Find Nearby Plumbers In Denver, Colorado

All three reviews are recent (within the past 12 months) and consistently positive, highlighting strong communication, quick responsiveness, and professional conduct across multiple interactions. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with all three reviewers explicitly noting prompt responses, scheduling efficiency, and courteous service. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews, with terms like 'very competitive' and 'budget friendly,' suggesting fair and transparent pricing practices. Project completion and experience are each supported by two reviews, with specific mentions of thorough site visits, proper permitting, and successful job execution — indicating solid workmanship. However, the overall sample size of only three reviews significantly limits confidence in all scores, and results should be interpreted with caution.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation. Results are inherently low-confidence and should not be treated as definitive.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews do contain specific details (names, job types, dates), the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• No reviews mention any negative experiences, delays, pricing disputes, or follow-up issues — absence of complaints is not scored as a positive per scoring rules, but the pattern is noted.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered a preliminary indicator only — significantly more review data is needed before this score can be trusted as a reliable representation of contractor quality.

All four reviews speak positively about this plumber's honesty, politeness, and fair pricing, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling him reasonable and trustworthy. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with all four reviews touching on attitude, honesty, and communication. Pricing is well-supported, with three reviews directly praising his reasonable rates — one reviewer noting he refused payment for work done. Project completion is moderately supported; reviews suggest jobs were seen through, though detail on full scope delivery is limited. Experience is the least-evidenced dimension, with only two reviews touching on technical skill, including one detailed account of troubleshooting low water pressure in an older home.

• All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever — this warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are older than 12 months, with the most recent from April 2022 and the oldest from August 2016. Performance may not reflect current quality.
• Small sample size of only 4 reviews — the WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Two reviews refer to the plumber as 'Bill' and two as 'Will' — this minor inconsistency may reflect a nickname or a data entry variation, but is noted for awareness.

This score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review sample of only 4 reviews, all of which are over two years old, making it difficult to assess current and consistent performance with confidence.

LaBella Plumbing and Heating has a strong base of satisfied customers who frequently praise honest pricing, responsiveness, and technical competence — particularly in HVAC diagnostics where they are repeatedly credited with saving customers significant money compared to larger competitors. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a recurring pattern of rude, complaining, or dismissive behavior from contractors across multiple independent reviews spanning several years, which cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents. Project completion is similarly mixed: most jobs are reported as completed successfully, but there is at least one credible account of a repair failing shortly after and the contractor becoming unreachable, plus a separate allegation that a part was never actually replaced. Pricing is generally viewed favorably, though a $200/hour charge and a $110 fee for ten minutes of work drew sharp criticism, indicating inconsistency. The overall picture is a capable but uneven operation where quality of experience appears to depend heavily on which technician shows up.

• RECURRING ATTITUDE PROBLEM: At least 3 independent reviews (2010, 2012, and others) describe contractors complaining on the job, being dismissive, or making customers feel stupid. This is a systemic pattern, not an isolated incident, and meaningfully lowers the professionalism score.
• FAILED REPAIR / CALLBACK REFUSAL: One reviewer (2016) reports the same AC issue recurring shortly after repair and being unable to reach the company for a callback. A separate reviewer (2011) also reports inability to get a return call. These are serious project completion red flags.
• DISPUTED WORKMANSHIP: One reviewer (2010) alleges a sensor was never actually replaced despite being charged for it. This could not be verified but is a credible and specific claim that warrants caution.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: While many reviews praise affordability, at least two reviews cite charges that felt excessive for the work performed ($200/hour for basic work; $110 for a 10-minute gasket replacement). Pricing appears inconsistent across jobs.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with most dating from 2013–2019. Only 2 reviews are from 2021 or later. The most recent review (2024) is a pricing complaint. It is unclear whether current service quality reflects the historical pattern. Scores should be interpreted with caution given the age of most data.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in tone, detail, rating, and specificity. Negative reviews are substantive and credible. No artificial inflation patterns identified.

This WW Score is based on 25 reviews with broad dimensional coverage and HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, but reliability is moderated by the age of most reviews (majority pre-2020), a recurring professionalism concern supported by multiple independent accounts, and at least one credible allegation of incomplete or dishonest work.

Heart Heating, Cooling, Plumbing & Electric demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism from individual technicians, with many reviews praising specific staff members for knowledge, friendliness, and thorough work. However, the company is significantly undermined by chronic scheduling and follow-through failures—numerous customers report no-shows, cancellations, and missed appointment windows despite confirmation. Pricing is a major concern, with extensive evidence of overcharging, inflated estimates, and bait-and-switch tactics that far exceed market rates for comparable work. While project completion is generally achieved when technicians arrive, the unreliability of scheduling and communication creates substantial friction. The company's lifetime warranty and membership programs are frequently mentioned but often fail to deliver promised benefits.

• CRITICAL: Systematic no-show and cancellation pattern. At least 25+ reviews explicitly mention missed appointments, cancellations within hours of scheduled service, or failure to show within promised windows despite customer confirmation. This is the single largest complaint category.
• CRITICAL: Pricing concerns dominate negative reviews. Extensive evidence of quotes 3-10x higher than competitors for identical work (e.g., $1,400 vs $15 min repair, $600+ for simple faucet install, $1,887 vs $500 for pump replacement, $18,000 vs $2,200 for AC replacement). Pattern suggests systematic overcharging or aggressive upselling.
• CRITICAL: Bait-and-switch allegations. Multiple reviews report equipment substitution (cheaper units installed instead of quoted brands), unauthorized work, and quote increases of 100% after initial estimate.
• Permit and licensing issues. At least 3 reviews report unpermitted installations, unlicensed work, or failure to pull required permits despite charging customers for them.
• Membership/warranty promises not honored. Multiple customers report membership benefits not delivered, promised callbacks never made, and warranty claims denied or delayed.
• Gender discrimination allegation. One review explicitly states female customer was denied price match that male customer received for identical service.
• Communication breakdown. Numerous reviews cite unreturned calls, voicemails not received, unresponsive office staff, and lack of follow-up despite promises.
• Inconsistent quality control. While individual technicians are frequently praised, the company-level systems for scheduling, follow-up, and accountability appear severely broken.
• No evidence of fake reviews detected. Reviews are detailed, specific, and include both 5-star and 1-star ratings with substantive complaints. Negative reviews provide specific dollar amounts, technician names, and dates.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be trusted as a reliable assessment of Heart's current performance, but it masks a deeply bifurcated company: exceptional individual technician quality (79 experience score) is completely undermined by systemic operational failures in scheduling, pricing transparency, and follow-through (65.5 project completion, 52.0 pricing). The HIGH confidence across all dimensions is based on 89-127 mentions per category, but customers should be aware that positive reviews typically reflect single successful interactions, while negative reviews often document repeated failures across multiple service calls. The company's chronic no-show problem and pricing practices represent material risks that outweigh technical competence.

O'Connor Plumbing has a large and genuinely mixed review record. Professionalism scores moderately well overall — many individual technicians (Spencer, Calvin, Ethan, Steve Parker, Trevor, Cole, Tony, Greg, George, Hector, Carlos, Ken Robinson, Cody) are praised warmly for punctuality, courtesy, and communication, but this is significantly offset by multiple credible complaints about rude management (specifically a manager named Bob), no-shows, repeated appointment cancellations without apology, and dismissive office staff. Pricing is the weakest dimension: a substantial number of reviewers across multiple years explicitly describe being overcharged, receiving non-itemized bills, being charged for travel time without disclosure, and receiving quotes 2–3x higher than competitors — these are not isolated incidents but a recurring pattern. Project completion is also a serious concern, with multiple reviews describing unfinished work, repeat failures on the same job, flooded basements following shoddy grading work, drain work that did not resolve the issue, and a pattern of the company not following through on callbacks or insurance claims. Experience scores moderately — individual technicians frequently receive praise for skill and problem-solving, but several reviews describe inexperienced technicians arriving unprepared, incorrect diagnoses, and work that had to be redone by other plumbers.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review beginning 'As a large property management operator I use O'Connor as my primary resource...' appears verbatim twice (dated 2025-05-10 and 2024-07-01). This is a strong indicator of a fake or artificially boosted review and both instances have been treated with reduced weight.
• DUPLICATE/NEAR-DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The negative review describing shoddy yard grading, basement flooding, and the owner Jason's dishonesty appears three times with nearly identical text (dated 2024-06-09 x2 and 2023-09-21). While this may be the same customer updating their review, the repetition inflates the negative signal and has been counted as one unique incident.
• SUSPICIOUS UNDATED REVIEWS: Approximately 25 reviews have no date attached. Many of these are extremely brief, generic, and uniformly 5-star (e.g., 'Great service', 'Best Plumber in town!!!', 'Very professional, clean and fast'). Several reference a technician named 'Shyma' or 'Syama' who does not appear in any dated reviews, suggesting these may belong to a different business entity or location, or may have been seeded. These reviews were included but treated with reduced confidence.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of detailed, substantive reviews span 2018–2025. The undated reviews cannot be assessed for recency and may skew the positive signal artificially upward.
• PRICING PATTERN WARNING: At least 10 independent reviews across multiple years explicitly describe overcharging, non-transparent billing, refusal to provide itemized invoices, and quotes significantly above market rate. This is a consistent and credible pattern, not isolated complaints.
• PROJECT COMPLETION PATTERN WARNING: Multiple independent reviews describe work that was started but not finished, repeat failures requiring multiple return visits, and the company failing to follow through on promised callbacks, parts orders, and insurance claims. One reviewer describes a basement flooding twice due to improperly completed work.
• MANAGEMENT/OFFICE CONDUCT WARNING: Several reviews specifically call out rude or dismissive behavior from office staff and management (Bob, Jason), lack of accountability, and failure to apologize for errors. This is a recurring theme distinct from individual technician performance.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Several reviews contain no text and only a star rating (both 1-star and 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• REVIEW 'Love your TV commercial' (5-star, 2025-06-07) contains no usable service data and was excluded from all dimension scoring.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews (130 total, 107 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH overall confidence in terms of sample size, but the score should be interpreted cautiously due to detected duplicate reviews, a large block of suspicious undated 5-star reviews of uncertain origin, and a clear bifurcation between strong individual technician performance and systemic issues with pricing transparency, project completion, and management responsiveness.

Done Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise, with technicians consistently praised for punctuality, courtesy, and knowledge. However, the company is severely hampered by widespread pricing complaints, with numerous customers reporting charges 2-7 times higher than competitors for identical work. Project completion shows mixed results, with several documented instances of missed appointments, cancellations, and follow-up failures. While individual technicians are often excellent, systemic issues around pricing transparency and appointment reliability significantly undermine overall trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL PRICING PATTERN: 52 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Recurring complaints include: $1,400 for 2-hour jobs ($700/hr), $625 for frost-proof silcock (competitors: $300), $700 for faucet installation, $500+ for simple valve replacements, $1,000+ diagnostic fees. Pattern suggests commission-based upselling model.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY CRISIS: Multiple documented instances of cancellations with little notice (30 minutes before appointment, day-of rescheduling), no-shows despite confirmed appointments, and failure to follow up as promised. At least 8 reviews detail scheduling failures.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE CONCERNS: Several reviews report high diagnostic fees ($250-$400) that are supposed to be credited but customers report not receiving credits or being pressured into unnecessary work.
• POTENTIAL DISHONEST PRACTICES: Multiple reviews allege technicians misdiagnosed problems or recommended unnecessary replacements (e.g., entire water heater when only pilot light needed relighting, new toilet when simple valve replacement would suffice, new furnace when adjustment was needed).
• MEMBERSHIP PARADOX: One detailed review notes that despite paying $2,500 for prior work and maintaining membership, customer received worse service than non-members, suggesting service quality degrades after initial sale.
• RECENCY NOTE: Pricing complaints span entire review period (2018-2025), indicating this is not a recent problem but systemic issue. Recent 2025 reviews still contain pricing complaints alongside positive professionalism ratings.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be trusted as HIGH confidence due to large sample size (125 reviews) and consistent patterns across dimensions, but the score masks a critical bifurcation: technician professionalism and skill are genuinely strong (82/100), but pricing practices are predatory and appointment reliability is poor, making this company high-risk despite individual technician quality. Customers should obtain multiple quotes and verify all estimates in writing before proceeding.