Find Nearby Plumbers In Lincoln, Idaho

Mountain Valley Plumbing has a generally positive track record across professionalism, experience, and project completion, with many reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and technical competence. However, two significant negative reviews — one detailing overcharging, incomplete work, and a return-visit fee for a job already paid for, and another describing padding of bills, poor workmanship, and unprofessional conduct — meaningfully drag down scores in pricing and project completion. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while some reviewers found rates competitive or outstanding, multiple reviewers explicitly noted the contractor was 'a little pricey' or described hidden or inflated charges. Project completion is also mixed, with at least one clear case of unfinished work and a disputed return-visit charge. Experience scores higher due to consistent praise for knowledgeability and problem-solving, though the 2016 negative review raises concerns about workmanship quality in isolated cases.

• Five reviews contain only 'unknown' or a single punctuation mark as text — these provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring.
• Several older reviews (2011–2016) predate the most recent reviews by 7–12 years; business quality and ownership may have changed. Recency weighting applied — older reviews treated as lower weight.
• The 2016 negative review is extremely detailed and specific, describing systematic billing fraud, incomplete work, and unprofessional behavior. This is a high-credibility negative signal despite its age.
• The 2023 negative review corroborates the billing concern pattern: overcharging beyond quoted price, incomplete work, and charging again for warranty callbacks — suggesting this may be a recurring issue rather than an isolated incident.
• Some 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'yes. i do recommend. fast n efficient', 'The service was good.', 'Tt went very well, he is terrific.') with no specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in the positive signal cluster.
• One review (2023-09-05) is entirely about a roadside medical emergency and contains zero plumbing-related content — it was excluded from all dimension scoring.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability: the mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence, but the presence of two detailed and credible negative reviews describing billing irregularities and incomplete work, combined with a large number of content-free reviews and a wide date range spanning over a decade, means consumers should weigh the negative reviews carefully rather than relying solely on the aggregate score.

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.

Sermon shows mixed performance across all dimensions. Professionalism is inconsistent—some reviews praise punctuality and communication (RV receptacle project, breaker repair), while others cite severe lapses including 7-day non-response, lack of estimates, and unprofessional conduct. Pricing is a significant weakness, with one customer reporting a 112% markup on a water heater and multiple complaints about lack of transparency and itemization. Project completion is hampered by quality issues (oversized holes, slow work, rework required) and unresolved problems that triggered additional charges. Experience shows competence in routine repairs but poor judgment in complex installations and customer interaction. The company's reliability is undermined by high variability in service quality.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews dated 2016-10-05 11:32:33 and 2016-10-05 00:00:00 contain identical text with nearly identical complaints—this appears to be a duplicate submission rather than independent validation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 8 of 13 reviews are older than 3 years (pre-2021). Only 2 reviews from past 12 months. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• PRICING RED FLAG: One detailed 2018 review documents a 112% markup ($1,775 vs. ~$850 market price) on water heater installation. Another 2016 review criticizes lack of itemization and slow billing practices. Multiple pricing complaints suggest systemic issue.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: 2016 reviews document serious conduct issues—technician sitting idle in truck, lack of estimates, unprofessional personal comments to customer, requests for personal checks rather than company checks.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews (2013, 2014, 2016) contain minimal detail ('unknown' text, vague praise) and lack specificity, reducing their evidentiary value.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance between 5-star and 1-star ratings suggests either highly variable service delivery or potential selection bias in review submission.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias (62% of reviews older than 3 years), one confirmed duplicate review, and multiple generic/low-detail submissions that reduce data quality. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects genuine high-confidence dimension scores, but the underlying data quality is compromised. Recent performance (past 12 months) appears better than historical average, but sample size is too small to confirm trend. Customers should request detailed written estimates and itemized invoices before engaging this contractor.

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.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency in project completion and reliability. While technical skill and experience are evident in positive reviews, two critical failures—no-shows with no communication and incomplete work billing—severely damage the overall score. Professionalism mentions are mixed, with courteous behavior noted but offset by missed appointments and poor follow-through. Pricing appears fair when work is completed, but the pattern of unreliability and incomplete project delivery is the primary concern. The WW Score reflects these serious execution gaps despite demonstrated technical competence.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews (2014 and 2010) describe missed appointments with no communication and incomplete work with full billing—serious red flags for reliability and honesty.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 8+ years old (2010–2015). Only 2 reviews from 2021 are recent; older reviews may not reflect current operations.
• INCONSISTENT PATTERN: Positive reviews praise hard work and honesty, but negative reviews directly contradict this with accusations of dishonesty (charging for work not performed) and unreliability (no-shows).
• GENERIC PRAISE: Several positive reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('hard working,' 'honest,' 'courteous') which could suggest template-like or potentially fabricated reviews, though this is not conclusive.
• ONE UNUSABLE REVIEW: Review dated 2015-12-15 contains only 'unknown' text and provides no data.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of most reviews and conflicting patterns of behavior; the two serious project completion failures (missed appointments, incomplete billing) are well-documented and significantly undermine confidence in reliability, despite positive technical feedback.

Advanced Home Services presents a deeply split profile: a large volume of recent 5-star reviews praise individual technicians by name for being friendly, knowledgeable, and communicative, driving moderate scores in professionalism and experience. However, these positive reviews are heavily counterbalanced by a substantial and consistent body of negative reviews spanning over a decade that allege systematic price gouging, bait-and-switch tactics, misdiagnosis, predatory upselling targeting elderly customers, and failure to complete jobs or honor appointments. The pricing dimension is severely penalized because dozens of independent negative reviewers — many with specific dollar comparisons — describe charges 2x to 10x higher than competitors for identical work, and this pattern is too consistent and specific to dismiss. Project completion also suffers significantly due to multiple credible accounts of no-shows, abandoned jobs, and work left incomplete or done incorrectly. The contrast between the glowing recent reviews and the detailed, specific negative reviews raises serious concerns about review authenticity.

• SUSPECTED DUPLICATE REVIEWS: At least 8 reviews appear to be exact word-for-word duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., 'Logan and Robert are knowledgeable and creates a trust', 'Ender was thorough in his inspection and very professional', 'Aaron has fortunately, unfortunately', 'Jesus Bello did a great job', 'The service repairman was here on time', 'Kaydon explained everything', 'Great work and understanding what needed to be done', 'Robert did an awesome job with the inspection/tune up', 'Glad he came, he found a vole nest', 'He done an excellent job', 'Scheduled an appointment for my main line', 'Ender did a awesome job both friendly', 'Mar2025 - Logan came out', 'We had toilet blockage and Michael', 'Awesome work on furnace and air conditioning'). These duplicates appear to have been submitted twice with dates approximately 2-3 days apart, which is a strong indicator of artificial review inflation.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A large cluster of recent reviews (June 2025) are suspiciously concentrated in a very short time window, many naming specific technicians with generic praise and no verifiable detail. Several blank-text reviews with 5-star ratings are present and provide no usable data but inflate the star average.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Across reviews spanning 2009 to 2025, at least 35 independent reviewers describe being quoted prices 2x to 10x higher than competitors for identical work. Multiple reviewers obtained second opinions and had the same job completed for a fraction of the price. This is not isolated — it is a documented, long-term business practice.
• ELDERLY TARGETING: Multiple reviewers explicitly state the company targets elderly and vulnerable customers with fear tactics, inflated diagnoses, and high-pressure sales. This is mentioned in at least 8 separate reviews.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviewers report technicians fabricated or grossly exaggerated problems (e.g., cracked heat exchangers that did not exist, collapsed sewer lines fixed for $150 elsewhere, water heater age misrepresented by 4 years) to justify expensive replacements.
• NO-SHOW AND APPOINTMENT FAILURES: At least 6 reviews describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments without proactive notification, including cases where customers took time off work.
• INCOMPLETE WORK AND CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe jobs left unfinished, incorrect installations causing damage (flooding), and the company refusing to return calls or honor callbacks to fix their own errors.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2024-2025 and cluster heavily in May-June 2025. The majority of detailed negative reviews span 2009-2024. The recent positive surge, combined with confirmed duplicate reviews, suggests a coordinated effort to improve the star rating artificially.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 20+ reviews contain no text whatsoever, only a 5-star rating. These have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data but are noted as they inflate the overall star average.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE-to-LOW trust for the positive dimensions: the volume of credible, specific, and long-running negative reviews — particularly around pricing, misdiagnosis, and predatory sales practices — combined with confirmed duplicate reviews and a suspicious cluster of recent 5-star reviews, strongly suggests the positive review pool has been artificially inflated, meaning the true customer experience is likely worse than the calculated scores for professionalism and experience indicate.