Find Nearby Plumbers In Castle Rock, Colorado

Cowboy Plumbing has a mixed but somewhat positive track record across the reviews analyzed. Several customers praised responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous behavior, while two reviews explicitly described rude, unprofessional conduct and failure to complete agreed-upon work — significantly dragging down professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing received mostly positive mentions (reasonable cost, worked with schedules) but one serious complaint about dishonest pricing and billing for unfinished work tempers that dimension. Technical skill and workmanship were generally praised where mentioned, including detailed explanations and quality installations, supporting a moderately strong experience score. The presence of two detailed, credible negative reviews prevents any dimension from scoring in the high range.

• One review (2021-11-18) is explicitly a retraction of a misposted review for a different company (Mr. Rooter) and was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data about Cowboy Plumbing.
• The review dated 2009-10-01 is over 14 years old and was given reduced weight due to age; it predates the negative reviews and may not reflect current service quality.
• Several positive reviews are generic in phrasing ('great service,' 'professional and courteous') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews.
• Two detailed 1-star reviews describe specific incidents of dishonesty, incomplete work, and rude behavior — these are credible negative signals that must be weighted seriously.
• Review spread spans 2009 to 2024, meaning the contractor's quality and consistency over time is difficult to assess reliably from this sample alone.
• Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024), limiting recency confidence.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the sample size is small (11 reviews), the date range spans 15 years, and two credible negative reviews introduce meaningful uncertainty about consistent service quality.

Master Tech shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2011–2024. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple reports of rude behavior, poor communication, and unprofessional appearance, though many reviews praise punctuality and courtesy. Pricing is a major weakness, with numerous complaints of price gouging, hidden charges, and deceptive sales practices (bait-and-switch quotes, triple-charging competitors' rates), offsetting some positive comments about fair pricing. Project completion is undermined by warranty disputes, incomplete work, failure to honor commitments, and unresolved follow-up issues. Experience and workmanship are generally praised when jobs are completed, but execution quality is inconsistent. The company's 20+ years in business is noted, yet recent reviews (2021–2024) contain severe complaints about service quality and ethics.

• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Reviews dated 2023-04-29 and 2021-08-24 contain near-identical or duplicate text ('Michael and his team (Anthony) are amazing...', 'They are on time, do a great job, and clean up after themselves', 'Michael is always professional timely, courteous...'), suggesting artificially inflated ratings. Two reviews marked 'N/A' with 5-star ratings (2021-08-24) provide no substantive data.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 3–13 years old (2011–2017). Recent reviews (2021, 2024) are predominantly negative (1-star ratings with detailed complaints), indicating potential service quality decline or reputation damage.
• ETHICAL RED FLAGS: Multiple reviews document deceptive practices including bait-and-switch pricing (2015), refusal to honor warranties (2021, 2015), taking customer parts without authorization (2021), and misrepresenting pricing breakdowns (2021). One review (2013) reports the company operates from a 'junk yard' address with no legitimate office.
• INCONSISTENT COMPANY IDENTITY: Reviews reference name changes ('Carrier' to 'MasterTech') and unclear business structure, raising questions about accountability and legitimacy.
• WARRANTY DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2021, 2015) document refusal to honor stated warranty terms and demands for additional payment for follow-up service on failed repairs.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE HOSTILITY: 2024 and 2021 reviews document rude, yelling customer service representatives and abrupt call terminations, contradicting professionalism claims.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 33 reviews with HIGH confidence in dimension mentions, the dataset is heavily skewed toward older reviews (2011–2017) with artificially inflated ratings, and recent reviews (2021–2024) reveal serious ethical and service quality issues including deceptive pricing, warranty violations, and hostile customer service. The presence of duplicate/fake reviews further undermines confidence. A potential customer should prioritize recent negative reviews and seek independent verification before engaging this contractor.

Quality Service shows genuine strengths in responsiveness and follow-through, with multiple reviewers praising technicians for arriving on time, completing jobs same-day, and going above and beyond in emergency situations. Professionalism scores are dragged down by one detailed complaint about deliberate miscommunication on pricing from a technician named Sam. Pricing is the most damaged dimension, with two separate negative reviews — one alleging a $898 charge for $60 in parts and over $400/hour in labor, and another citing a $4,000 premium over competitors for an identical AC unit — both of which are specific, credible, and damaging. Project completion and experience scores remain relatively strong, supported by multiple reviewers describing completed multi-item jobs and skilled workmanship, though the small review pool limits confidence across all dimensions.

• Small review pool of only 6 reviews — all dimension scores carry LIMITED to MODERATE confidence at best and should not be treated as definitive.
• Two of the three most recent reviews (2023) include serious pricing complaints with specific dollar figures, suggesting a possible pattern of pricing issues that may have worsened over time.
• The 1-star review from July 2023 alleges deliberate miscommunication about job cost by a named technician (Sam), which is a significant integrity concern beyond simple overpricing.
• Review dates span from 2020 to 2023 — two reviews are 3+ years old and may not reflect current service quality. The two most recent reviews are mixed (one 5-star, one 1-star).
• No strong fake review indicators detected — reviews contain specific names, dates, job details, and varied sentiment, suggesting authentic authorship.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning over three years and should be treated as a preliminary signal only — the pricing dimension in particular is flagged by two credible, detail-rich negative reviews that meaningfully lower trustworthiness in that area.

Rock Plumbing, Heating & AC presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Individual technicians frequently receive praise for politeness, knowledge, and communication — but this is consistently undermined by a pervasive pattern of pricing complaints that spans the entire review timeline from 2014 to 2024. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: dozens of reviewers describe quotes that were two to three times higher than competitors, mandatory service call fees ($59–$100) that are not applied to work, and aggressive upselling tactics including recommending unnecessary full system replacements. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are finished well, but there are credible accounts of abandoned work, failed repairs, and a refusal to honor a satisfaction guarantee. Technical experience is similarly split: several technicians are praised as highly skilled, while others are accused of misdiagnosing systems, providing false CO readings, and recommending replacements for equipment that competitors later confirmed was functioning correctly.

• PRICING PATTERN — SYSTEMIC: Overpricing complaints appear in reviews spanning 2014 through 2024, across dozens of independent reviewers. This is not isolated; it reflects a consistent business model concern.
• UPSELL / SCARE TACTIC PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers (2022, 2023, 2024) describe technicians falsely claiming systems were failing or dangerous, followed immediately by a sales pitch for full replacements costing $8,000–$27,000. In several cases, second opinions confirmed the systems were functioning normally.
• FALSE CO READING ALLEGATION (2022): One detailed review alleges a technician fabricated a carbon monoxide reading to sell a new furnace. The reviewer tested the same location with their own meter immediately after and recorded 0 ppm. This is a serious integrity flag.
• ELDERLY TARGETING PATTERN: At least two reviews (2024, 2022) explicitly describe elderly or vulnerable customers being quoted prices far above market rate, with one reviewer documenting a $7,000 quote for work completed by another company for $3,900.
• ABANDONED WORK / NO CALLBACK (2022): Two near-identical reviews (likely duplicates from the same reviewer) describe a technician leaving without completing a repair and never following up despite messages left.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2022-02-26 are word-for-word identical, submitted 17 minutes apart. These appear to be the same reviewer submitting twice and have been counted as one incident.
• MEMBERSHIP / SUBSCRIPTION COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviewers describe difficulty canceling monthly memberships, being charged after cancellation, and membership benefits (free cleanings) not being honored as promised.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW-MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews are highly specific with named technicians and detailed scenarios, which reduces fake review suspicion. However, a cluster of older 5-star reviews (2016–2019) use somewhat generic praise language. Overall fake review risk is considered low-moderate.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) continue to show both the upselling pattern and individual technician praise, suggesting the business model issues have not been resolved over time.

This WW Score is based on 75 reviews spanning 2014–2024 with strong data across all four dimensions, making it HIGH confidence overall; however, the score should be interpreted as a genuine reflection of a contractor with inconsistent quality — capable individual technicians operating within a business model that multiple independent reviewers describe as systematically overpriced and prone to aggressive, sometimes dishonest upselling.

Courtesy Plumbing and Heating presents a deeply divided review profile. A meaningful subset of customers — particularly those served by technicians Drew, Jason, Alec, Jenna, and David — report genuinely positive experiences with professionalism, responsiveness, and technical competence. However, these positives are substantially offset by a large volume of serious negative reviews spanning pricing gouging allegations, no-show appointments, incomplete or incorrect work, unlicensed technician concerns, and failure to follow through on promises. Pricing is the single most damaged dimension, with numerous reviewers across multiple years independently describing charges as wildly inflated — sometimes 5–10x market rate — and several alleging deceptive upselling practices. Project completion also suffers significantly, with multiple documented cases of technicians failing to return as promised, leaving work unfinished, or performing incorrect repairs that required third-party correction. The company's overall score is dragged down by the consistency and specificity of these negative accounts across a long time span.

• PRICING CONCERNS — HIGH SEVERITY: At least 10 independent reviewers across multiple years (2013–2025) describe pricing as grossly inflated, with specific dollar comparisons provided. Examples include: $800 for a PRV not correctly set; $925 for a faucet and P-trap with ~$200 in parts; $1,170 quoted for a $120 control board; $1,200 quoted for a job with $100 in parts; $300 for 30 minutes of work; $5,000 quoted for an AC repair that cost $600 elsewhere. This is a persistent, multi-year pattern — not isolated incidents.
• UNLICENSED TECHNICIAN ALLEGATIONS: Two separate reviews (Dec 2024 and Sep 2023) allege that technicians performed work on apprentice licenses without required supervision, in violation of Colorado law. One review references a DORA cease and desist order and expired licenses in Colorado Springs and Sedalia. These are serious legal and safety concerns that could not be independently verified from reviews alone but are highly specific and credible.
• NO-SHOW / BROKEN PROMISE PATTERN: Multiple reviews document technicians (particularly Eddie) failing to return as scheduled with zero communication. A separate business review documents repeated broken payment promises over 30+ days. This pattern of unreliability appears across multiple technicians and contexts.
• DECEPTIVE UPSELLING ALLEGATIONS: At least 3 reviews (2021 furnace CO scare, 2021 AC control board, 2021 AC switch) describe technicians diagnosing expensive problems that were later found to be non-existent or trivially inexpensive by other companies. The CO/furnace incident involving an elderly woman is particularly concerning given the vulnerability of the customer.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews contain minimal detail (e.g., 'Jason was great', 'Jenna is amazing! Thank you', 'Great service!', blank text with 5 stars, 'Thorough and efficient'). While not conclusive, the pattern of very short, unspecific 5-star reviews alongside highly detailed negative reviews warrants caution. Confidence in the positive score contributions is reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2013 to 2025. Negative pricing and upselling complaints appear consistently across the entire date range, suggesting these are not isolated historical issues. The most recent reviews (2025) still include serious complaints about no-shows, rigid policies, and incorrect work, indicating problems have not been resolved under current management.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES DOCUMENTED: The Kwincii incident (2023) involved improperly installed tub pipes and drain causing water damage, with the technician refusing to acknowledge fault. The Eddie incident (2024) involved installing a drain on the wrong side, leaving trash, and failing to clamp a fitting — causing ~20 gallons of water damage. These are not minor errors.
• COLLECTIONS / BILLING DISPUTE: One review (2022) describes being sent to collections after the owner allegedly provided a zero-dollar invoice for botched work. Another review (2025) describes a subcontractor not being paid for damage repair work despite repeated promises over 30+ days.

This WW Score is based on 67 reviews spanning 2013–2025 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the persistent and specific nature of negative reviews — particularly around pricing, unlicensed work allegations, and no-show behavior — means the score of 54.2 should be treated as a genuine warning signal, and prospective customers should exercise significant caution before hiring this company.

American Septic presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple reviews citing no-shows, unreturned calls, poor communication, and dismissive customer service, even though several positive reviews praise punctuality and friendly technicians. Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple reviewers explicitly alleging charges exceeding quotes, billing for more gallons than tanks physically hold, and a lack of invoice transparency. Project completion is similarly split — loyal long-term customers report solid follow-through, while others describe abandoned appointments, incomplete work, and a failed system with no diagnostic effort offered. Experience scores reflect genuine technical competence noted in positive reviews, offset by serious concerns about a technician allegedly pumping more gallons than a tank's capacity and leaving three of four tanks untouched.

• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Two separate reviewers (2015-09-11 and 2015-10-09) independently allege being charged for more gallons than their tanks physically hold. A third reviewer (2022-08-26) reports an invoice exceeding the quoted price with no explanation. This pattern of pricing irregularities is a significant red flag.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One reviewer (2015-10-09) reports that only 1 of 4 septic tanks was pumped despite being charged for all four, and that the tank flooded shortly after, causing $1,200 in additional damage. This suggests a potential serious quality-of-work failure.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are from 2015–2020, with only one review from the past 12 months (2022-08-26), which is negative. There is insufficient recent data to confirm whether service quality has improved or declined.
• RESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Two separate negative reviews (2017-06-23 and 2017-10-10) describe a consistent pattern of missed appointments, unreturned calls, and poor follow-through. The 2017-06-23 reviewer also reports that a receptionist advised them to use a different company.
• REVIEW VOLUME: Only 12 reviews total span approximately 7 years, which is a low volume for a service business. Scores should be interpreted with caution given the limited sample size relative to the time period.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small but substantively detailed review set; the billing and workmanship concerns raised by multiple independent reviewers are credible and materially lower the score, but the lack of recent reviews (only one from the past 12 months) limits confidence in whether these issues reflect the company's current state of operations.