Find Nearby Plumbers In Saint Anthony, Idaho

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 The older reviews lack specificity and may reflect outdated service standards.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.

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.

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.

Only a single review is available, dated January 2015, making it over a decade old and of very limited reliability. The review mentions same-day Sunday service, which implies responsiveness and some degree of follow-through, but provides no detail on workmanship, pricing, or outcome. Scores for professionalism and project completion are assigned conservatively given the minimal and vague evidence. Pricing and experience dimensions have no data whatsoever and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from January 2015, making it approximately 10 years old. Recency weighting heavily penalizes this data point.
• Review text is extremely brief ('Same day Sunday service.') with no specifics — provides almost no actionable signal across any dimension.
• Single 5-star rating with no detail raises generic praise concern, though sample size is too small to confirm a fake review pattern.

This score should not be trusted for any meaningful decision-making — it is based on a single, decade-old, one-sentence review with no detail on pricing, workmanship, or project outcome.