Find Nearby Plumbers In Boise City, Idaho

All three reviews describe serious allegations of fraud, unlicensed operation, incomplete work, and financial exploitation. Customers report overcharging ($4k–$6k for repairs), shoddy installations, abandoned jobs, and false diagnoses to justify additional charges. The company is accused of being unlicensed in Idaho and targeting vulnerable populations. No positive aspects of professionalism, pricing, completion, or experience are mentioned across any review. The consistency of fraud allegations and the pattern of financial harm across independent reviewers suggests systemic problems rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: All three reviews are uniformly negative (1-star ratings) with consistent allegations of fraud, unlicensed operation, and financial exploitation. However, these are NOT fake reviews—they contain specific details (names: Richard, Mike, Christian; amounts: $4k, $1.5k, $6k; specific failures: water softener installation, water heater non-delivery, false leak diagnosis). This is a pattern of genuine customer harm, not fabricated praise.
• LICENSING ALERT: Review 2 explicitly states the company is not licensed with the State of Idaho and operates from U-Haul vehicles without a business address.
• FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe false diagnoses (fake water leak requiring $6k repair), incomplete work (water heater never installed), and continued credit card charges without service.
• VULNERABLE POPULATION TARGETING: Review 2 specifically warns elderly people and suggests this is a systematic scam affecting multiple victims.
• RECENCY: Two reviews are from 2022 (over 1 year old); one is from November 2023 (within 12 months). The pattern persists across time.

This score should be treated as a strong warning signal rather than a traditional quality metric. While confidence is only MODERATE due to limited review volume (3 reviews), the consistency of specific fraud allegations, unlicensed operation claims, and financial harm across independent customers suggests this company poses significant risk to consumers and should be avoided.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, all with significant negative feedback. Two reviews explicitly cite severe pricing issues (charged 2.4x fair price, described as 'most expensive in the valley'), one reports incomplete work (dishwasher not connected properly with refusal to return), and one describes poor service with confrontational behavior. One review acknowledges competent workmanship but is heavily outweighed by pricing and follow-through failures. All reviews are older than 12 months (oldest from 2015), limiting recency relevance.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 total reviews — sample size too small for reliable scoring
• All reviews are negative (ratings: 2.0, 2.0, 1.0) — no positive data to balance assessment
• Severe pricing complaints in 2 of 3 reviews — pattern of overcharging alleged
• Project completion failure documented: dishwasher hookup incomplete, company refused callback
• Professionalism concern: Review 3 reports 'incredibly confrontational' behavior when questioned about mistakes
• Review recency issue: Oldest review from 2015 (9 years old), middle review from 2017 (7 years old), only 1 recent review from 2024
• Insufficient mentions across all dimensions (max 2 mentions) — all scores carry LIMITED confidence only

This assessment should NOT be trusted for decision-making. With only 3 reviews, all negative, and most older than 5 years, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably. The pattern suggests serious historical issues with pricing and follow-through, but the minimal sample size and age of data prevent confident generalization to current service quality.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 5 reviews needed to produce a statistically meaningful WW Score. While all three reviews are positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and fair pricing, the sample size is too small to confidently represent overall contractor performance. All reviews are older than 2 years (2020–2021), which further limits their relevance to current service quality.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 5 reviews for reliable scoring
• All reviews are 3+ years old (2020–2021) — recency is poor; no recent data available
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — limited diversity in feedback
• Small sample size makes it impossible to distinguish between consistently excellent service and potential selection bias

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume and age of data; at least 5 recent reviews are required for meaningful assessment.

Only 3 reviews were analyzed, with 1 being unusable (no text provided). The 2 usable reviews are both from 2012–2018 and rate Drake Plumbing at 1 star. Both reviews describe severe failures in project completion (incomplete work, extended timelines, customer abandonment) and poor professionalism (dismissive communication, failure to follow up, alleged misdiagnosis). One review explicitly criticizes pricing practices and high-pressure sales tactics. All scores are based on LIMITED evidence (1–2 mentions per dimension) and reflect serious, consistent complaints. The extreme age of reviews (5–11 years old) and very small sample size make this assessment unreliable for current performance.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 total reviews; 1 review contains no text ('unknown') and cannot be scored. Analysis is based on just 2 reviews.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both usable reviews are from 2012 and 2018 — significantly older than 12 months. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this data.
• SEVERE NEGATIVE PATTERN: Both reviews award 1-star ratings and describe serious failures (incomplete work, customer abandonment, misdiagnosis, poor follow-up). However, with only 2 reviews, this pattern cannot be confirmed as representative.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: With fewer than 3 usable reviews, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated per Step 4 rules.

This assessment is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Only 2 usable reviews exist, both are 5–11 years old, and both are 1-star complaints. A minimum of 5–10 recent reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

With only 3 reviews available, this dataset is insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation. Professionalism is the strongest dimension, mentioned across all reviews with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, friendliness, and professional demeanor (Caleb and Tyler specifically noted). Project completion is supported by 2 mentions describing completed work (tub/shower installation, drywall repair, and service calls). Experience is inferred from 2 mentions of efficiency and problem-solving capability. Pricing is entirely absent from all reviews, providing no data on value or fairness. All reviews are 5-star ratings from 2020–2021, now 3+ years old.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold for reliable scoring
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or specifics on pricing
• Reviews are 3+ years old (2020–2021); no recent data available
• Suspiciously generic praise language ('ROCK!!!', 'Highly recommend', 'above and beyond') with minimal specific detail about work quality or outcomes
• No pricing dimension data available — cannot assess value or fairness
• Pattern of enthusiastic but vague endorsements raises minor concern about review authenticity, though not conclusive

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. The sample size is far too small (3 reviews), all data is 3+ years old with no recent performance history, pricing is completely absent, and the uniformly positive tone with minimal specifics limits confidence. Additional recent reviews are essential before relying on any scoring.

Both reviews speak positively about Craig's professionalism, including thoroughness, communication, and cleanup after the job — strong indicators of a professional attitude. Project completion is supported by both reviews describing work that was fully finished and left in good condition. Experience is evidenced by one reviewer noting that even a city inspector recognized Craig's work as high quality, and the other describing skilled resolution of a complex plumbing situation. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where Craig is described as offering a reasonable price, yielding a conservative but positive pricing score. However, with only two reviews — one from 2018 and one from 2015 — all scores carry very limited confidence and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Both reviews are significantly dated: one from February 2015 and one from August 2018. Neither falls within the past 12 months, meaning these scores may not reflect current performance.
• No negative feedback of any kind is present across either review. While this could reflect genuine quality, with only 2 reviews it is insufficient to draw confident conclusions.
• Review language is specific and detailed enough that fake review patterns are not strongly suspected, but the small sample size prevents any meaningful pattern analysis.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both more than 5 years old, making it highly unreliable as a current indicator of contractor performance — significantly more recent reviews are needed before any WW Score can be trusted.