Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Collins, Colorado

Troudt Plumbing shows mixed performance across three reviews spanning 2016–2022. Two older reviews (2016, 2019) praise professionalism, efficiency, timeliness, and fair pricing ($600 for toilet replacement and valve work). However, a recent 2022 review documents serious communication failures: the contractor failed to respond to email or voicemail inquiries over multiple days, which directly undermines professionalism and responsiveness. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects this inconsistency—strong technical execution and pricing when work is secured, but critical gaps in customer communication and follow-through that may prevent jobs from starting.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are 6–8 years old (2016, 2019); most recent review (2022) is negative and documents unresponsiveness.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews limits confidence in any dimension. Score should be treated as preliminary.
• COMMUNICATION RED FLAG: 2022 review explicitly documents failure to respond to email and voicemail—a critical professionalism failure that contradicts earlier positive reviews and suggests possible service degradation over time.
• MENTION IMBALANCE: Pricing mentioned only once; project completion and experience mentioned only twice each. Scores are conservative due to limited evidence.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (3 reviews) and significant recency gap between positive older reviews and a recent negative review documenting communication failure. The score reflects conflicting signals and does not provide high confidence in current service quality.

C&B Plumbing presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Positive reviews consistently praise owner Rick Garcia and technicians Mark and Juan for professionalism, responsiveness, and courteous service, with several long-term customers expressing strong loyalty. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews — spanning multiple years — describes serious failures including ignored communications, botched diagnoses, abandoned or incomplete jobs, and alleged dishonesty with both customers and home warranty companies. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers describing work that made problems worse, jobs left unfinished, and follow-up failures lasting weeks or months. Pricing feedback is mixed: some reviewers found pricing reasonable or even excellent, while at least one noted charges were significantly above market. The review base spans 2012–2024, meaning older reviews carry reduced weight, but negative patterns persist across the full timeline.

• One review (2016-06-11) is rated 5.0 stars but contains entirely negative content describing billing fraud, poor communication, and substituting cheaper parts — this is almost certainly a data entry or platform error and was treated as a 1-star negative review for scoring purposes.
• One review (2024-06-09) has no text content and a 5-star rating — this was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2019 and earlier use somewhat generic praise language, though most include specific technician names and details, reducing fake review concern.
• A notable number of reviews (roughly 8 out of 28) involve home warranty dispatch (HSA, Old Republic, American Home Shield), which may skew negative experiences due to warranty scope disputes rather than pure contractor fault — however, allegations of dishonesty and negligence in those reviews were still weighted in scoring.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024), limiting confidence in current performance. The most recent review (2024-08-13) is a 1-star complaint about poor after-sales service and no follow-up.

This WW Score is based on 27 reviews with usable data spanning 2012–2024 and carries HIGH confidence in its directional accuracy, but users should note that the majority of reviews are more than two years old and only two recent data points exist, meaning current performance may differ significantly from this historical average.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across projects. Positive reviews highlight courteous service, quality workmanship, and on-time/on-budget completion. However, multiple detailed negative reviews document serious professionalism failures including unauthorized access to private areas, poor cleanup, incomplete work requiring customer fixes, and failure to honor callbacks. Project completion is particularly concerning, with evidence of unfinished work, water damage caused by improper installation, and abandoned follow-up commitments. Pricing appears fair when work is completed properly, but the pattern of incomplete jobs and required rework undermines overall value.

• CRITICAL: Three reviews marked 'unknown' with 5.0 ratings from 2015-2016 lack substantive content and cannot be evaluated; treated as unusable data
• SEVERE PATTERN: Two detailed 1-star reviews (2009, 2010) document repeated professionalism failures: unauthorized entry into private spaces, tool theft, poor cleanup, incomplete work, and failure to honor callbacks
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE: Multiple instances of work requiring customer intervention to fix (hot water heater electrical connection, sink installation gaps, water damage from improper faucet installation)
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: Documented pattern of ignoring customer calls and emails after work completion; promises to return and fix issues were not honored
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most substantive reviews are 8-15 years old; only one recent review (2024) provides current data, limiting ability to assess if issues have been resolved
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed accounts of serious failures suggests either significant business changes over time or variable quality depending on project/personnel

This score should be treated with caution due to age of most reviews and the presence of three unusable entries, but the detailed negative reviews provide credible evidence of systemic professionalism and follow-through problems that significantly outweigh positive testimonials; the recent 2024 positive review is insufficient to override the documented pattern of failures.

ARS Rescue Rooter presents a deeply polarized review profile. On the positive side, many individual technicians are praised for being professional, courteous, knowledgeable, and punctual, which keeps the professionalism score from collapsing entirely. However, the company is severely undermined by a massive and consistent pattern of scheduling failures — no-shows, last-minute cancellations, multi-appointment rescheduling chains, and broken appointment windows — which devastates the project completion score. Pricing is a critical weakness, with dozens of reviewers explicitly describing quotes as grossly inflated, sometimes 2–5x competitor prices, and multiple credible accounts of technicians recommending unnecessary repairs or replacements as a sales tactic. Experience scores are mixed: while some technicians demonstrate genuine skill and problem-solving, there are numerous documented cases of faulty installations, failed inspections, incorrect diagnoses, and work that had to be redone multiple times. The overall picture is a company with capable individual workers but severely dysfunctional operations, dishonest upselling practices, and poor accountability.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews from June 5–8, 2025 appear to be exact duplicates of one another (identical text, same rating, different dates). This strongly suggests review manipulation or a data feed error. Duplicate entries were identified and counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: A large number of reviews consist of blank text with a 5-star rating, or single-word/single-phrase entries ('Excellent', 'Great service', 'Professional') with no substantive detail. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• SCAM/UPSELLING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and geographies describe a consistent pattern of technicians recommending full system replacements or expensive repairs that were later found to be unnecessary by competing companies. This is a significant integrity flag.
• SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: An unusually high volume of reviews — spanning 2011 through 2025 — describe repeated no-shows, last-minute cancellations, and multi-hour or multi-day delays. This is a systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2005 to June 2025. The most recent reviews (2024–2025) continue to show both positive technician interactions and persistent scheduling and pricing complaints, indicating these issues have not been resolved over time.
• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviewers report being quoted prices 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, and several describe bait-and-switch tactics where prices dropped significantly when customers pushed back — a hallmark of predatory pricing practices.
• WARRANTY/FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURES: Several reviews describe ARS failing to honor warranties, failing to obtain required permits, failing to complete inspections, and refusing accountability for faulty work — all of which severely impact the project completion score.

This WW Score is based on a large volume of reviews spanning nearly two decades and carries HIGH statistical confidence; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously because the review pool contains confirmed duplicates, a high proportion of content-free 5-star entries, and credible evidence of systemic upselling and scheduling misconduct that may not be fully captured in the numerical score alone.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile: a large cluster of recent 5-star reviews praising individual technicians by name (George, Benjamin, Mya, Brent, Makonnen, etc.) for professionalism, friendliness, and efficient job completion, contrasted sharply with a substantial body of detailed 1-star reviews spanning 2015–2024 alleging systematic price gouging, bait-and-switch advertising, upselling unnecessary repairs, abandoned or incomplete work, property damage, and failure to respond to complaints. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with dozens of reviewers explicitly describing quotes 3–5x higher than competitors, hidden fees, and deceptive promotional rates. Project completion is also significantly impaired by multiple accounts of work left unfinished, recurring failures shortly after service, and jobs requiring correction by other companies. Experience scores are mixed: individual technicians frequently receive praise for skill and knowledge, but an equally large number of reviews describe incompetent diagnosis, wrong-line snaking, incorrect seal selection, and fabricated pipe damage findings. The overall WW Score of 52.1 reflects a business with capable individual workers undermined by systemic pricing dishonesty and inconsistent quality control.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: Eight reviews dated 2025-06-04 through 2025-06-09 are exact or near-exact duplicates of each other in pairs — 'Quick response', 'Our technician was excellent and very thorough and efficient!', 'Had a clogged drain in the kitchen tech by the name of George Lambert came out unclogged it after 30 mins. Very satisfied.', 'Wonderful and efficient service. Thank you!!!', 'Very professional and friendly personality. Definitely enjoy our time with out technician. He could easily be a friend outside work', the 1-star toilet review, and the George crawlspace review all appear TWICE with different dates. These are almost certainly duplicate/fake submissions and were counted only once per unique text for scoring purposes.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PRICING PATTERN: At least 15 independent reviews across multiple years (2016–2024) describe being quoted $99 on the phone or via coupon, then charged $285–$590 on-site. This is a systemic and recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• UPSELL / UNNECESSARY REPAIR FRAUD PATTERN: At least 12 reviews describe being told they needed major sewer line replacement ($6,000–$20,000+) that was subsequently found to be unnecessary by a second-opinion plumber. This pattern spans 2015–2024 and represents a serious integrity concern.
• ABANDONED WORK / NO-SHOW PATTERN: Multiple reviews (2017–2023) describe repeated appointment cancellations, no-shows, and failure to return calls after work was started or paid for.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe damage to yards, fences, sprinkler lines, flooring, walls, and gutters caused during service, with the company refusing to take responsibility or respond to complaints.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of 5-star reviews are from 2025 (within the past 12 months), while the majority of detailed 1-star reviews span 2016–2024. It is unclear whether this reflects genuine improvement under new management or a review solicitation campaign. The duplicate review pairs in June 2025 raise concern about the authenticity of the recent positive cluster.
• BBB RATING: Multiple reviews reference an 'F' BBB rating for this business, which corroborates the systemic complaint patterns described.
• COMMISSION-BASED SALES CONCERN: At least two reviews include admissions from technicians themselves that they work on commission and are pressured to upsell, which directly explains the upsell and price-gouging patterns.
• UNLICENSED WORK ALLEGATION: One review alleges work was performed with an expired contractor's license and without a required city permit, with payment demanded before inspection.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted with caution given strong evidence of a fake/duplicate review cluster in the most recent period and a well-documented, multi-year pattern of deceptive pricing and upselling that materially suppresses the pricing and project completion dimensions.

The review pool is sharply bifurcated: a cluster of recent 2025 reviews (mostly from May–June 2025) are overwhelmingly positive, praising named technicians like Danny, Leroy, Andrew, Cristi, and Ilija for professionalism, clear communication, and quality workmanship. However, a substantial body of older reviews (2013–2022) describes a pattern of serious failures including chronic no-shows and missed appointment windows, aggressive upselling and price gouging — particularly targeting elderly customers — incomplete or botched work, rude technicians, and poor follow-through on complaints. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far, with numerous reviewers citing charges double or triple competitors for identical work, hidden fees, and bait-and-switch quoting. Project completion is mixed: recent reviews show jobs finished well, while older reviews document abandoned work, unresolved damage, and callbacks that were never honored. The overall WW Score reflects a company with genuine recent improvement but a historically troubled track record that cannot be ignored.

• TEMPORAL SPLIT WARNING: The review pool is heavily split between a positive recent cluster (2025) and a strongly negative historical cluster (2013–2022). These may reflect different management, staffing, or franchise locations rather than a single consistent operation.
• FRANCHISE LOCATION AMBIGUITY: Multiple negative reviews explicitly reference the Fort Collins/Loveland franchise as distinct from and worse than the Denver franchise. Positive reviews do not always specify location. Scores may conflate performance across different franchise units.
• ELDERLY TARGETING PATTERN: At least 5 separate reviews (2016–2018) describe what reviewers characterize as predatory upselling or overcharging of elderly customers (ages 83–94). This is a serious ethical flag.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEW PATTERN: 14 of the 75 reviews contain no text at all — only a 5-star rating. These blank reviews are clustered in the recent period (2025) and cannot be used for dimensional scoring. Their presence inflates the apparent star average without providing verifiable evidence.
• GENERIC PRAISE IN RECENT REVIEWS: Several recent 5-star reviews are extremely brief and non-specific (e.g., 'Great job', 'Fast and great service', 'He's wonderful'). While not conclusive, this pattern alongside the blank reviews warrants reduced confidence in the recent positive cluster.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE CONSISTENT AND SPECIFIC: Negative pricing reviews include specific dollar figures and direct competitor comparisons, lending them high credibility. Overcharging complaints span 2013–2022 across multiple reviewers with no apparent coordination.
• DRIVER CONDUCT COMPLAINTS: Two separate reviews (2017) cite reckless driving by Benjamin Franklin company vehicles with specific license plate numbers, suggesting a workplace culture issue beyond individual technician performance.
• RECENCY NOTE: All 5-star reviews with substantive text are from 2025. All 1-star reviews with substantive text are from 2013–2022. This gap may indicate genuine improvement or may reflect review platform dynamics. Caution is warranted.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but should be interpreted cautiously given the extreme temporal bifurcation, franchise location ambiguity, presence of 14 blank 5-star reviews, and a well-documented historical pattern of pricing abuse and service failures that meaningfully offsets the recent positive trend.