Find Nearby Plumbers In Twin Falls, Idaho

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 shows a stark polarization in customer experience. The positive review (2023) praises responsiveness, problem-solving ability, and professional expertise in well diagnostics. However, two older reviews (2022, 2019) describe severe failures: overcharging, inadequate well depth assessment, refusal to remedy defects, and abandonment of the customer's problem. The pricing complaints are consistent across multiple reviews, citing excessive hourly rates and inflated component costs. With only 3 reviews and extreme divergence in outcomes, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• CRITICAL: Severe polarization — one 5-star vs. two 1-star reviews with no middle ground suggests either dramatic service inconsistency or potential data quality issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two negative reviews are from 2019 and 2022 (older than 12 months). Only one recent review (2023) is current. Unclear if company has improved or if recent review is outlier.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: 2019 review alleges well drilled 140 ft too shallow, customer unable to use well, and company refused to fix at no cost — this is a major abandonment of responsibility.
• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple reviews cite overcharging and inflated costs (pressure tank markup, $150/hr labor, $4,500 overcharge). Suggests systematic pricing concerns.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews is below the minimum threshold for reliable scoring. Extreme variance makes any aggregate score meaningless.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and extreme polarization between positive and negative experiences. The contractor shows either inconsistent service delivery or data integrity concerns. Do not rely on any aggregate score; instead, investigate the specific allegations in the 2019 and 2022 reviews independently before engaging this contractor.

Only two reviews are available, making any scoring highly tentative. Both reviews are positive: one highlights a late-night emergency response suggesting good availability and follow-through, while the other praises punctuality, efficiency, and fair pricing from a named team member (Adam). No reviewer explicitly commented on technical skill or workmanship quality in enough detail to score the Experience dimension. All scores are conservative given the extremely limited sample size.

• Only 2 reviews provided — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Both reviews are 5-star with limited specificity; while not conclusively fake, the small sample and uniformly positive ratings reduce confidence significantly.
• Most recent review is from December 2022 — over 2 years old. No recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• Experience dimension could not be scored due to complete absence of workmanship or technical skill commentary.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated due to an insufficient number of reviews (only 2), both of which are over two years old, making it impossible to draw meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current performance.

Both reviews describe emergency after-hours responses — one on Christmas Day and one on a Sunday night — with the contractor arriving promptly and resolving the issue, indicating strong responsiveness and professionalism. Project completion scores well because both reviews explicitly confirm the problems were fully resolved, including a challenging clog in an older home with no visible cleanouts. Experience is supported by the mention of quickly diagnosing a difficult problem and successfully clearing it, suggesting solid technical ability. Pricing is entirely unmentioned across both reviews, so no score can be assigned for that dimension. With only two reviews total, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably and all scores carry only LIMITED confidence.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• One review dates from 2015 (over 9 years old) and should be treated with significantly reduced weight relative to the 2023 review.
• Both reviews are positive with no critical feedback; while this may reflect genuine satisfaction, the extremely small sample size makes it impossible to assess consistency or identify any weaknesses.
• No pricing information was mentioned in either review, leaving that dimension entirely unscored.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews — one of which is nearly a decade old — making it insufficient to draw reliable conclusions about this contractor's overall performance; significantly more recent reviews are needed before the WW Score can be trusted.

Analysis is severely limited by only 2 reviews with contradictory signals. The 2022 review reports poor workmanship, incomplete work requiring redoing, and billing disputes—all critical failures. The 2018 review praises responsiveness and compassion but notes initial equipment inadequacy. The extreme polarity and small sample size make any aggregate score unreliable. The 2022 review is recent and specific; the 2018 review is over 5 years old. No meaningful WW Score can be calculated from this data.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed—insufficient for reliable scoring (minimum 3 required)
• Extreme polarity: 1-star vs 5-star with no middle ground suggests either significant service inconsistency or potential data quality issues
• 2022 review is recent and detailed with specific complaints (rework, double billing); 2018 review is 5+ years old
• No reviews from past 12 months except the 2022 review; cannot assess current service quality
• Mentions are at or below threshold (1–2) for all dimensions, resulting in LIMITED confidence across the board

This score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted. With only 2 reviews showing extreme disagreement and all dimensions at LIMITED confidence, any aggregate score would be meaningless. At least 5–10 recent reviews with consistent data are needed to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions professionalism (customer service), project completion (job done accurately and efficiently), and experience (quality of work), but provides minimal specific detail. Pricing is not addressed in this review.

• Only 1 review available — far below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2021 (over 3 years old) — recency is a concern
• Generic praise with limited specifics — no concrete examples of work quality or service details provided
• Cannot calculate composite WW Score with confidence using single-review data

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 review was provided. Any score derived from this single data point would be statistically meaningless and should not be used for decision-making.