Find Nearby Plumbers In Idaho Falls, Idaho

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 5 reviews spanning over a decade. Two reviews explicitly describe deceptive pricing practices — quoting one price and billing a significantly higher amount — which severely drags down the pricing and project completion dimensions. The positive reviews praise friendliness, communication, and reasonable prices, but these are largely older reviews (2012, 2015) and lack specific detail. The most recent review (2024) is brief and generic, offering limited evidentiary weight. The two 1-star reviews are specific and consistent in their complaints about bait-and-switch tactics, which is a serious red flag that cannot be dismissed.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: Two separate reviews (2015 and 2016) independently describe identical bait-and-switch pricing behavior — quoting a price then billing significantly more. This is a consistent and specific pattern of alleged deceptive business practice.
• RECENCY WARNING: Most reviews are older than 1 year. Only 1 of 5 reviews is from the past 12 months (2024). The 2024 review is brief and generic with no specifics, limiting its reliability.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 5 total reviews exist. This is an extremely small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEW FLAG: The 2024 5-star review ('Great service - reasonable prices. Dave is my go-to man...') is very short and non-specific, which reduces its evidentiary value.
• SCORE RELIABILITY: With only 5 reviews and a significant split between detailed negative complaints and older positive reviews, this score carries LOW overall reliability.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews — several of which are over 8 years old — and should be considered highly unreliable; the two specific and consistent complaints about deceptive pricing practices are a serious concern that prospective customers should not overlook.

This contractor's review record is severely damaged by two detailed, credible negative reviews from 2021–2022 describing fraud, no-shows, wrong equipment installation, refusal to honor warranties, and catastrophic property damage — all of which drag every scored dimension sharply downward. The two positive reviews that contain usable detail are from 2014–2016, making them over eight years old and carrying minimal weight under recency rules. Three reviews consist of no text whatsoever ('unknown' or a single period) and were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable evidence. The contrast between the glowing older reviews and the damning recent ones suggests a significant and serious decline in service quality over time. No dimension could be scored with high confidence given the low volume of usable, recent data.

• THREE REVIEWS CONTAIN NO USABLE TEXT ('unknown' or '.'): These were excluded from all dimension scoring and mention counts. They cannot be treated as evidence of quality in any dimension.
• RECENCY CONCERN — CRITICAL: The two most recent reviews (2021, 2022) are both 1-star and describe serious misconduct. All positive reviews with usable detail are from 2014–2016, making them 8–10 years old. Recent behavior strongly contradicts older positive signals.
• FRAUD AND MISCONDUCT INDICATORS: One review explicitly describes installation of a lower-grade product than what was quoted and paid for, followed by repeated broken promises and a no-show appointment. This is a direct allegation of fraud and is treated as highly credible given its specificity.
• CATASTROPHIC WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: A second detailed review describes a faulty installation causing a bathroom flood requiring $60,000 in remediation, septic system failure, and complete refusal to honor a written 3-year warranty. The level of specific detail increases credibility.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The three content-free 5-star reviews ('unknown', 'unknown', '.') from 2015–2016 are suspicious. They provide no verifiable information and may represent artificially inflated ratings. Confidence has been reduced accordingly.
• LEGAL AND ETHICAL RED FLAGS: Reviews allege the contractor blocked customer numbers after disputes, failed to appear in civil court, and operates multiple shell corporations to avoid accountability. These are serious flags beyond workmanship quality.
• OVERALL SCORE SHOULD BE TREATED WITH EXTREME CAUTION: The WW Score is pulled upward slightly by older positive reviews, but the recent record suggests this contractor may pose significant financial and property risk to new customers.

This WW Score has LOW overall reliability due to a very small usable review pool, three content-free reviews excluded from scoring, a stark and damaging recency gap between old positive reviews and recent fraud/misconduct allegations, and credible indicators of fake or padded ratings among the 5-star entries.

All three reviews describe severe, consistent failures across every dimension. Brad Taylor is alleged to have abandoned multiple jobs mid-project, leaving customers with unfinished work including exposed wires, no plumbing fixtures, and failed code inspections. Professionalism concerns are extreme and include alleged blackmail, unauthorized sharing of garage codes, retaining house keys, and snooping through a client's home. Pricing complaints center on collecting large upfront payments — $5,000, $10,000, and a large kitchen remodel sum — while delivering little to no completed work, and in one case allegedly returning purchased materials for cash. Experience-related failures include laying broken tile without proper thinset, cutting unnecessary holes in walls, failing electrical code inspections, and allegedly performing unlicensed electrical, plumbing, and HVAC work without permits.

• SERIOUS LEGAL AND SAFETY CONCERNS: Multiple reviewers allege Brad Taylor performed electrical, plumbing, and HVAC work without proper licenses or permits, resulting at least one failed code inspection.
• ALLEGED FRAUD: One reviewer explicitly uses the word 'blackmail' describing a demand for additional payment to reveal the location of wires he sheetrocked over. Another alleges he returned customer-purchased materials for personal cash.
• ABANDONED JOBS: All three reviews independently describe the contractor abandoning jobs before completion, leaving unsafe conditions including exposed wiring and no toilet or sink.
• SECURITY CONCERNS: Two reviews allege Brad Taylor retained house keys or shared garage codes with third parties without homeowner consent.
• BBB ACCREDITATION: One reviewer explicitly states Brad Taylor is no longer accredited with the BBB as of June 2024, contradicting any current accreditation claims.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: Reviews appear genuine — they are independently written, contain specific details, different dates spanning 2022–2024, and consistent but non-identical language. No fake review pattern detected. Negative pattern is credible.
• LOW REVIEW COUNT: Only 3 reviews are available. While the WW Score is calculable, findings should be treated with MODERATE rather than HIGH confidence due to limited sample size.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, but all three are highly detailed, independently written, and span nearly two years, lending meaningful credibility to the findings — this contractor should be considered extremely high risk based on available evidence.

With only 3 reviews available, reliable scoring is not possible. However, the data present is severely negative. Two reviews (2022 and 2018) describe major failures: improper PEX installation with exposed pipes, unauthorized structural cuts, poor workmanship, and a 2-year unresolved callback issue. One older review (2019) provides generic praise with no specific details. The contractor demonstrates critical deficiencies in project completion, workmanship quality, and responsiveness to customer concerns.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One positive review is from 2019 (5+ years old); two negative reviews are from 2022 and 2018. Recent data heavily negative.
• SUSPICIOUS POSITIVE REVIEW: The 2019 five-star review contains generic praise ('goes the extra mile,' 'customer service') with zero specific details or examples. Contrasts sharply with detailed negative reviews. Possible fake or incentivized review.
• CRITICAL QUALITY ISSUES: First review documents multiple serious failures—unauthorized structural damage, improper installation techniques, exposed piping to UV damage, and poor crew composition.
• UNRESOLVED CALLBACKS: Second review documents 2+ years of ignored service requests despite owner contact, indicating systemic follow-through failure.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=3). The available data strongly suggests serious quality and service issues, but conclusions should not be drawn from this limited sample without additional recent reviews.

Only one of the three reviews contained any usable content. That review noted the contractor was up to an hour late on multiple visits and arrived without the correct parts on the first appointment, both of which negatively impact professionalism and experience scores. On the positive side, the work was ultimately completed successfully and everything was reported as functioning correctly after each visit, supporting a modest project completion score. Pricing was never mentioned in any review, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. All reviews are from 2014–2015, making them over a decade old and of very limited relevance to current performance.

• Two of the three reviews contain no usable text ('unknown' and '.') and provide zero actionable information — these were excluded from scoring.
• All reviews are from 2014–2015, more than 10 years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• With only 1 review containing usable data, all dimension scores carry extremely low confidence and should be treated as illustrative only.
• The two empty/placeholder reviews with 5-star ratings may indicate incomplete or bot-submitted reviews, further reducing data reliability.

This score is highly unreliable due to only one substantive review being available, all data being over a decade old, and two reviews containing no usable content whatsoever — no hiring decision should be based on this report alone.

Both reviews are highly positive and mention Miguel by name, praising his problem-solving ability, punctuality, cost control, and work quality. However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. The reviews explicitly mention professionalism (cleanliness, appointment adherence, communication), fair pricing (kept costs at or near estimate), project completion (fixed complex issues, handled unexpected complications), and experience (technical solutions, quality workmanship). All dimensions show strong evidence but are based on extremely limited data.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per Rule 4 threshold (minimum 3 reviews required).
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2017 (7+ years old); only one review from past 12 months. Historical data may not reflect current service quality.
• SAMPLE SIZE: All scores are based on 2 mentions only, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all dimensions. Any score derived from this data should be treated with extreme caution.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews). While both reviews are detailed and positive, a minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a trustworthy composite score. Additionally, one review is over 6 years old, limiting recency validity.