Find Nearby Plumbers In Nampa, Idaho

The review set is sharply polarized: a cluster of highly positive reviews praising professionalism, promptness, and knowledgeable technicians is offset by several detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures including incomplete repairs, no-shows, rude behavior, and recurring post-service problems. Professionalism scores moderately well overall due to volume of positive mentions, but is significantly dragged down by a documented incident of a technician yelling at a customer and repeated failures to communicate or show up on time. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as multiple negative reviews explicitly describe work that was left unfinished, leaks that were not resolved, and issues that worsened after service visits. Pricing receives a moderate score — one review praised competitive pricing and warranty terms, while one negative review implied overcharging for substandard work. Experience is similarly mixed, with many reviewers praising specific technicians by name for skill and problem-solving, but counterbalanced by reviews describing technically inadequate diagnoses and repairs.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Approximately 19 of 26 reviews have no date attached. This is a significant data quality issue — undated reviews cannot be assessed for recency and may have been submitted in bulk.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Many of the undated 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'I will recommend their services with anybody who is looking for plumbing excellent quality', 'Outstanding experience and communication! Highly recommended'). These lack specific detail, job type, or named context, which is a pattern consistent with inauthentic or incentivized reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All dated reviews range from 2014 to 2019. No reviews from the past 12 months are present in the dated set. The contractor's current performance cannot be reliably assessed.
• PATTERN CONCERN: The split between detailed, credible negative reviews (with specific dates, job descriptions, and named issues) and vague, undated positive reviews creates an asymmetry that reduces confidence in the positive signals.
• REPEATED FAILURE PATTERN: Two separate dated reviews (2019 and 2017) describe work that was explicitly not completed — the leak continued after the technician left in both cases. This is a meaningful signal for the project completion dimension.
• CONDUCT CONCERN: One dated review (2014) describes a technician becoming verbally aggressive with a customer after a no-show. This is a serious professionalism flag.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW-TO-MODERATE trust: the volume of undated, generic 5-star reviews inflates positive signals artificially, while the dated negative reviews are specific, credible, and describe serious service failures — the true performance picture is likely worse than the blended score suggests.

Easy Heating & Air shows strong technical expertise and project completion capability, with multiple reviews praising knowledgeable crews and successful complex installations. However, a serious 1-star review alleging deceptive sales practices and fraudulent damage claims significantly undermines the overall score. Professionalism ratings are mixed: three reviews highlight excellent communication and team coordination, but one review describes aggressive sales tactics and misrepresentation. Pricing concerns are substantial, with one customer reporting inflated quotes and suspicious diagnostic photos. The company demonstrates solid workmanship and follow-through on actual jobs, but trust and transparency issues create material risk.

• CRITICAL: One 1-star review (2020-10-05) alleges fraudulent sales practices, including fabricated damage photos and pressure tactics. Customer obtained second opinion that contradicted company's diagnosis. This is a serious integrity concern that cannot be ignored.
• PRICING CONCERN: Review mentions $3,800 quote for replacement unit and $600 A/C cleaning charge on 2-year-old unit, with customer reporting mismatched diagnostic photos. Suggests potential overcharging or deceptive sales practices.
• RECENCY NOTE: Three reviews are from 2020-2021 (3+ years old). Limited recent data to assess whether company has addressed past concerns.
• PATTERN OBSERVATION: Three positive reviews are detailed and specific with named staff members and concrete examples. The negative review is also detailed and specific with concrete allegations. This suggests genuine customer experiences rather than fake reviews, but the serious fraud allegation warrants caution.

This score should be treated with caution due to conflicting evidence: strong technical performance and professionalism in three reviews is substantially contradicted by serious allegations of deceptive sales practices in one review. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects this material uncertainty. Recommend obtaining independent verification of diagnostic findings and pricing before engaging this company.

Washington Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2009–2013. Pricing is competitive and fairly valued across all feedback. However, professionalism is severely undermined by one detailed 1-star review documenting poor communication, dismissive attitude toward legitimate concerns, and unprofessional office staff interactions. Project completion is mixed: two reviews praise timely, complete work including emergency response; one review documents ordering errors causing project delays. Technical skill appears acceptable (final work quality noted as acceptable even in the negative review), but judgment and problem-solving are questioned. The 12-year age of reviews and dramatic rating variance (1-star vs. 5-star) suggest this may reflect different time periods or management changes.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All three reviews are 11–14 years old (2009–2013). No recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been corrected.
• EXTREME RATING VARIANCE: One 1-star review with detailed, specific complaints contrasts sharply with two 5-star reviews. This suggests either significant service inconsistency or possible changes in business operations over time.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: The 1-star review documents explicit unprofessional behavior (dismissive attitude, contradicted by industry standards, rude office staff). This is a serious concern despite positive reviews from other customers.
• PROJECT DELAYS DOCUMENTED: One review explicitly mentions ordering errors causing two separate project delays, indicating potential quality control issues in planning/procurement.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited sample size (3 reviews), extreme age (11–14 years old with no recent data), and high variance in ratings. The score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current service quality. A current assessment would require recent reviews.

Fidelity Plumbing shows strong technical skill and pricing appeal based on two positive reviews praising knowledgeability, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. However, a critical 2021 no-show incident with no communication severely impacts professionalism and project completion scores. The company demonstrated responsiveness and courtesy in successful projects, but the failure to honor a scheduled appointment and lack of follow-up communication is a serious red flag. With only 3 reviews total and the most recent negative review being nearly 3 years old, confidence in this score is limited. The positive reviews are older (2019–2020), making recency a concern.

• Critical no-show incident in February 2021 with no communication or rescheduling attempt — suggests potential reliability issues
• Only 3 reviews total; score reliability is inherently limited
• Most recent review is from 2021 (no-show); positive reviews are from 2019–2020, indicating lack of recent positive feedback
• Two positive reviews mention water softener installation specifically; limited diversity in project types mentioned
• Significant gap between positive and negative experiences suggests inconsistent service delivery

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and the presence of a serious service failure that contradicts the positive feedback. The score reflects a company with demonstrated technical competence but questionable reliability and professionalism in appointment management. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish current performance trends.

Rite-A-Way Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Positive reviews frequently praise individual technicians — particularly David and Brandon — for professionalism, friendliness, and technical competence, which lifts the experience and professionalism scores. However, a significant cluster of serious negative reviews describes abandoned jobs, no-shows, unreturned calls, and work that actively worsened plumbing problems, dragging down project completion scores substantially. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple detailed complaints alleging deceptive 'modification' upsells, double-billing, and price gouging, alongside only one review explicitly praising fair pricing. The review base spans from 2014 to 2025, meaning older negative reviews may reflect past practices, but similar complaints recur in 2024–2025, suggesting these issues have not been fully resolved.

• 15 reviews contain no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Fast, efficient and tidy.', 'Professional and quick fix.', 'Good job', 'He is polite, professional, and humble.') with no specific details. These may be authentic but carry low evidentiary weight.
• Multiple independent reviewers describe the same pattern of alleged fraud: falsely reporting jobs as 'complete' to the warranty company when no work was done. This is a serious and recurring flag appearing in at least 3 separate reviews (2024-08-13, 2025-02-09, and corroborated by a 2024-06-09 update).
• One detailed 2024-09-16 review alleges systematic deceptive upselling of 'modification' charges, double-billing, and failure to obtain a legally required permit. This is a significant integrity flag.
• A 2014 review quotes the owner as explicitly stating he does substandard work under home warranty contracts because he is 'not paid enough.' This admission, if accurate, is a critical credibility concern and aligns with multiple later complaints.
• Review dates span 2014–2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight in scoring, but negative behavioral patterns from older reviews are noted as they recur in recent reviews.
• No fake review pattern detected in the positive reviews — named technicians, specific job details, and varied phrasing suggest authenticity. However, the volume of blank 5-star ratings is a mild concern.

This WW Score is based on a substantial review set with high mention counts across all dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the presence of serious and recurring allegations of fraud, job abandonment, and deceptive billing practices means prospective customers should treat the moderate score as a warning and carefully vet this contractor before hiring.

Elite Rooter exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile. While many technicians (Pablo, Ruben, Miguel, Armando, Cornelio, Erick, David, etc.) demonstrate genuine professionalism, punctuality, and technical competence, the company is plagued by systemic pricing fraud and project completion failures. Approximately 40% of reviews describe aggressive upselling, bait-and-switch tactics, inflated quotes (often 3-10x fair market value), and incomplete work. The company frequently quotes low introductory rates ($69-$79) then pressures customers into expensive services ($1,200-$6,000+) that competitors complete for a fraction of the cost. Multiple reviews document abandoned projects, failed inspections, unresponsive management, and refusal to honor warranties. The professionalism score is dragged down by condescending managers, rude behavior, and lack of follow-up. Project completion suffers from incomplete work, failed callbacks, and jobs left worse than they started.

• CRITICAL: Systematic pricing fraud pattern — 89 mentions of overcharging, with documented cases of quotes 3-10x higher than competitors for identical work
• CRITICAL: Bait-and-switch tactics — $69-$79 introductory offers followed by aggressive upselling to $1,200-$6,000+ services; multiple reviews confirm competitors completed same work for 50-90% less
• CRITICAL: Project completion failures — 25+ reviews document incomplete work, abandoned projects, failed inspections, and jobs left in worse condition than before service
• CRITICAL: Management dysfunction — multiple reports of rude, condescending, dismissive managers (Gabe Robles, Erika, Ashley); refusal to provide refunds or honor warranties; unresponsive to complaints
• CRITICAL: Warranty fraud — customers report 5-year warranties that are not honored; company denies coverage or blames customers for issues caused by Elite's own work
• CRITICAL: Regulatory complaints — multiple reviews mention complaints filed with Colorado Attorney General, BBB, CSLB, and small claims court; one review documents 4-year unresolved permit issue with city fines
• CRITICAL: Fraud allegations — multiple reviews explicitly use terms 'scam,' 'fraud,' 'deceiving,' 'predatory,' and 'carpetbaggers'; one detailed review documents suspected intentional non-completion of work to force expensive repairs
• HIGH: Technician inconsistency — while many individual technicians receive 5-star praise, others are documented as inexperienced, unprepared, or deliberately incompetent; quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned
• HIGH: No-show and scheduling failures — 8+ reviews document missed appointments, no-shows without notice, rescheduling failures, and lack of communication
• HIGH: Deceptive advertising — $69 coupon advertised as 'If we cannot clear your drain we do not charge anything' but company still charges diagnostic/service fees even when work is not completed
• MODERATE: Possible fake review pattern — approximately 15-20 reviews use nearly identical phrasing ('highly recommend,' 'professional,' 'friendly,' 'efficient') with minimal specific detail; however, this is balanced by numerous detailed negative reviews with specific dollar amounts and dates
• MODERATE: Recency concern — most reviews are from 2021-2025, with heavy concentration in 2022-2024; pattern of complaints has persisted for 4+ years with no apparent systemic improvement

This WW Score of 54.8 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence) but represents a company in severe distress. The score reflects a fundamental disconnect between individual technician quality (many are genuinely skilled and professional) and systemic corporate dysfunction (pricing fraud, incomplete work, management abuse, warranty violations). The HIGH confidence is justified by 250 reviews with consistent, detailed, and corroborated patterns of fraud and failure. Customers should treat this company as high-risk; while some jobs may be completed satisfactorily by specific technicians, the company's documented pattern of overcharging, upselling, incomplete work, and refusal to honor commitments makes it unsuitable for major projects or situations where the customer cannot independently verify work quality and pricing.