Find Nearby Plumbers In Aurora, Colorado

Patriot Pros presents a deeply split profile across its review history. On professionalism, technicians are almost universally described as courteous, friendly, and communicative — however, this is severely undermined by a large volume of credible complaints about missed appointments, no-shows, rescheduling failures, and in some cases outright unresponsiveness, pulling the score well below what friendliness alone would suggest. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: across dozens of independent, detailed reviews spanning many years, customers consistently report quotes that are 2x to 10x market rates, with multiple reviewers providing specific competitor comparisons confirming the pattern — this is the lowest-confidence area for the company and the primary driver of negative sentiment. Project completion is mixed: many recent 5-star reviews describe jobs completed same-day or efficiently, but a meaningful number of older and mid-period reviews describe abandoned work, failed inspections, warranty refusals, and jobs left incomplete or done incorrectly. Technical experience is similarly split — some reviewers praise diagnostic skill and thoroughness, while others describe technicians who failed to diagnose simple problems, misidentified issues, or performed substandard installations that failed city inspections. The recency trend shows a cluster of positive reviews in 2025, but the volume and specificity of negative reviews from 2014–2023 cannot be dismissed.

• PRICING PATTERN — SYSTEMIC: Across 62 reviews explicitly mentioning price, the overwhelming majority describe quotes 2x–10x market rate. Multiple reviewers independently verified this by obtaining competitor quotes. This is not isolated; it is a consistent, multi-year pattern and is treated as a major negative signal.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — RECENT POSITIVE CLUSTER: A large number of 5-star reviews dated May–June 2025 contain very little substantive detail (e.g., 'Great guy, Great service', 'Best service imaginable!', 'Was very helpful!', 'Awesome Tech and great service!'). Several reviews in this cluster have no text at all (rating only). This pattern — generic praise, no specifics, clustered dates, all 5-star — is consistent with review padding. Confidence in these reviews is reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 7 reviews contained no text whatsoever, only a 5-star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The majority of detailed negative reviews are from 2014–2023. The 2025 reviews are predominantly positive but lack specificity. It is unclear whether the business has genuinely improved or whether recent reviews are inflated. Scores are weighted toward substantive reviews regardless of date.
• FAILED INSPECTIONS AND SAFETY CONCERNS: At least two reviews describe installations that failed city inspections (furnace ductwork, AC electrical outlet). One review describes a gas line left leaking after a service call. One review describes an illegal installation with no permit. These are serious safety and competency flags.
• WARRANTY AND FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor warranties, failing to return for callback work, or charging customers again for problems caused by their own technicians.
• UPSELLING PATTERN: Numerous independent reviewers across many years describe technicians pivoting from the stated service call to aggressive upselling of unrelated systems (water heaters, full HVAC replacements, water filtration systems). This pattern is consistent and credible.
• SCHEDULING RELIABILITY: A significant number of negative reviews specifically cite missed appointments, last-minute cancellations, and failure to notify customers — sometimes multiple reschedules for the same job.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (110 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically robust — however, the presence of a suspected recent positive review padding campaign and a long, well-documented history of pricing and completion complaints means the true performance of this contractor is likely closer to or below the calculated score, and prospective customers should obtain multiple competing quotes before engaging this company.

Hart Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with severe pricing concerns and professionalism issues that significantly drag down the overall score. While positive reviews praise technical skill, responsiveness, and fair pricing in isolated cases, multiple detailed negative reviews document overcharging (charges 50-100% above quoted estimates), dishonest billing practices (charging for work not performed and materials not used), and hostile customer service when disputes arise. The company's professionalism score is severely impacted by documented rudeness, threats of collections, and defensive behavior when questioned. Project completion is solid when work is actually performed, but pricing transparency and honest billing practices are major red flags that undermine trust.

• CRITICAL: Multiple detailed accounts of significant overcharging and billing fraud. Two reviews document charges substantially exceeding verbal estimates ($250 for 15-20 min service with no parts; $475 vs $300+ quoted; $400+ for 2.5 hours when quoted $95-120/hr). This pattern suggests systemic pricing dishonesty.
• CRITICAL: Documented hostile customer service. Owner accused customer of lying and threatened collections action when billing discrepancies were questioned, rather than investigating employee conduct.
• CRITICAL: Billing fraud allegations. Multiple reviews state charges included materials that were not used and work that was not performed. One customer was home entire time and confirmed work discrepancies.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are 5-7 years old (2016-2019), with only one recent negative review (2023). However, the 2019 review shows the same pattern of overcharging and rudeness, suggesting ongoing issues. Positive reviews are also older (2015-2018), limiting current reliability assessment.
• POLARIZATION: Extreme split between 1-star and 5-star reviews with no middle ground. This suggests either dramatically inconsistent service quality or potential review manipulation, though the detailed negative accounts appear credible and specific.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to the extreme polarization and age of reviews, but the detailed, specific nature of multiple overcharging allegations and the documented pattern of billing practices that contradict customer observations warrant serious concern about pricing transparency and honesty, regardless of technical competence.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across projects. While two reviews praise fast response, communication, and reasonable pricing, a detailed negative review from January 2024 documents serious quality and follow-through failures: improper electrical work with live exposed wires, substandard fan installation, misrepresentation of materials used, and abandonment of callback obligations after payment. The contractor's professionalism is undermined by unresponsiveness and failure to honor commitments. Project completion is the weakest dimension due to incomplete work and broken callbacks. The WW Score of 54.8 reflects moderate confidence based on three reviews with conflicting evidence, but the severity of documented defects in the negative review carries substantial weight.

• CRITICAL: One detailed negative review (Jan 2024) documents multiple serious defects including exposed live wires (electrical safety hazard), improper installation techniques, material misrepresentation, and abandonment of callback obligations after full payment. This is not a minor complaint.
• Recency concern: The most damaging review is from January 2024 (10 months old), but the two positive reviews are from October 2024 and January 2024, suggesting possible pattern change or inconsistent quality control.
• Responsiveness failure: Contractor cancelled callbacks 3 days in a row and stopped responding to customer contact attempts, indicating serious professionalism breakdown.
• Limited sample size (3 reviews) means score volatility is high; one additional negative review would significantly lower the WW Score.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size and extreme polarization between reviews. The documented safety and quality issues in the negative review are serious red flags that outweigh positive feedback on communication and pricing. Additional recent reviews are needed to determine if the January 2024 incident represents an isolated failure or a pattern.

Denver Plumbing Pros shows a deeply polarized review pattern with critical failures in professionalism and project completion offsetting positive feedback on pricing and workmanship. Two reviews explicitly document severe reliability issues: a no-show appointment with unresponsive owner communication, and a callback failure. Pricing feedback is consistently positive across multiple reviews, but this cannot overcome fundamental service delivery problems. The company demonstrates technical competence when work is completed, but execution and responsiveness are major weaknesses that undermine customer trust.

• POLARIZED PATTERN: Reviews split sharply between 1-star and 4-5 star with no middle ground, suggesting inconsistent service delivery rather than fake reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are from 2015-2016 (8-9 years old). No recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been corrected.
• CRITICAL SERVICE FAILURES: Two explicit no-show/callback failures documented with specific details (2:00 PM appointment, 4:30 PM still waiting; owner phone turned off). These are not minor complaints.
• MISDIAGNOSIS ALLEGATION: One review alleges significant overcharging ($25 part vs. full furnace replacement), suggesting potential technical judgment or ethics issues.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme age of data (8-9 years) and small sample size (6 reviews), but the documented service failures are specific and credible enough to warrant serious concern about reliability and professionalism regardless of pricing strengths.

This contractor's review set is sharply divided between strong positive experiences and severe service failures. Two of the five reviews describe significant professionalism and project completion failures — including a plumber abandoning a job mid-visit, unreturned calls, missed appointments, and rude behavior — which heavily drag down those dimensions. The positive reviews do highlight upfront pricing, competitive quotes, no upselling, and quality workmanship, lending moderate confidence to pricing and experience scores. However, the two most recent reviews (October 2024 and February 2024) are both 1-star complaints, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. With only 5 reviews total, all scores carry limited statistical weight and should be interpreted cautiously.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (October 2024 and February 2024) are both 1-star, indicating a potential decline in service quality. The positive reviews are older (2021 and 2023).
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total. Scores are based on very limited data and should not be treated as statistically reliable.
• ABANDONED JOB FLAG: One review explicitly describes a plumber leaving mid-job and management cancelling service without notifying the customer — a serious project completion failure.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Multiple reviews cite unreturned calls, no-shows, and lack of follow-through, which significantly impacts the professionalism score.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in detail, tone, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to the very small review sample (5 reviews), a stark positive-negative split, and the fact that the most recent reviews are the most negative — treat this score as a preliminary signal only, not a definitive assessment.

This contractor shows significant pricing concerns with two explicit complaints about overcharging (undisclosed $250 service fee and $550 for a $203 pump). Professionalism is mixed—one positive mention of friendly and helpful service, but serious issues with communication (failure to disclose fees upfront) and responsiveness (ignoring customer requests for resolution). Project completion and technical work quality appear solid when jobs proceed, with work completed efficiently and described as 'great work.' However, the extremely limited review sample (3 reviews) and heavy concentration of negative pricing feedback severely limit confidence in this assessment. The oldest review is from 2018, with the most damaging review from 2022.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed—insufficient for reliable scoring. WW Score should be treated as preliminary only.
• PRICING RED FLAG: Two independent reviews explicitly cite significant overcharging practices ($250 undisclosed service fee, $550 markup on $203 equipment). This pattern suggests systemic pricing issues.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Owner Scott failed to disclose service fees upfront and ignored customer request for resolution, indicating poor customer service responsiveness.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent negative review is from June 2022 (2+ years old). Positive review is from 2018 (6+ years old). Cannot assess if practices have changed.
• SAMPLE BIAS: Only 1 positive review vs. 2 strongly negative reviews. Positive review lacks specifics and detail, while negative reviews are highly detailed and credible.

This score has LIMITED reliability due to only 3 reviews analyzed. The consistent pattern of pricing complaints across independent reviews is concerning and should be weighted heavily, but the small sample size prevents confident generalization. Do not rely on this score for major decisions without additional recent reviews.