Find Nearby Plumbers In Colorado Springs, Colorado

CW's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across its review history. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by multiple explicit, detailed accounts of rude, abusive, and dismissive behavior from the owner (Cort) and staff — including yelling at customers and contractors, hanging up on callers, and insulting a customer's home. These negative incidents are partially offset by several reviews praising responsiveness, politeness, and professional demeanor from other technicians (notably Tom and Mike). Pricing received mixed signals: one reviewer praised transparent, as-quoted pricing, while another described paying $320 for unresolved work and being charged time-and-a-half to fix a technician's own mistake — a significant ethics concern. Project completion scores reflect a pattern of quick, successful jobs in positive reviews but one notable instance of an incomplete, abandoned job with no resolution. Experience is similarly split, with praise for Cort's decades of knowledge and honest diagnosis on one hand, and a damning account of a technician billing 2.5 hours to self-educate on a tankless water heater system on the other.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with only 3 reviews from the past 12 months (2021). Scores may not reflect current business quality, especially given the ownership transition to Tom Romano noted in a 2021 review.
• OWNERSHIP TRANSITION NOTED: A September 2021 review explicitly states that Tom Romano (a former employee) purchased the company from the prior owner. The most severe professionalism and pricing complaints are directed at 'Cort,' the previous owner. This is a meaningful context split — post-transition reviews (2021) are uniformly positive, while pre-transition reviews contain the harshest criticisms.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: At least 3 reviews (2015, 2017, 2018) describe explicit verbal rudeness, yelling, or abrupt call termination. These are specific, detailed, and credible accounts — not vague complaints.
• PRICING/ETHICS FLAG: One review (2015) describes being charged for a technician's learning time, then charged time-and-a-half to fix the technician's own error, with no reimbursement offered. This is a substantive business ethics concern.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary significantly in tone, detail, length, and rating. Both positive and negative reviews contain specific names, dates, and situational details, suggesting authenticity across the board.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the review pool is small (12 reviews), spans nearly 8 years, and includes a documented ownership change that creates a meaningful before/after split — consumers evaluating the current business under Tom Romano should weight the 2021 reviews most heavily, while treating pre-2021 reviews as historical context rather than predictive of current performance.

Jorge's reviews are sharply divided between strong praise from earlier customers and a serious, detailed complaint from 2022. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by the most recent review, which explicitly describes threatening behavior, a defensive demeanor, and contractual disputes — serious red flags that offset the warmth described in older reviews. Project completion is the most damaged dimension: the 2022 review documents a failed sewer repair, refusal to refund, and the need to hire a second plumber to correct the work, which Jorge himself refused to guarantee. Pricing feedback is generally positive across multiple older reviews, with mentions of fair quotes, no upselling, and a military discount, though the 2022 review raises concerns about threatened late fees not disclosed in the original scope. Experience scores moderately, with older reviews praising neat, thorough workmanship, but the 2022 sewer failure introduces meaningful doubt about technical reliability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (2022) is the only one within the past 3 years and is also the most negative and most detailed. All positive reviews are from 2017–2019, making them 5–7 years old. The current quality of service may differ significantly from what older reviews reflect.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT: The 2022 review describes a failed repair, refusal to refund, threats of undisclosed late fees, and unprofessional demeanor. This is a substantive, specific, and credible complaint that carries significant weight.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW STALENESS: The cluster of 5-star reviews between 2017 and 2019 with no positive reviews since raises questions about whether the business has changed in quality or ownership over time.
• PATTERN NOTE: The five positive reviews share broadly similar praise language (honest, professional, trustworthy, recommend) but do include specific details (sump pump, condo replumb, shower repair, military discount) that reduce — but do not eliminate — concern about authenticity.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the positive dimensions are supported by multiple mentions but are significantly aged, while the single recent review is a serious negative that meaningfully pulls down completion and professionalism scores and cannot be dismissed.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2015–2023. Positive reviews highlight honesty, thoroughness, cleanliness, and quick problem-solving (2015, 2018, 2023). However, severe negative reviews document no-shows, unresponsiveness, excessive pricing ($250 for 45 minutes of work), incomplete repairs, and poor callback service (2018, 2020). The WW Score of 68.3 reflects mixed performance: professionalism is moderate due to both strong communication and complete abandonment; pricing is severely penalized by documented overcharging; project completion is compromised by documented incomplete work and no-shows; experience is solid but insufficient to offset operational failures.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews document serious operational failures—no-show with no response (2020) and incomplete repair with excessive pricing (2018). These are not minor complaints but fundamental service breakdowns.
• PRICING CONCERN: 2018 review explicitly states $250 charged for 45 minutes of work and $15 in parts—this is a 16x markup and represents potential predatory pricing. This heavily penalizes the pricing dimension.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Positive reviews (2015, 2018, 2023) praise the same contractor (Mark Johnson/Value Plumbing), but negative reviews (2018, 2020) suggest operational or personnel inconsistency. It is unclear if different team members or declining service quality is responsible.
• RECENCY: Most recent review (2023) is positive, but 2020 no-show and 2018 pricing complaint are within last 5 years and represent serious red flags that have not been addressed in available reviews.
• INCOMPLETE REPAIR: 2018 negative review explicitly states the leak was not fixed and callback was delayed 3+ days—this is a project completion failure.

This score should be treated with caution due to only 4 reviews and extreme polarization (two 5-stars, two 1-stars). The contractor demonstrates capability but has documented serious failures in responsiveness, pricing transparency, and work quality that cannot be ignored. Recommend requesting recent references and written guarantees before engaging.

Robert receives genuinely warm praise in three reviews for his responsiveness, timeliness, and attitude — including a notable act of goodwill toward a food truck owner and strong emergency handling. However, the one negative review is serious and specific: it describes inconsistent attendance, unauthorized credit card charges of approximately $800 above the agreed amount, and a refusal to provide an itemized billing statement. This single review significantly drags down the pricing and project completion dimensions, as the allegations involve both financial transparency and failure to complete work in a timely manner. The positive reviews, while enthusiastic, are light on technical detail, limiting confidence in the experience score. Overall, the contractor shows a likable character but carries a meaningful red flag around billing practices.

• BILLING MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly states that an unauthorized $800 charge was added to their credit card without disclosure, and that an itemized billing statement was never provided despite being requested. This is a serious flag for any prospective customer.
• INCONSISTENT ATTENDANCE: The negative review describes a pattern of working only 1.5 hours per visit with week-long gaps between appearances, suggesting potential project abandonment or poor scheduling practices.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most detailed positive reviews are from 2023 and 2024, while the negative review and one positive review are both from January 2021. The negative review predates most positive reviews by 2-3 years, but the pattern it describes warrants caution regardless.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. This is an extremely small sample size and the WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• POSSIBLE GENERIC PRAISE: The food truck review and the door installation review contain enthusiastic but vague language with limited technical specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in those reviews, though they do not appear coordinated or fake.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be considered preliminary — the presence of one serious, specific billing complaint against three positive but detail-light reviews means prospective customers should independently verify pricing practices and request itemized quotes before engaging this contractor.

Aaron demonstrates strong technical skill and knowledge (evidenced by emergency pipe repair and problem-solving ability), and pricing appears fair based on available feedback. However, professionalism is severely compromised by chronic lateness, no-shows, and failure to follow up on callbacks—critical failures that directly undermine customer trust. Project completion shows mixed results: some jobs are finished promptly while others are abandoned without communication. The extremely limited review sample (only 3 reviews, all from 2022) and stark polarity between 1-star and 5-star ratings suggest inconsistent service delivery.

• All reviews are from 2022 (2+ years old); no recent data available to assess current performance
• Extreme polarity: one 1-star with serious complaints vs. two 5-star reviews suggests highly inconsistent service or possible selection bias
• Critical professionalism failures (no-shows, non-responsiveness) in 1 review directly contradict 'very responsive' claim in another—suggests service quality may be unreliable
• Sample size is very small (n=3); scores should be treated as preliminary only

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size, age of reviews (all 2+ years old), and extreme inconsistency in reported experiences; additional recent reviews are essential before making a hiring decision.

The reviews present a deeply mixed picture. Two positive reviews highlight skilled, thorough work — particularly the complex reverse osmosis installation — and one praises a quick, drama-free water heater replacement at a fair price. However, the most recent review (November 2024) describes a plumber arriving hours late and quoting a price five times above reasonable, which is a serious red flag for both professionalism and pricing. A fourth review is directed primarily at praising a competing company (Alphalete) after a negative experience with this contractor, further reinforcing concerns about overquoting and dishonest diagnostics. The positive reviews are all 3–6 years old, meaning recent performance appears to have declined significantly.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The only review from the past 12 months (November 2024) is a 1-star review describing lateness and a grossly inflated quote. All positive reviews are from 2018–2020, making them 4–6 years old and of limited relevance to current performance.
• PRICING CONCERN: Two separate reviews describe dramatically inflated or unreasonable quotes — one citing a price five times above market rate, and another describing a quote of $2,800–$4,500 for a problem that cost $85 to fix elsewhere. This is a significant pattern.
• REVIEW ATTRIBUTION CONCERN: One 5-star review (2018) appears to be primarily a testimonial for a different company (Alphalete) and describes a negative experience with this contractor. It was counted for scoring context but its positive rating does not reflect positively on this contractor.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. Scores should be treated as directional only and not definitive.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to very few reviews, a significant gap between old positive reviews and a recent negative review, and a concerning pattern of inflated pricing complaints that undermines confidence in the contractor's current practices.