Find Nearby Plumbers In Twin Falls, Idaho

On The Ball Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and going above and beyond — particularly from the detailed 2022 kitchen remodel review and the 2014 Dustin/Kailee review, which are the most substantive and credible. However, meaningful negative signals exist: one reviewer reported needing three return visits to fix a toilet correctly with a flooded floor in between, another cited shortcuts and subpar work without permission, and a third complained about being over an hour late with no proactive communication. Pricing is a mixed signal — one reviewer praised it as great while another called it 'very expensive,' yielding a conservative middle score. Project completion is the most penalized dimension due to the documented rework incident and the shortcuts complaint, which directly undermine confidence in consistent follow-through. The overall picture is a contractor with genuine skill and strong customer service moments, but with enough documented execution failures to prevent a high score.

• Three reviews contain no usable text ('unknown', 'unknown', '.') and were excluded from scoring — these blank 5-star entries are a minor fake review concern.
• The majority of substantive reviews are from 2014–2022; only one review is within the past 12 months (2022), which limits recency confidence.
• Several older reviews (2014–2017) may not reflect current service quality or staffing — named plumbers like Dustin and Chris may no longer be with the company.
• The 3-star review from 2017 documents a specific quality failure (flooded floor, three return visits, unauthorized pipe modification) that is a meaningful negative data point and was weighted accordingly.
• The 1-star review from 2020 alleges shortcuts taken without customer permission, corroborating the 2017 workmanship concern and suggesting a possible pattern.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability — it is based on 13 reviews with usable data spanning nearly a decade, includes both strong positives and documented negatives, but lacks sufficient recent reviews to confirm whether current service quality matches the best or worst experiences on record.

All six reviews speak positively to professionalism, with multiple reviewers explicitly noting punctuality, respectful demeanor, clear communication, and responsiveness — making this the strongest and most confident dimension. Pricing is described as fair in three reviews, supporting a solid but not exceptional score. Project completion is well-supported by the hose bib callback story, the complex sewer hookup completed successfully, and the emergency water heater repair, all indicating strong follow-through. Experience is evidenced by the technically complex municipal sewer project and the competent handling of an emergency repair, though the total review count is low. The overall WW Score is tempered by the small sample size and the age of several reviews, four of which are more than two years old.

• Only 6 total reviews — sample size is too small to draw highly reliable conclusions.
• Four of six reviews are older than 12 months, with two reviews dating back to 2018 and 2020. Business practices and personnel may have changed since then.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback. While not conclusively fake, the absence of any criticism across all reviews warrants mild caution.
• Some reviews are generic in praise (e.g., 'Great team who deliver competent professional service') with limited specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual reviews.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the small number of reviews and the age of the majority of them; the score is directionally positive but should be validated with more recent and numerous customer feedback before making a high-confidence hiring decision.

Master Rooter Plumbing shows strong professionalism and technical competence, with many technicians praised for courtesy, efficiency, and knowledge. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent pricing concerns—numerous reviews cite hidden charges, inflated quotes, overpricing relative to market rates, and lack of transparency in estimates. Project completion is mixed, with some jobs completed same-day but others requiring multiple callbacks or incomplete work. The company demonstrates responsiveness and friendly staff, but trust is eroded by pricing practices and occasional follow-through failures.

• PRICING RED FLAG: 31 mentions of pricing issues across 104 reviews (30% of reviews). Patterns include: hidden truck charges not disclosed upfront, quotes 2-3x higher than competitors, unnecessary upsells, inflated parts pricing, and lack of transparency. This is the single largest complaint category.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple 5-star reviews dated 2024-06-09 with generic praise, minimal specifics, and suspiciously similar language ('amazing,' 'highly recommend,' 'great service'). Several reviews contain only names or are blank ('unknown'). At least 8-10 reviews from this date cluster appear low-confidence.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in technician performance. Named individuals (Lance, Phil, Christian, Jay, Brian) receive consistent praise; others receive complaints about unprofessionalism, incomplete work, or deceptive practices.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH ISSUES: Multiple reviews report technicians not returning after initial visit, callbacks not honored, and management unresponsive to complaints.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERNS: Multiple reviews cite aggressive, dismissive, or rude behavior from owner 'Tony' or 'Abe' when customers complained. One review mentions owner threatened customer ('meet in person').
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews cluster in 2024 (many dated 2024-06-09, likely from property management clients). Older reviews (2013-2018) show more balanced criticism. Recent reviews may be skewed by commercial/property management relationships.
• UNLICENSED STAFF ALLEGATION: One review explicitly states company employs unlicensed plumbers.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable but reflects a company with significant structural problems in pricing transparency and consistency. The HIGH confidence is based on 52+ mentions per dimension, but the score is conservative due to persistent pricing complaints (30% of reviews), detected fake review patterns, and documented owner misconduct. Customers should expect strong technical work from experienced technicians but should obtain multiple quotes and carefully verify all charges before authorizing work.

Preferred Home Services presents a deeply split profile: a large volume of positive reviews praising individual technicians as knowledgeable, professional, and courteous is substantially offset by a persistent and serious pattern of negative experiences. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly describing charges as grossly inflated, non-transparent, or predatory — including multiple accounts of quotes being cut in half on the spot when challenged, and charges for estimates that competitors provide free. Project completion is also significantly impaired by a recurring pattern of last-minute appointment cancellations, rescheduling failures, and in several cases work left incomplete or out of code compliance. Professionalism scores moderately because individual technician conduct is frequently praised, but is dragged down by documented incidents of rude management, unauthorized credit card charges, and failure to follow through on callbacks and remediation. Experience scores highest among the four dimensions, as many reviewers specifically cite technician skill and diagnostic ability, though this is countered by serious incidents of incorrect installations, code violations, and at least one documented case of a technician dramatically misdiagnosing a system to upsell a $13,000 replacement.

• PRICING PATTERN — SEVERE: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe quotes being reduced by 40–60% when challenged, strongly suggesting systematic price inflation as a sales tactic rather than honest quoting.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY — SEVERE: A high volume of reviews (estimated 15+) explicitly describe last-minute cancellations, repeated rescheduling, and no-shows. This is a structural operational problem, not isolated incidents.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERN: At least one reviewer reported unauthorized credit card charges of $1,438 after moving out of a property, with slow resolution. Another reported being enrolled in a membership plan without consent.
• INCOMPLETE/NON-CODE-COMPLIANT WORK: Multiple reviews describe work left unfinished or failing county/home inspection (incorrect breaker, wiring not to code, unit installed at wrong angle). One review describes an electrical fire caused by the company's installation.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews describe rude or dismissive behavior from management (Jamaal specifically named twice), including hanging up on a customer and refusing to correct their own code violations without additional charge.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-09 and 2025-05-10 are extremely brief, generic, and lack specifics (e.g., 'Corey was great!', 'Great service.', 'Great people great service'). Several blank-text reviews with 5-star ratings also appear. These inflate the positive signal and should be treated with skepticism.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (May–June 2025) are mixed but skew positive for individual technicians. However, the structural complaints about pricing, cancellations, and billing integrity span from 2017 through 2025, indicating these are not legacy issues but ongoing patterns.
• UPSELLING CONCERN: Multiple reviewers across multiple years describe technicians finding expensive problems during routine maintenance visits, with several explicitly stating they felt pressured or that the findings were fabricated or exaggerated to generate revenue.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (155 reviews) spanning 2012–2025 and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously because the positive reviews are heavily influenced by a cluster of brief, potentially solicited 5-star reviews, while the negative reviews are detailed, specific, and describe serious recurring operational and ethical concerns that meaningfully reduce trustworthiness of this contractor.

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 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.