Find Nearby Plumbers In Boise City, Idaho

This aggregated review set spans multiple companies operating under similar or related names (Action Plumbing, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, and individual plumbers like Jeff Satterthwaite), which significantly complicates scoring and reduces reliability. The majority of reviews are positive and praise professionalism, punctuality, and communication, but a substantial minority of negative reviews describe serious failures including fire damage, abandoned work, misdiagnosis, property damage, dishonest billing practices, and chronic non-responsiveness — particularly in the context of American Home Shield warranty work. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers found costs fair or competitive, while others reported inflated fees, hidden charges, and deceptive billing. Project completion is a notable weakness, with multiple reviews citing incomplete jobs, failed callbacks, and work that required correction by other plumbers. Experience scores are dragged down by documented cases of poor workmanship, incorrect diagnoses, and code violations, despite many reviews praising skilled technicians by name.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: Reviews appear to span multiple distinct businesses (Action Plumbing in multiple states/cities, Astro Plumbing, Pirate Plumbing, Jeff Satterthwaite Plumbing, and others). Scores reflect an aggregated pool that may not represent any single contractor accurately. Consumer should verify which specific entity they are evaluating.
• FAKE REVIEW INDICATORS: A significant number of reviews contain no text (rating only), particularly clustered around dates like 2024-06-09, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, and 2015. These blank 5-star reviews inflate the average rating and are treated as non-usable data. Additionally, some reviews use nearly identical phrasing across different dates, suggesting possible review padding.
• SERIOUS NEGATIVE INCIDENTS: At least one review describes Action Plumbing causing a fire that left four families homeless (2024-09-06), with the owner allegedly unresponsive. Another describes a bathtub installation so defective it required full drywall and tile replacement. A third describes a whole-house re-pipe job where lines were not flushed, causing debris damage throughout the home. These are severe outliers that materially affect trustworthiness.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review about Jake damaging a home during water heater installation (rating 1.0) appears verbatim on two separate dates (2024-06-09 and 2023-10-10). This duplication was counted only once for scoring purposes.
• AHS WARRANTY PATTERN: A recurring pattern of negative reviews involves American Home Shield (AHS) warranty assignments, where the contractor is accused of misdiagnosis, inflated modification fees, non-responsiveness, and claim denial manipulation. This pattern appears across multiple years and locations, suggesting a systemic issue with warranty work specifically.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2001 to 2025. Reviews older than 3 years (pre-2022) were given reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) show a mixed but somewhat improved pattern for Astro Plumbing specifically, while Action Plumbing reviews remain mixed across the full date range.
• GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSION: Reviews reference locations including Las Vegas NV, Cleveland OH, Lawrence KS, Corpus Christi TX, Silsbee TX, Kaysville UT, Rhode Island, Indiana, and others. This strongly suggests these are reviews for multiple unrelated businesses sharing similar names, not a single contractor. The WW Score should be interpreted with extreme caution as a result.

This WW Score has LOW reliability for evaluating any single contractor because the review pool almost certainly aggregates multiple unrelated businesses operating under similar names across different states; consumers should independently verify the specific entity they intend to hire and seek reviews specific to that business's location and ownership before making a hiring decision.

Professionalism scores reasonably well across a large volume of reviews, with many customers praising punctuality, courtesy, communication, and technician demeanor — however, this is meaningfully offset by multiple serious complaints including a technician with a gas leak oversight, a rude technician who refused to allow customers to speak, repeated no-shows, and a pattern of poor follow-through from office staff. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while some customers praised fair or competitive pricing, a substantial number of reviews explicitly called out price gouging, unexpectedly high quotes, hidden charges, bait-and-switch tactics, and pressure sales — this is a recurring and credible pattern across multiple years and locations. Project completion is mixed: many jobs were completed same-day and efficiently, but there are multiple credible accounts of abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, permit fraud, incomplete jobs, and technicians failing to return — including one customer strung along for over a year. Experience scores moderately well, with many reviewers praising technical knowledge and problem-solving, though several reviews document misdiagnosis, wrong parts ordered, and sending HVAC techs to do plumbing work.

• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-04-10, 2025-05-26, 2025-06-02, and 2025-06-05 share identical dates with no timestamps, many are blank (rating only, no text), and the non-blank ones in these clusters are short and generic. This pattern is consistent with bulk review padding. Blank reviews (rating only, no text) account for approximately 33 of the 218 total reviews and have been excluded from dimension scoring.
• PERMIT FRAUD ALLEGATION: At least two reviews from the same apparent customer (dated 2024-05-23 and 2024-06-14) allege the company promised permits, failed to deliver, and then went silent — targeting a widow of a veteran. A third related review (2024-06-14) corroborates this. These are serious, specific, and credible allegations that significantly impact the project completion and professionalism scores.
• GAS SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (2022-01-11) describes a natural gas leak left unsealed for approximately 20 hours after a water heater installation, resulting in health impacts to the reviewer and their pet. This is a critical safety flag.
• REPEATED NO-SHOWS AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: Multiple independent reviews across different years (2015, 2020, 2021, 2024) describe appointments being cancelled last-minute, technicians failing to arrive within quoted windows, and no callbacks — indicating a systemic scheduling and accountability problem.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PRICING: One detailed review (2025-06-04) describes a phone rep promising transparent pricing, followed by a technician demanding $280 upfront — contradicting the company's own 'no surprise costs' website claim. The technician then selectively played a call recording to dispute the customer's account.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2011 to 2025. Reviews from 2015 and earlier are given reduced weight. The majority of substantive reviews (both positive and negative) are from 2020 onward and are well-represented in scoring.
• MULTI-LOCATION AGGREGATION RISK: Reviews appear to reference multiple franchise locations (Pearland TX, Monterey CA, South Florida, San Antonio TX, Yukon OK, Fallbrook CA, etc.). Scores reflect the aggregate brand experience and may not accurately represent any single location.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (218 total, ~185 with usable data) spanning over a decade and multiple franchise locations, giving it HIGH statistical confidence in volume — however, the presence of suspected bulk-padded blank reviews, serious unresolved allegations of permit fraud and a gas safety incident, and a clear recurring pattern of pricing complaints and scheduling failures means the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence indicator of brand-level performance, not a guarantee of quality at any individual franchise location.

Roto-Rooter receives consistently strong praise for technician professionalism, friendliness, and communication, with hundreds of reviews citing courteous, knowledgeable, and prompt service. However, pricing is a major and recurring pain point: dozens of reviewers explicitly describe charges as excessive, shocking, or outright predatory, with specific complaints ranging from $400+ for a single drain snake to $1,600+ for incomplete work, significantly dragging down the pricing dimension. Project completion is mixed — the majority of jobs are completed successfully and often same-day, but a meaningful minority of reviews describe incomplete work, no-shows, failed repairs requiring follow-up by other companies, and jobs left in worse condition than found. Technician skill and experience scores well overall, but is undermined by a notable subset of reviews describing misdiagnosis, incompetent repairs, and technicians who appeared uncertain or unqualified for the task at hand.

• PRICING CONCERN: Pricing is the single most negatively reviewed dimension. Dozens of reviews across multiple years and locations explicitly cite charges of $400–$1,600+ for basic drain cleaning or simple repairs as excessive, with multiple reviewers stating they found the same work done for 50–75% less elsewhere.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: A significant number of reviews describe jobs that were not completed, required multiple return visits, or were left in worse condition. Several reviews describe technicians abandoning jobs mid-work, failing to reconnect appliances, or leaving hazardous conditions.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURES: A recurring pattern of no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and poor dispatcher communication appears across multiple years and locations. This is a systemic operational issue.
• MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians recommending expensive repairs (e.g., $3,000–$10,000 excavations) that were later found unnecessary by other plumbers who resolved the issue quickly and cheaply.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — MODERATE: A cluster of reviews dated 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-02 share very similar short-form praise structures (e.g., 'Justin was awesome', 'Great Job Mo!', 'Justin saved our lives today!') with minimal detail. Several appear to be from the same franchise location and may reflect solicited or incentivized reviews. Confidence in the high-end scores is slightly reduced as a result.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 60–70 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews with substantive text are from 2024–2025 and are within the past 12 months. Older reviews (2013–2020) show similar patterns of both praise and complaints, suggesting these issues are long-standing and not improving significantly over time.
• GEOGRAPHIC VARIANCE: Reviews appear to span many different Roto-Rooter franchise locations across the US. Scores reflect aggregate performance across all locations, which may mask significant variation between individual franchises.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (600+ reviews) with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, making the aggregate score statistically robust; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously because it aggregates performance across many distinct franchise locations, and individual location quality varies dramatically — some franchises consistently earn 5-star praise while others generate repeated complaints about pricing, no-shows, and incomplete work.

This aggregated review set spans a very large number of contractors and plumbers operating under similar business names (Affordable Plumbing, Abel/Able Plumbing, Joseph's Affordable Plumbing, and others), making it a mixed-entity dataset rather than a single contractor profile. The majority of reviews are strongly positive, praising responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and fair pricing across many individual technicians such as Avi, Noe, Angelo, Bob, Chris, Rigo, and others. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews — roughly 15 to 20 percent of substantive reviews — describe serious issues including incomplete work, no-shows, dishonest pricing, rude owner behavior, property damage left unaddressed, and failure to honor callbacks or warranties. Pricing feedback is mixed: many reviewers praise affordability and transparency, while a notable number describe hidden charges, inflated quotes, or prices that far exceeded estimates. Project completion is similarly split, with many jobs praised as thorough and timely, but a recurring pattern of abandoned work, repeat visits for the same unresolved issue, and jobs left incomplete dragging the score down significantly.

• MULTI-ENTITY DATASET WARNING: Reviews appear to originate from multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names (e.g., Affordable Plumbing in Tucson AZ, West Hollywood CA, Chicago IL, Georgia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and others). Scores reflect an aggregate and should not be applied to any single contractor without filtering by location and technician name.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A subset of reviews, particularly those dated 2017-06-08 through 2017-06-13 and 2018-06-08, share identical or near-identical dates with no review text detail (e.g., 'Excellent workmanship', 'Great job', 'Excellent', 'Very well'). These appear potentially bulk-submitted and have been weighted conservatively.
• NO-TEXT REVIEWS EXCLUDED: Approximately 15 to 20 reviews contained no review text and only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from approximately 2000 to June 2025. A significant portion of reviews predate 2020 and some predate 2015. Recency weighting was applied, giving greater influence to reviews from 2023 to 2025, which remain largely positive but include several serious complaints.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — OWNER CONDUCT: Multiple independent negative reviews across different apparent business locations describe the owner or manager as rude, argumentative, or retaliatory toward customers who complained. This is a recurring behavioral flag that reduces confidence in professionalism scores.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — INCOMPLETE WORK AND NO-SHOWS: Multiple reviews across different time periods describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments without notice, jobs left unfinished, and management refusing to return to correct their own errors. This materially reduces the project completion score.
• NEGATIVE PATTERN — PRICING DISPUTES: Several reviews describe quotes that escalated significantly after work began, charges for work not performed, and refusal to itemize costs. One review describes a quote growing from $75 to $7,000. These are serious red flags for pricing transparency.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE COMPLAINTS: At least three reviews describe property damage caused by technicians (scratched toilet, flooded house, broken shower door) with the company refusing to accept responsibility or make repairs.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but LOW entity reliability because the dataset aggregates reviews for multiple distinct businesses operating under similar names across different US cities and states; consumers should treat this score as a general industry benchmark rather than a rating for any single contractor, and must independently verify the specific business and technician before hiring.

Prime Plumbing receives strong and consistent praise for professionalism, with the vast majority of reviewers highlighting friendly, courteous, punctual, and communicative technicians across a large and diverse review base spanning many years. Technical experience and workmanship are similarly well-regarded, with numerous reviewers citing knowledgeable technicians who diagnosed and resolved complex issues effectively. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs described as finished correctly and on time, though a meaningful minority of negative reviews describe abandoned work, unresolved callbacks, misdiagnoses requiring repeat visits, and jobs left incomplete — including at least one case of water damage caused by faulty repair. Pricing is the most significant drag on the score: a substantial and recurring pattern of complaints describes charges perceived as grossly excessive, hidden fees, dispatch charges not rolled into jobs, credit card surcharges, and instances of what reviewers characterize as predatory pricing targeting elderly or uninformed customers — this dimension alone pulls the overall score down considerably.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: The review 'Thank you Brandon for the great service!' (5-star) appears verbatim on 2025-06-07 and 2025-06-04. The review 'My plumber Bobby C was friendly and highly skillful...' appears verbatim on 2025-06-06 and 2025-06-03. These are likely fake or bot-submitted duplicate reviews and have been flagged; confidence in the 5-star cluster from early June 2025 is reduced.
• SUSPICIOUS GENERIC REVIEWS: A significant number of reviews consist of a single sentence or less with no specific detail (e.g., 'Great job', 'He did a great job', 'Awesome service'). Several blank-text reviews with 5-star ratings are present and provide no usable data.
• ONE REVIEW REFERENCES A DIFFERENT COMPANY NAME: One review explicitly praises 'Modern Septic Plumbing in Ocala' rather than Prime Plumbing, suggesting it may have been posted to the wrong business profile or is fabricated.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE NUMEROUS AND SPECIFIC: At least 20+ reviews across multiple years describe overcharging, including $554 to snake a drain, $847.60 to unclog two toilets, $3,000 for a 40-gallon water heater, $600+ for simple snaking jobs, and $475 for an outdoor spigot. Multiple reviewers explicitly state the company targets elderly customers.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH AND CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple independent reviews describe the company failing to return calls for weeks or months, not honoring quotes, not completing jobs after initial visits, and in one case abandoning an emergency repair mid-job. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2012 to 2025. The scoring gives appropriate weight to the large volume of recent reviews (2024-2025), which are more representative of current operations. Older reviews (pre-2020) reference specific technicians and owners (e.g., Dana) who may no longer be with the company, suggesting possible ownership or operational changes over time.
• UNRESOLVED DAMAGE CLAIM: At least one reviewer (January 2024) describes a botched toilet repair that caused water damage to ceilings and walls, with the company admitting human error but then failing to follow up or provide resolution — a serious project completion and liability concern.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set (290 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving HIGH statistical confidence in the dimensional scores; however, the presence of confirmed duplicate reviews, numerous generic or blank reviews, and a strong recurring pattern of pricing complaints and follow-through failures means the score should be treated as a realistic mid-range assessment — Prime Plumbing delivers competent and professional service in many cases but carries meaningful and well-documented risk around pricing transparency and job completion reliability.

Access Heating and Air receives strong and consistent praise for technician professionalism, friendliness, punctuality, and communication across a large volume of recent reviews, which drives solid scores in professionalism and experience. However, pricing is a serious and recurring concern: multiple detailed negative reviews across several years describe overcharging for basic parts (capacitors, thermostats), refusal to provide itemized invoices, high-pressure upselling, and estimates dramatically higher than competitors — this pattern is too consistent and specific to dismiss, pulling the pricing score down significantly. Project completion scores reasonably well, as most jobs appear to be finished, but there are notable complaints about 24/7 availability not being honored, failure to return calls, and at least one instance of a technician leaving a furnace improperly reassembled. The WW Score of 72.1 reflects a company with genuinely skilled and personable technicians operating under business practices that have repeatedly drawn credible accusations of price gouging and lack of transparency.

• PRICING CONCERN — HIGH SEVERITY: Multiple independent, detailed reviews spanning 2014–2024 describe a consistent pattern of overcharging for basic parts (e.g., $440–$446 for a capacitor replacement, $888 quoted for a thermostat install, $1,374 for a blower repair that a competitor completed for $271). This is not isolated and represents a systemic pattern.
• INVOICE TRANSPARENCY: At least three separate reviewers explicitly state the company refused to provide itemized invoices, which is a significant red flag for pricing integrity.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A large cluster of reviews dated 2025-05-10 and 2025-06-02 through 2025-06-07 are overwhelmingly 5-star, many extremely brief (e.g., 'Andy was awesome!!', 'Andy did great.', 'Andy did a fabulous job!'), with no specific detail. The volume, date clustering, and repetitive structure raise concerns about review solicitation campaigns or potentially inauthentic reviews. Confidence in the positive review cluster is reduced accordingly.
• MULTIPLE BLANK REVIEWS: Seven reviews contained no text whatsoever (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RESPONSIVENESS/AVAILABILITY FAILURE: At least two reviews describe the company failing to honor its advertised 24/7 service, with customers waiting 24+ hours without a callback during high-heat emergencies despite being paying monthly subscribers.
• UNAUTHORIZED BILLING: One reviewer (2024-05-15) alleges the company continued charging their bank account for months after verbal cancellation, which they stated they would report to the Idaho Attorney General. This is a serious business ethics flag.
• PREDATORY UPSELLING ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers describe technicians quoting unnecessary or grossly inflated repairs, with one reviewer (2022-06-09) stating a second opinion confirmed their system needed zero work after Access quoted $700–$1,000 in refrigerant alone.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2014 to 2024, indicating pricing and transparency issues are not isolated to an older period but are an ongoing pattern. Positive reviews dominate the most recent months (2025), which may reflect genuine improvement, a review solicitation campaign, or both.
• ONE REVIEWER (2024-07-13) alleges the company operates multiple Google profiles to obscure a lower-rated consolidated review history. This could not be verified from the data provided but is noted as a flag.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large volume of reviews, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given credible, repeated, and detailed allegations of price gouging, invoice opacity, and potential review manipulation that meaningfully offset the otherwise strong technician-level performance signals.