Find Nearby Plumbers In Colorado Springs, Colorado

Pikes Peak Mechanical receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most critically damaged area. Multiple reviewers independently describe Jason Morton as rude, condescending, and unprofessional, and the office owner Aaron is also cited for poor communication and failure to take responsibility. Pricing transparency is a serious concern, with multiple reviewers reporting no upfront estimates, surprise charges, and billing disputes that suggest deceptive or at minimum negligent business practices. Project completion is also deeply problematic, with reports of abandoned work, uncapped lines, shoddy workmanship requiring third-party remediation, and a pattern of non-responsiveness when customers seek resolution. The handful of positive reviews praising responsiveness, fair pricing, and skill are genuine outliers that cannot offset the volume and specificity of the negative accounts.

• PATTERN OF REPEATED MISCONDUCT: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe nearly identical behavior from Jason Morton — rudeness, refusal to give estimates, and leaving jobs incomplete. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING DECEPTION RISK: At least three reviewers explicitly report being charged without prior estimates or being billed amounts far exceeding what was quoted. One reviewer was charged $435 with no prior approval; another was charged $150 service fee without warning.
• PERMIT AND WARRANTY FRAUD ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly states they were left without a permit despite paying for one, and that warranty coverage was misrepresented. This is a serious legal and ethical flag.
• WORKMANSHIP LIABILITY: At least two reviewers report damage caused by the contractor (damaged faucet handle, uncapped sprinkler lines) with no remediation offered. One reviewer had to file an insurance claim to fix contractor-caused damage.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviewers report being ignored for days or weeks when attempting to follow up, including a gas leak situation where 5 messages went unreturned for 3 days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative reviews are from 2022 and 2024, indicating these issues are not historical anomalies but ongoing. The most recent review (August 2024) describes the same bait-and-switch pricing behavior seen in reviews from 2017.
• POSITIVE REVIEW CREDIBILITY: The five 5-star reviews are sparse in detail compared to the negative reviews and represent a small minority. Two positive reviews mention the owners by name in a familiar tone, which may suggest personal connections rather than arm's-length customer experiences. Confidence in positive reviews is reduced accordingly.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews with strong cross-dimensional coverage and a consistent pattern of negative experiences spanning 2017 to 2024, making it a HIGH confidence assessment that reflects serious and ongoing deficiencies in professionalism, pricing transparency, project completion, and workmanship.

This contractor's review profile is deeply mixed and spans a wide date range (2011–2019), with the most recent usable review from 2019. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by multiple credible, detailed negative accounts: a reviewer reported the plumber left alcohol bottles at the property, another described unprofessional language, smelling of cigarettes, and inappropriate comments about the homeowner's valuables, and a fifth reviewer was simply never called back after providing contact information. Positive professionalism mentions exist but are outnumbered and less specific. Pricing received its lowest score due to one highly detailed account of an alleged $864 estimate for work the reviewer completed themselves for $16 in parts, plus a mandatory $89 estimate fee — a strong indicator of predatory pricing practices. Project completion is mixed: one reviewer reports a toilet leaking after service, another says work was top-notch and guaranteed, and one review ('It didn't.') strongly implies the job was not completed satisfactorily. Experience scores modestly due to one strong positive account of multi-year repeat work and one account of a successful repair, offset by the failed toilet repair and the pricing-manipulation behavior suggesting upselling over honest diagnosis.

• One review ('unknown', 5 stars, 2016) contains no usable content and was excluded from scoring.
• One review ('It didn't.', 2 stars, 2017) is extremely vague — it implies failure but provides no detail; scored conservatively as a negative project completion signal.
• The review corpus spans 2011–2019; no reviews are within the past 12 months relative to a current evaluation, significantly reducing recency reliability.
• The most detailed negative reviews (2011 and 2018) are older but contain highly specific, credible details (dollar amounts, part names, behavioral descriptions) that increase their credibility weight.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews show natural variation in tone, length, rating, and detail. The positive reviews are not suspiciously generic enough to flag as coordinated.
• Alcohol consumption on the job site (empty liquor bottle and empty beer case left behind) is a serious professionalism and liability concern explicitly mentioned in one review.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a small review pool of only 7 reviews, all older than 12 months, with one unusable entry — however, the presence of multiple detailed, specific negative reviews across independent dimensions (professionalism, pricing, and project completion) lends meaningful signal to the low score.

This contractor's reviews paint a predominantly negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by repeated complaints about poor communication, lack of follow-through, and a failure to take responsibility for property damage caused during a job. Project completion is similarly poor, with one review describing an abandoned jet line left stuck in a sewer and another citing failure to upload required septic reports in a timely manner. The only positive signal comes from a single technician who was praised for explaining the septic system and potentially saving the customer money, providing a small lift to the experience score. Pricing received a marginally mixed signal — one customer noted they were the cheapest estimate, but the lack of any remediation after causing concrete damage negates much of that value perception.

• Very small review sample (4 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as directional only, not definitive.
• All reviews are older than 5 years (most recent: 2019-02-16), with the oldest dating to 2015. No recent data is available to assess current performance.
• One review explicitly flags that this company operates under multiple business names ('Williams Septic' and 'Watson' at the same address with different phone numbers), which is a significant red flag suggesting potential reputation management or evasion of negative reviews.
• Allegations of dishonest conduct in dispute resolution, including a claim that the company misrepresented a BBB ruling in written correspondence — this is a serious integrity concern.
• Only 1 out of 4 reviews is positive, and it is the oldest review (2015). The trend over time appears to be worsening, not improving.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to the very small sample size of only 4 reviews, all of which are over 5 years old, and the presence of serious integrity flags including alleged operation under multiple business names and disputed dishonest conduct.

All four reviews are strongly negative, painting a consistent picture of a contractor who fails to show up, does not communicate, and does not complete work properly. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated no-shows without notice, hostile behavior toward customers (including alleged bullying), deceptive practices (owner's partner posing as a receptionist), and a pattern of ignoring calls and callbacks. Project completion is equally alarming — one reviewer describes work left half-done with jury-rigged repairs, another describes a job surveyed but never started, and a third describes a no-show emergency call with no follow-up. On the experience dimension, the one reviewer who observed actual work described destroyed utility lines, broken pipes, improper field repairs, and a failed septic system — indicating poor technical judgment and workmanship. Pricing data was entirely absent from all reviews and could not be scored.

• All 4 reviews are 1–2 star ratings with no positive reviews present — this may reflect selection bias in the sample, but no fake review patterns were detected; the reviews are highly specific and credible.
• Two reviews are from 2016 and one from 2017, making them 7–8 years old; only one review (2020) falls within a more recent window. The score may not reflect current business performance.
• A pattern of alleged deception was noted: the owner's partner reportedly posed as a receptionist to avoid accountability, and the owner made promises (sidewalk repair, return visits) that were never honored.
• One reviewer explicitly describes the contractor bullying women and backing down when a man was present — a serious conduct concern.
• The contractor allegedly ran heavy equipment over unmarked utility lines (phone, propane, electric) without calling 811, representing a potential safety and liability issue.
• No pricing dimension could be scored due to complete absence of pricing mentions across all reviews.

This score is based on only 4 reviews, all of which are negative and span a wide date range (2016–2020), so while the pattern is consistent and credible, the limited and dated sample means the score should be treated as a strong warning signal rather than a definitive long-term assessment.

Cannot calculate WW Score. The reviews provided are for a healthcare provider (Dr. Meg Notartomaso, DPT - physical therapist/neurofeedback specialist) and a handyman service (Fixxit/Vince Montoya), not a contractor/plumber. The scoring framework is designed for plumbing and contracting services. Additionally, the reviews do not contain explicit mentions of the four required dimensions (professionalism, pricing, project completion, experience) in the context of plumbing or contracting work. Most reviews use generic praise language without specific details about service delivery, timelines, or pricing transparency.

• CRITICAL: Wrong service category - reviews are for healthcare/physical therapy and handyman services, not plumbing/contracting
• Potential fake review pattern detected: 27 of 51 reviews are all 5-star with identical rating dates (2024-06-09, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2020-06-10), suggesting batch posting or coordinated reviews
• Multiple reviews contain no text content (blank reviews with 5-star ratings)
• Inconsistent business names across reviews (Fix It Therapies, The Good News Doctor, Fixxit, Dr. Meg Notartomaso) - unclear if these are the same entity
• One review (2021-07-06) mentions furnace and AC service, which is HVAC not plumbing
• One review (2019-01-25) is negative (3-star) but mentions lack of callback - this is the only substantive complaint in dataset
• Reviews span 10 years (2014-2024) with heavy clustering in 2021-2024, making recency analysis difficult

This WW Score cannot be calculated or trusted because the review dataset does not match the target service category (plumbing/contracting), the reviews are for healthcare and handyman services instead, and the scoring framework cannot be applied to non-plumbing work.

Wright Plumbing Heating and Cooling exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised, with multiple customers reporting disrespectful, aggressive, and verbally abusive behavior from management and staff, including raised voices, cursing, and hanging up on customers. Pricing practices are highly problematic, with customers reporting quotes 8 times the actual parts cost, dramatic price increases on standing estimates, and overall overcharging relative to market rates. Project completion shows mixed results with installation defects (improperly sealed return ducts) discovered post-service and unresponsive follow-up. Technical experience is undermined by poor workmanship and failure to identify installation errors during service inspections. The company is no longer in business as of the review date, and the business model appears to have deteriorated significantly after management changes around 2016-2020.

• CRITICAL: Company is no longer in business as of September 2020 per first review. This analysis reflects a defunct contractor.
• SEVERE PATTERN: 6 of 8 reviews are 1-star ratings with consistent complaints about management rudeness, disrespect, and verbal abuse. This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• MANAGEMENT DYSFUNCTION: Multiple reviews explicitly cite management changes and staff turnover as triggers for service degradation. Original staff (pre-2016) received positive feedback; post-2016 management received universal condemnation.
• PRICING FRAUD INDICATORS: Customer reports quote 8x parts cost ($700 vs $90 in parts); another customer reports price doubled on same estimate; third customer reports $3,000 overcharge on 2008 system. Pattern suggests predatory pricing practices.
• INSTALLATION DEFECTS: Critical HVAC installation error (unsealed return duct sucking contaminated air from crawl space) went undetected for 2 years despite annual service inspections, indicating poor quality control and inadequate technician training.
• QUOTE INTEGRITY: Verbal quotes not honored; customers told estimates would expire without written notice; estimate holder (estimator) left company, leaving customer unprotected.
• RECENCY: 5 of 8 reviews are from 2020 or earlier (oldest from 2014). Most negative reviews cluster in 2020 (4 reviews) and 2016 (1 review), suggesting accelerating decline before closure.

This score cannot be reliably used for contractor selection because the company is defunct as of September 2020; however, the analysis reliably documents a pattern of severe professional misconduct, predatory pricing, and poor workmanship that led to business failure.