Find Nearby Plumbers In Denver, Colorado

This contractor shows severe professionalism issues centered on communication, responsiveness, and customer service. The most recent review (May 2023) documents a critical failure: potential equipment damage, 3-day communication blackout, rude staff, undisclosed fees added after service, and missing documentation. Older positive reviews (2019, 2021) praise responsiveness and crew quality, but the 2023 incident suggests systemic problems have developed. The stark contradiction between reviews and recency of the negative feedback indicates deteriorating service standards. With only 3 reviews total and conflicting signals, confidence in this score is inherently limited.

• CRITICAL: Most recent review (May 2023) documents severe service failures including potential property damage, communication breakdown, undisclosed charges, and customer intent to report to regulatory board. This is a major red flag.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are from 2019 and 2021 (2-4 years old). The single recent review is highly negative, suggesting service quality has deteriorated significantly.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Score reliability is severely limited. Recommend collecting more recent data before making hiring decisions.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Evidence of fees added after service without prior notice or itemized billing—suggests potential billing practice issues.
• COMMUNICATION PATTERN: Owner/management unresponsive for 3 days; receptionist lacked service records. Indicates operational/administrative problems.

This score should be treated with extreme caution due to very limited review volume (n=3), significant recency gap between positive and negative feedback, and a critical service failure documented in the most recent review that suggests systemic deterioration. Do not rely on this score alone for hiring decisions; request recent references and clarify billing practices before engagement.

This contractor's review profile is deeply split between glowing 5-star reviews and severe 1-star complaints that allege serious misconduct. The two most recent and detailed negative reviews (October 2024 and April 2024) describe abandoned work, ignored communications, and an alleged theft of a $5,000 deposit with the owner blocking clients after promising refunds — these are critical red flags that heavily drag down all dimensions. The positive reviews, while enthusiastic, are older (2023) and several lack specific operational detail, raising authenticity concerns. Professionalism and project completion scores are particularly penalized due to explicit, credible accounts of non-responsiveness and unfinished jobs. Pricing received a very low score due to one reviewer alleging gross overcharging and another noting insurance refused to cover the inflated amounts.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One reviewer (April 2024) alleges the owner accepted a $5,000 deposit, performed minimal work, refused to return funds, and blocked the client's phone number after promising a refund. This is a potential fraud indicator.
• ABANDONED WORK: The most recent review (October 2024) explicitly states work was not finished and the contractor is now ignoring the client — a direct project completion failure.
• OVERPRICING ALLEGATION: Two separate reviews allege the contractor is significantly overpriced, with one noting insurance refused to pay the requested amount.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews (2023) use generic, enthusiastic language with limited operational specifics ('highly recommend,' 'very friendly and reliable'). These contrast sharply with the detailed, credible negative reviews and may inflate the positive signal.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (2024) are both 1-star with serious allegations. The positive reviews are all from 2023 or earlier, suggesting a possible deterioration in service quality over time.
• BUSINESS NAME DISCREPANCY: One reviewer notes the contractor also operates under the name 'Centennial Plumbing,' which may indicate attempts to obscure a negative reputation across platforms.

This WW Score should be treated with very low trust — the small review pool (7 reviews), the presence of credible and detailed fraud/abandonment allegations in the most recent reviews, and the possible inflation of the score by generic older 5-star reviews make this profile unreliable for confident contractor selection.

AAA Service Plumbing Heating & Electric receives an extremely low WW Score driven primarily by overwhelming and consistent evidence of predatory pricing, fear-mongering sales tactics, and poor follow-through across all service lines. Pricing is the most damning dimension, with dozens of reviewers documenting quotes that were 3x to 10x higher than competitors, hidden charges, and bait-and-switch tactics — resulting in a near-floor score of 8. Professionalism suffers heavily from repeated no-shows, last-minute cancellations, unresponsive management, and aggressive upselling behavior by technicians, though a small number of individual technicians (Michael W., Jay, Andrei, Austin, Greg, Shawn, Jacob, Rodney, Brandon) received genuine praise. Project completion is critically undermined by multiple accounts of abandoned or incorrectly completed work, failed inspections, unresolved callbacks, and jobs left in worse condition than before service. Experience scores slightly higher due to a meaningful subset of reviews praising specific technicians as knowledgeable and skilled, but this is offset by multiple accounts of outright misdiagnosis, unnecessary repairs recommended, and work that had to be redone by other companies.

• PRICING FRAUD PATTERN: Across 30+ reviews spanning 2021–2024, customers consistently report quotes 3x–10x above market rate for identical work confirmed by competing companies. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• FEAR-MONGERING SALES TACTIC: Multiple independent reviewers describe technicians using high-pressure scare tactics (imminent failure, safety hazards, code violations) to push large unnecessary purchases. Named technicians include Rico, Alejandro, and Austin among others.
• NO-SHOW / CANCELLATION PATTERN: At least 8 reviews describe confirmed appointments that were cancelled same-day or resulted in no-shows with no proactive communication, indicating a systemic scheduling and reliability failure.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: At least 10 reviews explicitly state that requests to speak with a manager went unanswered for days or weeks, or that managers promised callbacks and never followed through.
• INCOMPLETE / FAILED WORK: Multiple reviews describe work that failed shortly after completion, inspections that failed, or jobs that required a second company to redo correctly — indicating quality control failures beyond individual technician error.
• MEMBERSHIP PROGRAM CONCERNS: Several reviewers describe the AAA 'Happy Home' membership as a vehicle for upselling and manufactured problems rather than delivering promised maintenance benefits, with auto-renewal concerns noted.
• MISOGYNISTIC BEHAVIOR REPORTED: One reviewer explicitly describes a technician (Austin) repeatedly insisting on speaking only to her husband and dismissing her as the decision-maker, which is a serious professionalism and conduct concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The overwhelming majority of negative reviews are from 2023–2024, suggesting conditions have worsened over time. The single oldest positive review (2017) and a handful of positive reviews from 2022–2024 represent a small minority of experiences.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW AUTHENTICITY CONCERN: Several 5-star reviews are brief, name a specific technician, and contain no pricing or completion detail. While not conclusively fake, they follow a pattern that warrants caution — they may reflect genuine positive individual technician experiences rather than overall company quality.
• ONE REVIEW EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: The review about a driver tailgating (license plate QA4344) contains no information about service quality, pricing, or workmanship and was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable contractor performance data.
• ONE REVIEW LIKELY MISDIRECTED: The 5-star review praising 'The Cooler Company' and 'Applewood Plumbing' appears to have been posted to the wrong business listing and was not scored as representative of AAA Service.

This WW Score carries HIGH confidence given the large volume of detailed, specific, and independently corroborated reviews — the score of 28.4 should be treated as a reliable and conservative reflection of this company's overall service quality, and prospective customers are strongly advised to seek alternative providers or obtain multiple competing quotes before engaging AAA Service Plumbing Heating & Electric.

The review set is small but contains serious, specific negative allegations that significantly drag down all dimensions. Two of three reviews describe major failures: one contractor did not show up after taking an $85 deposit and initially denied making the appointment, and another left a job incomplete with poor workmanship and became unreachable. The sole positive review is generic and lacks specific detail, offering limited counterweight to the documented failures. Project completion is the most critically impacted dimension, with two explicit accounts of abandoned or unfinished work. Professionalism scores are similarly low due to no-shows, broken promises, and unresponsiveness.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated with caution due to very small sample size.
• The single 5-star review is generic with no specific details about the job, pricing, or workmanship, which reduces its evidentiary value.
• Two reviews explicitly describe the contractor becoming unreachable after payment — a serious pattern of concern.
• One review documents a deposit taken ($85) with no receipt issued and a subsequent no-show — potential financial misconduct.
• Reviews span from 2020 to 2023; the two negative reviews are from 2020, and the one positive review is from 2023. Recency slightly favors the positive review, but the negative patterns are severe enough to warrant continued caution.
• Small sample size means a single fake or incentivized positive review could disproportionately skew perception — treat the 5-star review with skepticism given its lack of specifics.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered LOW reliability — the score directionally reflects serious documented concerns, but more reviews are needed before drawing firm conclusions.

Both reviews are recent (2024) and speak positively to Berry Best's responsiveness, communication, and fair pricing. The first review provides meaningful detail about a completed repair job, noting that the technician Corbyn handled a difficult leak, explained the cause, and offered preventative guidance — all strong indicators of professionalism and experience. The second review is brief but confirms quick response and fair quoting. However, with only two reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, and all dimension scores carry very low confidence due to minimal data.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings. While the first review contains specific, credible detail, the second is brief and generic. This is not flagged as fake, but the small sample size limits meaningful pattern analysis.
• Project completion and experience are each mentioned in only 1 review — scores for these dimensions are highly conservative and should not be treated as representative.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — no meaningful conclusions about Berry Best's overall performance can be drawn until substantially more review data is available.

Both reviews speak positively about Matt's punctuality, courteous demeanor, and flexibility in scheduling, supporting a strong but limited-confidence professionalism score. Project completion is also well-supported: one review describes a multi-step fixture replacement with follow-through including patching and painting, and the other highlights a quick, effective plumbing repair with improvements made beyond the original scope. Experience is reflected in both reviews through descriptions of skilled, quality workmanship and problem-solving. Pricing is entirely absent from both reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. With only two reviews available, no WW Score can be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are dated 2017–2018, making them over 6 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability as they do not reflect current performance.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — the Price Friendly dimension cannot be scored.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings; while the review content is specific and detailed (reducing fake review concern), the small sample size limits any strong conclusions.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 6 years old, which is insufficient to reliably assess current contractor performance — treat any dimension scores as directional indicators only, not definitive ratings.