Find Nearby Plumbers In Idaho Falls, Idaho

Action Mechanical presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Positive reviews frequently praise prompt response times, friendly technicians, and successful job completions — particularly for water heater replacements and HVAC repairs. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews raises serious concerns across all dimensions: multiple customers report being charged for travel time, inflated labor hours, work left incomplete or done incorrectly, and rude or dismissive responses from management (specifically named as Tim and Myron) when billing disputes arose. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous detailed complaints about hidden charges, mileage fees, charges for time spent doing nothing, and final bills far exceeding verbal quotes. Project completion is also significantly undermined by multiple accounts of work that failed shortly after completion, required a second company to fix, or was abandoned for extended periods. The professionalism score reflects a split between courteous field technicians and consistently reported unprofessional management behavior.

• 8 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating (all 5-star). These blank reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely short and generic ('Great service!', 'Love this company!', 'Great service', 'Very compitent and professional.') with no specific details. These may be low-effort or potentially inauthentic reviews and were given minimal weight.
• Two reviews dated 2024-11-11 and 2024-11-08 are nearly word-for-word identical, describing the same billing complaint. This appears to be a duplicate review from the same customer posted twice and was counted as one unique incident.
• The review history spans from 2010 to 2025. Negative billing and management complaints appear consistently across the entire timeline (2010, 2012, 2017, 2023, 2024, 2025), suggesting these are systemic and ongoing issues rather than isolated incidents.
• Management figures 'Tim' and 'Myron' are named repeatedly across negative reviews spanning multiple years for rude behavior and refusal to adjust disputed bills — this is a persistent pattern, not an anomaly.
• Multiple reviews describe work that failed after completion and required a second contractor to correct, which is a significant project completion red flag.
• The majority of high-quality, detailed positive reviews are from 2024-2025, while many of the most detailed negative reviews also fall in this recent window, indicating the mixed reputation is current and active.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (58 total, 50 with usable data) spanning 15 years, with strong representation in the past 12 months, giving the score HIGH overall confidence — however, the wide divergence between positive and negative experiences means the score reflects a genuinely inconsistent contractor rather than a measurement error, and prospective customers should weigh the detailed negative billing and workmanship complaints heavily.

Idaho Falls Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with a stark divide between highly positive and severely negative experiences. While professionalism scores reasonably well (68) based on courteous staff and responsive service mentioned in 7 reviews, the company is severely hampered by poor pricing practices (35) with multiple complaints of excessive charges and hidden costs, and critically weak project completion (42) with numerous reports of code violations, incomplete fixes, and requiring customers to hire competitors for remedial work. Experience ratings (55) reflect mixed technical competency—some jobs show strong problem-solving, while others reveal fundamental installation errors and lack of expertise. The recency of negative reviews (2021-2023) suggests ongoing systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2021-2023) report serious code violations, installation failures requiring third-party remediation, and lack of follow-through. This is not isolated—it's a pattern.
• PRICING CONCERN: Three separate reviews cite excessive charges ($354 for o-ring replacement, $1,100 for 30 minutes of unsuccessful work, $200 for spigot). Customers explicitly state pricing is not competitive.
• QUALITY CONTROL: Different crews show vastly different outcomes. Some crews (David Alonzo, Kaden/Thomas) praised; others (Dennis Moon crew) heavily criticized for basic installation errors.
• STAFF TURNOVER: Review from 2019 notes loss of skilled technician (Nate) to competitor, raising questions about retention and consistency.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2021-2023 (recent); most positive reviews are from 2020-2021 (older). This suggests deterioration over time.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews show genuine specificity and varied experiences; not suspiciously uniform.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution: while based on 11 reviews with usable data, the extreme polarization (five 1-star, three 5-star, three 2-star ratings) and recency of critical failures in core dimensions (project completion, pricing) indicate this company is unreliable and carries significant risk. The WW Score of 54.8 reflects a below-average contractor with serious systemic issues in execution and cost management.

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.

Plumb-Tech's review record is deeply divided, with a significant volume of serious complaints dragging scores down across all four dimensions. Professionalism suffers from multiple documented no-shows, unannounced arrivals, rude staff interactions, and a plumber who abandoned work to drive his girlfriend to work — though a handful of positive reviews do praise polite and friendly technicians. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with numerous reviewers citing hidden fees, surprise charges after job completion, rates far above competitors, and outright deception about pricing structures. Project completion is severely undermined by multiple accounts of unfinished work, failed city inspections, recurring leaks after repairs, and a contractor who refused to return calls or honor callbacks without additional payment. Experience scores slightly higher due to a few reviewers praising skilled and efficient problem-solving, but is offset by a plumber who refused to work on a non-brand-name faucet and repeated instances of substandard work requiring correction.

• Several positive reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'They were excellent all through. I would use them again.' and 'Very Pleased. showed up as promised and fixed the issue right away.') with no specific details — these may be low-quality or inflated reviews.
• The review corpus spans from 2007 to 2024, meaning many reviews are significantly outdated. Only 4 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024), limiting recency reliability.
• The most recent negative review (2023) cites a no-show with no call, and a 2023 review alleges overpricing and incomplete work unless additional thousands are paid — suggesting persistent issues have not been resolved over time.
• The extremely detailed 2010 review describing contractor abandonment, city inspection failures, and BBB non-response is a significant red flag for project completion and professionalism, though its age reduces its current weight.
• Positive reviews referencing 'Craig' and negative reviews also referencing 'Craig' suggest inconsistent individual performance, making company-wide scoring difficult.
• No fake review pattern detected, but the generic positive reviews warrant mild skepticism.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the volume of reviews (25), but the wide date range (2007–2024) and persistent negative patterns across pricing and project completion suggest the score reliably reflects a contractor with serious and recurring service quality concerns.

Triple A Plumbing shows severe and consistent problems across all dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by chronic lateness, missed appointments, poor communication, and lack of contracts. Pricing is a major complaint with significant cost overruns, upselling, overbilling for hours worked, and estimates that balloon dramatically (e.g., $250 to $2,500; $2,000 to much higher). Project completion is compromised by incomplete work, work that requires callbacks and rework, abandoned jobs, and failure to honor commitments. While some reviews praise technical knowledge and workmanship quality, these are heavily outweighed by evidence of poor execution, shoddy work requiring customer rework, and unfinished projects. The company exhibits a pattern of taking on work beyond scope and failing to deliver.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2012, 2010) allege criminal conduct and fraud. One review explicitly states the owner is a registered sex offender and describes the business as a 'con artist' operation. Another review mentions the owner being in court proceedings. These are serious allegations that significantly impact trustworthiness.
• PATTERN OF UPSELLING: Multiple reviews (2009, 2008) describe high-pressure sales tactics, scope creep, and recommendations for work customers did not request or need. One customer was quoted $2,000 for a countertop but ended up paying far more for unnecessary work.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Several reviews describe work that had to be redone by customers themselves (2013 kitchen review where husband redid plumbing and walls; 2020 review where work required multiple callbacks for flooding).
• COST OVERRUNS: Consistent pattern of initial quotes being dramatically exceeded. Examples: $250→$2,500 (2020); $2,000→much higher (2013); customers charged for work not performed or hours not worked.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2008-2013 (older than 10 years). However, the most recent review (2020) is also highly negative with similar complaints (delays, cost overruns, incomplete work). This suggests ongoing problems despite age of some data.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (mostly 2017-2019, focused on 'Herman') and severe 1-star reviews. The positive reviews lack specificity about scope or complexity, while negative reviews provide extensive detail. This asymmetry is notable.

This score should be treated with caution due to serious allegations of fraud and criminal conduct in older reviews, combined with a recent 2020 review describing identical problems (delays, cost overruns, incomplete work). While some customers report positive experiences with the owner Herman, the preponderance of evidence—particularly detailed accounts of scope creep, overbilling, incomplete work, and legal issues—suggests significant and persistent operational problems. The WW Score of 42.8 reflects genuine and documented concerns, but potential customers should independently verify current business status and licensing given the severity of allegations.

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.