring negative patterns around missed appointments, pricing transparency, and occasional failed workmanship before making a hiring decision.

The majority of recent reviews (2025) for Wizard Plumbing are strongly positive, praising punctuality, communication, and courteous technicians, which drives the professionalism score upward. However, the dataset is a mixed-entity set containing reviews for both Wizard Plumbing and Bennett Plumbing, with Bennett reviews spanning 2003–2023 and including several serious complaints about overcharging, abandoned work, poor workmanship, and unresponsiveness. Pricing is a notable weak point: multiple reviewers across both entities flagged high or non-transparent costs, and one reviewer described a bait-and-switch from a $60 promotional price toward an $8,000 estimate. Project completion is significantly dragged down by credible accounts of incomplete work, recurring clogs after service, a technician who left a job site without finishing, and a plumber who caused damage requiring a second contractor to repair. Experience scores moderately well due to many specific mentions of knowledgeable technicians, but is tempered by documented cases of misdiagnosis and failed repairs.

• MIXED ENTITY WARNING: This review set appears to contain reviews for two distinct businesses — Wizard Plumbing and Drain (recent reviews, 2025) and Bennett Plumbing (older reviews, 2003–2023). These should not be scored together as a single contractor profile. The WW Score reflects the blended dataset but may not accurately represent either business individually.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: The majority of Wizard Plumbing reviews are from 2025 and are overwhelmingly positive. Bennett Plumbing reviews span 2003–2023 and contain most of the negative feedback. Older reviews (pre-2024) should be weighted less, but the negative signals they carry are substantive and cannot be ignored.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN — WIZARD PLUMBING: Several April 10, 2025 reviews reference the same technician (Jonathan) for tankless water heater installations with nearly identical structure, phrasing, and outcomes posted on the same date. This clustering is suspicious and may indicate review manipulation. Confidence in the Wizard Plumbing subset is reduced accordingly.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 8 reviews contained no text (rating only). These were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• SERIOUS COMPLETION FAILURES DOCUMENTED: One review describes a technician leaving mid-job without fixing leaks and the owner refusing to send another plumber. Another describes a clog recurring within two weeks, three failed reschedules, an abandoned camera inspection promise, and a multi-thousand dollar upsell that a second plumber resolved for $500. These are credible, detailed accounts that materially lower the project completion score.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ACROSS BOTH ENTITIES: Multiple reviewers noted prices as high or pricy. One reviewer was charged $300 for a diagnosis without being told the rate upfront. Another was overcharged by $500 relative to the original quote. One reviewer explicitly said they would negotiate on price. These are consistent signals of pricing transparency issues.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE — BENNETT: One review describes plumbing work that failed years later at significant cost. Another describes a technician who caused damage that required a second plumber to fix. A third describes toilets not resealed or caulked after wax ring replacement, with the original leak still present.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-limited reliability due to the mixing of two distinct business entities across a 20-year date range, a suspicious clustering of same-day reviews for Wizard Plumbing that may indicate review manipulation, and a meaningful number of detailed negative reviews describing incomplete work, pricing issues, and workmanship failures that substantively offset the volume of generic positive feedback.

This contractor demonstrates significant inconsistency across projects. Professionalism scores are dragged down by major failures in communication, responsiveness, and follow-through on large projects, despite strong punctuality and politeness in smaller jobs. Pricing is a major concern—multiple reviews document bait-and-switch tactics, dramatic quote increases, and demands for large upfront payments without material justification. Project completion is severely compromised by extended timelines, incomplete work, and reliance on inexperienced laborers with minimal contractor oversight. Technical execution varies wildly: excellent on small plumbing repairs but catastrophically poor on larger construction projects with pervasive quality defects, safety issues, and unfinished work.

• CRITICAL: Two detailed 1-star reviews (2013 and 2012) document severe project failures including misappropriation of funds, incomplete work, structural defects, and water intrusion issues. These are not isolated complaints but systematic patterns across multiple large projects.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple reviews document aggressive upselling, quote increases mid-conversation (4K to 8K), refusal to provide written estimates, and demands for large upfront payments (14K on 21K contract) without corresponding material needs.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Large projects show chronic delays (8 months vs. 2 months promised), minimal contractor presence, reliance on inexperienced son and laborers, incomplete work requiring BBB complaints, and unfinished items at contract end.
• QUALITY CONTROL RED FLAG: Large projects show systematic defects including wavy/uneven concrete, double stamping, gaps allowing pest/water intrusion, bowed beams installed incorrectly, improper flashing requiring 3 replacements, interior doors used on exterior, and water leaks.
• RECENCY BIAS: Positive reviews are predominantly from 2009-2011 (older than 12 months). Negative reviews are from 2012-2013 and 2021. Recent review (2021) shows pattern of delays and rework still present.
• SCALE DEPENDENCY: Contractor performs well on small plumbing jobs (same-day callbacks, quick fixes) but fails catastrophically on large construction projects (roofs, patios, structural work). This suggests competence gap on complex work.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on adequate mention counts, the extreme polarization (five 5-star reviews vs. three 1-star reviews with extensive detail) and clear pattern of scale-dependent performance suggest this contractor is high-risk for large projects despite reliability on small repairs. The detailed documentation of structural defects, financial mismanagement, and incomplete work in the 2012-2013 reviews is particularly concerning and not offset by positive reviews from 2009-2011.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency in service delivery. While positive reviews from 2006–2017 praise responsiveness, professionalism, and fair pricing, a recent 2021 review documents severe communication failures—no answer to phone calls, no voicemail callback, and unresponsiveness during an emergency. The older reviews lack specificity and may reflect outdated service standards. The stark contrast between glowing historical reviews and the recent critical review suggests either a decline in service quality or a change in business operations. The recency and severity of the 2021 complaint (emergency situation, multiple unanswered calls) carries significant weight and raises concerns about current reliability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 4–15 years old (2006–2017). The most recent review (2021) is highly negative and describes serious communication failures during an emergency.
• CONSISTENCY RED FLAG: Stark contradiction between historical 5-star reviews praising responsiveness and the 2021 1-star review documenting complete unresponsiveness. This suggests either service degradation or a fundamental change in operations.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Older reviews use vague language ('very good,' 'very responsive,' 'very professional') without specific details, limiting their diagnostic value.
• SMALL SAMPLE WITH OUTLIER: Only 5 reviews total; the single recent review is a severe outlier that dominates the recency-weighted assessment.

This score should be treated with caution. While historical reviews suggest competence, the recent critical review describing communication failure during an emergency is recent, specific, and contradicts the older pattern. The contractor's current responsiveness and reliability are questionable based on available evidence.

Only a single review is available, dated January 2015, making it over a decade old and of very limited reliability. The review mentions same-day Sunday service, which implies responsiveness and some degree of follow-through, but provides no detail on workmanship, pricing, or outcome. Scores for professionalism and project completion are assigned conservatively given the minimal and vague evidence. Pricing and experience dimensions have no data whatsoever and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from January 2015, making it approximately 10 years old. Recency weighting heavily penalizes this data point.
• Review text is extremely brief ('Same day Sunday service.') with no specifics — provides almost no actionable signal across any dimension.
• Single 5-star rating with no detail raises generic praise concern, though sample size is too small to confirm a fake review pattern.

This score should not be trusted for any meaningful decision-making — it is based on a single, decade-old, one-sentence review with no detail on pricing, workmanship, or project outcome.