Find Nearby Plumbers Companies In 83401, Idaho Falls, Idaho

Integrity Plumbing shows mixed performance across a small sample of reviews. Professionalism is moderately supported with mentions of on-time arrivals, knowledgeable technicians, and responsive scheduling across multiple reviews. However, a critical pricing complaint involving warranty fraud allegations and unprofessional management response (office staff yelling at customer) significantly undermines trust. Project completion appears solid with timely service and thorough work noted, while technical expertise is demonstrated but mentioned in only 2 reviews. The company's overall score is dragged down substantially by the serious pricing and customer service integrity issue.

• CRITICAL: One review alleges warranty fraud (charging for covered part) and unprofessional management conduct (office staff yelling at customer for negative review). This is a serious red flag for business practices and customer service integrity.
• Very small sample size (3 reviews only) limits reliability of scoring. Two positive reviews are generic in praise with minimal specific detail, while the negative review is highly specific and damaging.
• Recency concern: Most recent review is from November 2023, but one review is from January 2022 (nearly 2 years old). The fraud allegation is from March 2023, suggesting ongoing issues.
• Potential pattern: Two 5-star reviews use similar generic language ('amazing service,' 'outstanding service,' 'couldn't be happier') with limited specifics, while the 1-star review is detailed and credible. This asymmetry warrants caution.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and the presence of a serious, specific allegation of warranty fraud paired with unprofessional management response. The score is heavily influenced by one damaging review, and additional recent reviews are needed to establish reliable performance trends.

D&R Plumbing shows severe inconsistency in service quality and customer outcomes. While two recent reviews (2024, 2020) praise technician Victor's professionalism, punctuality, and fair pricing, three older reviews (2022, 2021) document serious failures in technical competence, project completion, and accountability. Critical issues include misdiagnosis of a common plumbing problem requiring three service calls, unnecessary recommendations for cabinet removal, poor A/C diagnostics leading to system failure, and unresponsive management when complaints were raised. The company's handling of a $8k HVAC system installation was particularly problematic, with the owner allegedly being condescending and refusing accountability. Competing plumbers have explicitly warned against using this company due to frequent mistakes requiring correction.

• SEVERE QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews feature technician 'Victor' while negative reviews involve 'Doug' (owner). This suggests individual technician variance rather than consistent company standards.
• RECENCY BIAS CONCERN: The two positive reviews are from 2024 and 2020, while the three most damaging reviews are from 2021-2022. The 2022 review documents ongoing issues with a system installed in 2022, suggesting problems may persist.
• TECHNICAL COMPETENCE RED FLAG: Multiple reviews document failures in basic plumbing diagnostics (roof drain snake solution described as 'plumbing 101'), misdiagnosis of A/C systems, and recommendations for unnecessary work (cabinet removal).
• ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: Owner allegedly refused to take responsibility, blamed customers, made threats about additional charges, and did not respond to complaints. One customer reported being 'in tears' from treatment.
• THIRD-PARTY CORROBORATION: A competing plumber explicitly warned 'Stay away!' and stated they regularly fix D&R's mistakes, lending credibility to customer complaints.
• DEPOSIT/TERMS CONCERN: One review warns about problematic terms and conditions regarding deposits and scheduling.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews) and stark polarization between positive and negative experiences. The WW Score of 54.3 reflects serious documented failures in technical competence and customer service, but the presence of recent positive reviews (2024) suggests possible improvement or inconsistent service delivery. Potential customers should request Victor specifically and verify references for similar-scale projects before committing.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across a small and largely outdated review set. The two most recent reviews with usable data — from 2019 and 2012 — include serious complaints: one describes a failed leak repair that worsened the problem, a complete lack of callback responsiveness across 8 attempts, and a charge of over $500 for unresolved work; another describes a job left unfinished and bad technical advice that caused installation problems. These failures heavily drag down project completion and professionalism scores. The positive reviews, while enthusiastic, are all from 2010–2012 and describe a different pattern of responsive, friendly, and competitively priced service — suggesting possible decline in quality or consistency over time. With only 5 usable reviews spanning nearly a decade, confidence in any dimension is limited and the WW Score should be treated with significant caution.

• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent reviews with usable data are from 2019 and 2012. The positive reviews are all from 2010–2012, making them over 10 years old. These older reviews carry significantly reduced weight in assessing current contractor quality.
• One review contained only the word 'unknown' with a 4-star rating and no usable content — excluded from scoring.
• The 2019 review describes a serious pattern of non-responsiveness (8 unanswered calls in 24 hours, no one present at the business location), which may indicate the business was no longer actively operating at that time.
• POTENTIAL QUALITY DECLINE: The contrast between glowing 2010–2012 reviews and the negative 2012 and 2019 reviews suggests a possible deterioration in service quality or business operations over time.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 5 usable reviews total. No dimension reaches the 5-mention threshold for HIGH confidence. All scores should be treated as low-reliability estimates.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to a very small review sample, a wide date range spanning over a decade, and a stark quality split between old positive reviews and more recent negative ones — it should not be used as a confident indicator of current contractor performance.

With only two reviews, the data is extremely limited and no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The negative review is highly detailed and damaging, describing a 3-hour late arrival, a bill that more than doubled the quoted price ($600 quoted vs $1,500 charged), unauthorized use of the customer's equipment, and an unresponsive owner who dismissed the complaint. The positive review is vague, contains no specific detail, and includes a promotional URL, raising authenticity concerns. The contrast between these two reviews creates significant uncertainty about this contractor's actual performance.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW: The 5-star review contains a promotional hyperlink (https://poopdudessepticservice.com/), uses generic praise with no specific detail, and reads more like an advertisement than a genuine customer experience. This review should be treated with very low credibility.
• PRICING CONCERN: The negative review explicitly describes a bait-and-switch pricing pattern — a $600 phone quote that became a $1,500 bill on-site, with disputed charges for digging the customer had already performed.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: The contractor arrived 3 hours late and the owner failed to adequately address the customer's complaint, suggesting poor communication and accountability.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews were provided. A minimum of 3 is required for a reliable WW Score. Results should not be used for decision-making without additional review data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The negative review is from February 2023 and the positive review is from August 2024. The more recent review is the suspected fake, meaning the most credible data point is over 1 year old.

This score report has very low reliability due to an insufficient number of reviews, a likely fake 5-star review, and a single highly detailed negative review that dominates the usable data — prospective customers should seek additional references before hiring.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer noted the technician was prompt and resolved the dryer noise issue, suggesting adequate professionalism and project completion. Pricing was described as 'reasonable,' indicating acceptable value. Problem identification and resolution implies a baseline level of technical competence, though no detail was provided about the complexity of the repair. All scores are intentionally conservative given the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention each and should be treated with very low confidence.
• The review is brief and lacks specific detail, making it difficult to assess true quality across dimensions.
• Cannot rule out recency bias — only one data point from April 2024 is available.

This score is not reliable and should not be used for decision-making; a minimum of 3 reviews is required, and meaningful confidence requires 5 or more reviews per dimension.

This single review is highly detailed and specific, describing multiple visits, named technicians, a complex diagnostic process, and a satisfying permanent resolution — all strong indicators of authenticity. Professionalism scores near the top due to explicit praise of demeanor, communication, punctuality (within one hour on a weekend), and thoughtful cleanup. Pricing scores very high because the crew repeatedly declined to charge for follow-up visits stemming from the original issue, demonstrating exceptional value transparency. Project completion is nearly perfect given the persistent follow-through across multiple visits until the root cause was permanently resolved. Experience is strongly evidenced by the systematic camera mapping, accurate diagnosis of a broken cleanout, and successful excavation and repair. However, all scores carry only LIMITED confidence because they rest on a single review, and no WW Score can be reliably calculated with fewer than three reviews.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All four dimensions are scored at LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis; scores should not be treated as statistically representative.
• No fake review indicators detected — review contains specific names (Jason, Ben, Spencer), a detailed multi-day narrative, and nuanced emotional context, all consistent with an authentic account.
• Review is dated 2024-05-09, which falls within the past 12 months relative to mid-2025, so recency is not a concern.

This score report is based on a single, high-quality and apparently authentic review and should be considered directionally positive but statistically unreliable until a minimum of 3 reviews are available for analysis.