Find Nearby Plumbers In Arvada, Colorado

Fast Flo Drain Cleaning exhibits severe and consistent professionalism deficits across multiple reviews, with documented instances of rude phone behavior, condescending technicians, and unprofessional communication. Project completion is compromised by warranty non-compliance, incomplete work, and follow-up failures. Pricing shows mixed signals—some customers report fair value while others describe significant overcharges for minimal work or damage caused by technician error. Technical experience is inconsistent; while some technicians demonstrate competence and knowledge, others have caused property damage (exploded toilet, snapped machinery, stripped fixtures) and provided false inspection information. The company's overall reliability is severely undermined by poor accountability and management response to errors.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2021-06-17, 2020-02-07, 2017-08-26, 2017-03-31, 2015-05-17, 2011-12-06) document abusive phone behavior including yelling, hanging up on customers, and insulting language. This is a systemic professionalism issue, not isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Warranty non-compliance documented in 2015-10-15 review—company refused to honor stated 90-day warranty after customer paid $1000 for repeated service.
• CRITICAL: Property damage incidents (2021-06-17 exploded toilet, 2017-08-26 snapped machinery, 2017-12-29 stripped shower screw) with company refusing accountability or compensation.
• CRITICAL: False inspection information documented in 2017-03-31 review—inspector allegedly misrepresented sewer line condition in favor of home seller who paid for inspection, suggesting potential conflict of interest.
• CRITICAL: Inconsistent service delivery—multiple reviews document missed appointments, late arrivals (45 minutes to 2+ hours), and failure to call ahead as promised.
• CRITICAL: Incomplete work documented in 2017-12-29 review—technician failed to turn water back on after job completion.
• CRITICAL: Pricing inconsistencies—identical bills for vastly different services (2018-09-13), dramatic quote increases mid-job (2017-12-29: $29 initial quote to $189 then additional $150 demand), and charges for minimal/no work completed.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are from 2011-2017 (older than 1 year), but recent reviews from 2020-2021 show the same professionalism and accountability issues persist, indicating systemic rather than historical problems.
• PATTERN: Positive reviews (5-star) are sparse and older (2012-2016), while recent reviews are predominantly 1-star with detailed complaints. This suggests either deterioration in service quality or selective positive review submission.

This WW Score of 42.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning indicator. The score is based on 18 detailed reviews with consistent patterns of documented failures across all dimensions, particularly professionalism and project completion. The company demonstrates systemic issues with customer service, accountability, and follow-through that appear to be ongoing rather than isolated.

Millwood Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across a small and heavily dated review set. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is sharply divided: positive reviews from 2005–2007 praise Ernie specifically for being professional, communicative, and efficient, while negative reviews — including one as recent as 2015 — cite failure to return calls and general unresponsiveness. Project completion is a serious concern, with one reviewer explicitly describing a toilet installation that was 8 inches off-center and barely passed inspection, leaving a fixture that does not fit against the wall. Pricing received only one mention, which was favorable, but a single data point carries very little weight. Experience scores moderately, with positive reviews describing competent pipe repair and sink installation, offset by the documented installation error in the 2015 review.

• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review is from October 2015 — nearly 10 years ago. All other reviews date from 2005–2011. This score reflects historical performance only and should not be used to assess current service quality.
• THIN DATA SET: Only 6 reviews total, spanning a decade. The WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable.
• WORKMANSHIP DEFECT DOCUMENTED: The 2015 review describes a toilet rough-in installed 8 inches off-center that barely passed inspection and left the toilet unable to sit flush against the wall. This is a concrete, specific quality failure — not a vague complaint.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years (2006, 2011, 2015) independently cite failure to return calls or respond to inquiries, suggesting a persistent pattern rather than an isolated incident.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ARE VERY OLD: All 5-star reviews are from 2005–2007 and reference a specific technician named Ernie. It is unknown whether this technician is still with the company or whether current service quality reflects these older experiences.

This WW Score has very low reliability due to an extremely small review set, a 10-year data gap with no recent reviews, and documented evidence of both a workmanship defect and a recurring responsiveness problem — use with significant caution.

This contractor's review profile is deeply polarized and dominated by two highly detailed, credible negative reviews describing serious misconduct including deposit theft, abandoned work, dishonesty, hostile behavior, and alleged fraud — resulting in significant financial harm to clients. The two negative reviews (2017 and 2020) are the most recent and most detailed, and they directly address professionalism, project completion, and pricing in damning terms. The three positive reviews are older (2014–2016), lack specific detail, and exhibit patterns consistent with potentially inauthentic reviews. Even weighting the positive reviews at face value, the severity and specificity of the negative accounts — including references to bankruptcy, supplier bans, and manufacturer disapproval — pull all dimension scores sharply downward. The WW Score of 28.1 reflects a contractor who poses a substantial risk to prospective clients based on available evidence.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: The three 5-star reviews (2014, 2016 x2) are generic, lack specific job details, use effusive praise without substance, and are significantly older than the negative reviews. Phrases like 'upstanding and professional company' and 'worth every penny' with no supporting detail are hallmarks of potentially inauthentic reviews.
• RECENCY BIAS APPLIED: The two most recent reviews (2017 and 2020) are both 1-star and contain extensive, specific, credible allegations. These were given significantly more weight than the older 5-star reviews.
• FINANCIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGED: One reviewer explicitly states they lost $20,000 in deposit funds that were allegedly misappropriated. This is a severe flag for any prospective client.
• THIRD-PARTY CORROBORATION CITED: The 2017 reviewer references a lawsuit by Rampart Supply for fraud, a resulting bankruptcy filing, and alleged awareness of poor conduct by Lochinvar (a boiler manufacturer). These are independently verifiable claims that significantly increase the credibility of the negative review.
• PATTERN OF REPEAT BEHAVIOR: Two independent reviewers describe nearly identical experiences — initial trust-building on a small job, followed by a large deposit request, then non-performance, dishonesty, and financial loss. This pattern is a serious red flag.
• REVIEW VOLUME TOO LOW: Only 5 reviews total. Confidence in all scores is inherently limited. The WW Score should be treated as directional, not definitive.
• ALL POSITIVE REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 7 YEARS: No positive reviews exist from 2017 onward, while both negative reviews are from 2017 and 2020. This recency gap further undermines the credibility of the positive reviews.

This WW Score has LOW overall reliability due to the small review sample (5 total), the age gap between positive and negative reviews, and strong indicators that the positive reviews may not be authentic — however, the two negative reviews are detailed, specific, and mutually corroborating, making the low score directionally trustworthy as a warning signal.

Both reviews are positive and describe completed jobs with satisfied customers. Review 1 covers a bath remodel including tub and enclosure installation, praising speed and results. Review 2 describes a drain line repair with prompt arrival, clear communication, and affordable pricing. Professionalism is supported by mentions of politeness and explanation of work, while project completion is evidenced by both jobs being finished successfully. However, with only 2 reviews, all dimension scores carry very low confidence and should not be treated as reliable indicators of consistent performance.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language and limited specific detail, which is a mild pattern consistent with low-volume or potentially curated review sets.
• Review 1 contains no mention of pricing or technical detail, limiting scoring depth for those dimensions.
• All reviews are from early 2023 — no recent reviews within the past 12 months relative to a 2024-2025 evaluation window, which may not reflect current service quality.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable — no WW Score has been calculated, and all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to insufficient data volume.

Only one review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer explicitly praised Jay for arriving on time and conducting a thorough assessment, supporting a modest professionalism score. The reviewer also noted that Jay 'really knows his stuff,' providing minimal but direct evidence of technical competence. No information was provided regarding pricing, project completion, or workmanship outcomes, as the visit appears to have been a consultation or inspection rather than a completed job. All scores must be treated with very low confidence given the single data point.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The visit described appears to be a pre-purchase inspection or consultation, not a completed installation project — project completion and workmanship cannot be assessed.
• Review is from 2020 (over 4 years old) — recency weighting is a concern; this data may not reflect current service quality.
• Single review with generic praise and limited specifics — confidence in all dimension scores is LOW.

This score report is based on a single review from 2020 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality or consistency.

Only one review was provided, which focuses almost entirely on pricing. The reviewer explicitly contrasts PV Works' $190 total charge against a competitor's $1,000 quote for the same job, strongly indicating favorable and competitive pricing. Project completion is inferred from the reviewer stating the job was done, though no detail is given about quality, timeliness, or workmanship. Professionalism and experience are entirely unaddressed in this review. With only a single data point, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review provided — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score.
• Professionalism and Experience dimensions have zero data and cannot be scored.
• Project completion score is conservative due to minimal detail — reviewer confirms the job was done but provides no specifics on quality or follow-through.
• Review is from January 2022, which is over 1 year old — recency weighting is a concern if this is the only available data point.
• Single review cannot be assessed for fake review patterns — no comparison baseline exists.

This WW Score cannot be calculated or trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality due to insufficient review volume — only 1 review was analyzed, covering only 2 of 4 scoring dimensions.