Find Nearby Plumbers In New Plymouth, Idaho

Aqua Plumbing and Rick Marion receive overwhelmingly positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently cited strength — reviewers consistently highlight punctuality, responsiveness, courteous communication, and willingness to go above and beyond (including weekend and vacation-time responses). Pricing is described as fair, honest, and transparent across many reviews, with one detailed comparison showing Rick completing three jobs for $196 versus a competitor's quote of over $1,000. Project completion scores are strong, with multiple reviewers noting jobs finished quickly, cleanly, and with follow-through on callbacks and warranty issues. Experience and workmanship are praised extensively, with Rick described as a third-generation master plumber who diagnoses problems accurately and solves them efficiently. Two negative or mixed reviews temper the score slightly: one 1-star review citing no callback on a serious issue, and one 3-star review citing unresponsiveness during a project and a disputed claim about a faucet component.

• 9 reviews contain only 'unknown', '.', or extremely minimal text (e.g., 'Very well.', 'One word!! EXCELLENT') and were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• The vast majority of reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback, which warrants mild fake-review awareness scrutiny. However, most reviews contain specific job details, named individuals, and varied phrasing, which reduces the likelihood of systematic fabrication.
• A significant portion of reviews are older than 3 years, with many dating back to 2007–2019. Recency weighting was applied: the 12 reviews from 2024–2025 were given higher weight in scoring, and they remain consistently positive, suggesting sustained quality.
• One 1-star review (2022) describes two unreturned voicemails for a serious plumbing issue — a notable responsiveness failure that was factored into the professionalism score.
• One 3-star review (2019) describes unresponsiveness during a project, a refusal to install a customer-supplied disposal, and an alleged false statement about a faucet component — this was factored into both professionalism and experience scores.
• The reviewer named 'Scott' in one review (2013) may refer to a different technician, not Rick — this review was included but noted as potentially referencing a different worker.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning over 15 years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions and consistent recent positive feedback, making it a HIGH confidence assessment — though users should note that two credible negative reviews raise minor concerns about responsiveness and honesty in isolated incidents.

Anchor Plumbing has a strong overall reputation built across a large volume of reviews spanning more than a decade, with consistent praise for professionalism, responsiveness, and technical skill from named technicians including Jeff, Dan, Aaron, Jeremy, and Mike. Pricing is frequently cited as fair, reasonable, or competitive, with multiple reviewers specifically noting that final costs came in at or below quoted amounts. Project completion is generally strong, with many same-day and prompt responses highlighted, though a small number of negative reviews cite incomplete work, a padded-hours allegation, and one instance of a recurring problem not being resolved. Experience scores well due to numerous specific descriptions of skilled diagnostics and problem-solving, including slab leaks, main line cracks, and complex multi-fixture jobs. Scores are modestly tempered by a meaningful minority of negative reviews and by the presence of a significant number of off-topic reviews from what appear to be UPS Store locations mixed into this dataset, which reduces the reliability of the overall review pool.

• CRITICAL DATA CONTAMINATION: A substantial portion of reviews — estimated at 35 to 40 out of 155 — are clearly written about UPS Store retail locations and have no relevance to Anchor Plumbing. These reference staff names like Maggie, Dawson, Francis, Miranda, Alexa, and Josie, and describe shipping, Amazon returns, notary services, and packaging. These reviews were excluded from scoring but their presence in the dataset is a serious data integrity concern.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 10 to 12 reviews contain no text whatsoever, only a star rating. These provide no usable dimensional data and were excluded from scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several reviews dated 2025-03-11 and 2025-05-10 share identical dates and exhibit generic, non-specific praise with no job details. This clustering pattern is consistent with review solicitation campaigns and warrants moderate skepticism.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of substantive plumbing reviews span from 2013 to 2025. Older reviews (pre-2019) carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2025) are generally positive and consistent with the historical trend.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW SUMMARY: Negative plumbing-specific reviews include: a $500 charge for an unfixed toilet (2021), a plumber padding hours caught on security camera (2017), a no-show after taking a $75 service call fee (2016), a drain clog recurring within 30 days (2014), and a 5-week faucet replacement delay with disputed charges (2012). These represent a meaningful minority but are not isolated incidents.
• ONE REVIEW (2021-01-30) describes paying nearly $500 for a toilet repair that was never resolved even after a callback — this directly impacts the project_completion score and is weighted accordingly.

The WW Score of 83.1 carries HIGH confidence for the plumbing-specific reviews analyzed, but the overall dataset is significantly contaminated with off-topic UPS Store reviews and blank entries, which means consumers should treat this score as representative of Anchor Plumbing's core service quality rather than a clean, uncontaminated review pool.

Noble Plumbing earns strong marks for professionalism and responsiveness across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising courteous, punctual technicians and attentive office staff. Project completion scores well overall, with the majority of jobs described as finished efficiently and thoroughly, though a meaningful minority of negative reviews cite missed appointments, no-shows, failed repairs requiring return visits, and at least one job that failed city inspection multiple times. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while many reviewers praise fair or competitive rates, several credible negative reviews describe charges perceived as excessive, billing for travel time to buy parts, and a $500 charge for a 30-minute repair, pulling the score down significantly. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers noting knowledgeable and skilled technicians, but offset by documented cases of incorrect parts installed, failed repairs, and work that did not pass inspection. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but a consistent pattern of service failures that cannot be ignored.

• 18 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several reviews from 2013–2016 are labeled 'unknown' with no review text and appear to be placeholder or imported records with no substantive content. These were excluded.
• One review (2014-04-23) appears to describe a medical clinic or urgent care facility, not a plumbing company ('campus,' 'kids,' 'injury,' 'schedule depending on the injury'). This review is almost certainly misattributed or fraudulent and was excluded from scoring.
• A cluster of reviews from 2025-05-10 (approximately 8 reviews posted on the same date, several with no text) raises a mild concern about review manipulation or bulk solicitation, though the dated reviews with text on that day appear genuine.
• Multiple negative reviews describe missed appointments and no-shows (2019-10-03, 2020-05-06, 2024-12-11), suggesting a recurring operational issue with scheduling reliability.
• One detailed negative review (2020-12-22) describes a failed repair, an incorrect part installed, a $750 upsell attempt, and a $300 charge for unresolved work — this is a significant quality and ethics flag.
• One review (2017-11-03) describes a water line replacement that failed city inspection three times due to improper fittings, inconsistent technician assignments, a missed callback appointment, and an unresolved leak — a serious project completion failure.
• One review (2024-09-29, 2-star) raises a specific pricing concern: the customer was charged $250/hr labor rate and billed for over an hour of time during which the technician drove to Home Depot to buy parts. The promised itemized receipt was also never delivered.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews with substantive text span 2018–2025, with the most recent cluster in 2025. Reviews from 2013–2016 are sparse and mostly text-free. Scoring is appropriately weighted toward the more recent and detailed reviews.
• No strong evidence of fully fabricated bot reviews, but the volume of brief, generic 5-star reviews with no specifics (e.g., 'Amazing service!!!', 'excellent job', 'Fast and prompt service') moderately inflates the apparent positivity of the review set.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (125 total, ~107 with usable data) spanning multiple years, giving it HIGH overall confidence, but consumers should weigh the recurring negative patterns around missed appointments, pricing transparency, and occasional failed workmanship before making a hiring decision.

Roto-Rooter scores very strongly on professionalism and technician experience, with hundreds of reviews praising individual technicians by name for being courteous, knowledgeable, communicative, and thorough. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs resolved same-day or within a short timeframe, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, broken promises on follow-up visits, and warranty disputes. The most significant drag on the overall WW Score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the entire review set — dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as 'outrageous,' 'ridiculous,' 'a scam,' or triple the price of competitors, with specific dollar amounts cited ranging from $315 for 4 minutes of work to $8,700 for a water heater installation. Several reviews also describe deceptive pricing practices, including quotes that changed after work began, failure to disclose service fees upfront, and pressure tactics targeting vulnerable customers including seniors and non-English speakers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: A significant number of reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., multiple identical reviews for 'Gio,' 'Gabriel,' 'Daniel,' 'Gus,' 'Giovanni,' and others). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate a review solicitation system that caused customers to submit the same review twice, or potential manipulation. Confidence in raw review count is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 150-200 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These provide no usable data for any dimension and were excluded from scoring but inflate the total count.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SEVERE AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews are not vague — they cite specific dollar amounts, compare to competitor prices, and describe practices such as quoting after work begins, refusing to honor coupons, and charging elderly or non-English-speaking customers without disclosure. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• SCHEDULING AND NO-SHOW COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within promised windows, no-call-no-shows, and dispatch communication failures. This is a recurring pattern affecting the project completion score.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Several reviews describe Roto-Rooter refusing to honor stated warranties, including a 6-month guarantee and a 30-day guarantee, with customers being charged again for the same recurring issue.
• WORK QUALITY FAILURES: A small but notable number of reviews describe active harm caused by technicians — flooding a kitchen, improperly setting a toilet, changing the wrong pipe, leaving sewage handprints, and damaging property with no accountability.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians quoting extremely high prices and then reducing them when customers push back, suggesting initial quotes are inflated as a negotiating tactic rather than honest pricing.
• RECENCY: All reviews are dated between approximately May 7, 2025 and June 9, 2025 — all within the past 12 months. Recency weighting is fully applied.

This WW Score is based on an exceptionally large review set and carries HIGH overall confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given confirmed duplicate reviews inflating volume, a strong and consistent pattern of severe pricing complaints that meaningfully suppresses the score, and documented instances of incomplete work and warranty non-compliance that suggest the positive technician-level experience does not always translate to a satisfactory overall customer outcome.

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.

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.