Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Collins, Colorado

Bighorn Plumbing's WW Score is heavily dragged down by a persistent and serious pattern of pricing complaints across the majority of recent reviews, with multiple customers reporting charges they describe as grossly inflated — including one instance of a $2,800 quote versus a $400 competitor fix, and another billing $1,800 for under $100 in parts. Professionalism is mixed: a handful of reviews praise specific technicians (Jarrett, Jesse, Tim) for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness, but others report abandoned work, hidden charges, and targeting of senior citizens. Project completion is similarly split, with at least one explicit account of incomplete work followed by demands for additional payment, while other reviews describe jobs being seen through to the end. Experience scores moderately, with a few customers praising diagnostic skill and technical knowledge, though this is offset by negative accounts. The most recent reviews (2024) skew heavily negative, which is a significant concern for current reliability.

• PRICING CONCERN: The majority of reviews (6 out of 10) explicitly cite extreme overcharging, hidden fees, or fraudulent billing practices. This is a dominant and consistent pattern, not an isolated complaint.
• INCOMPLETE WORK FLAG: At least one review explicitly states the technician did not complete the work and then demanded more money — a serious project completion red flag.
• RECENCY BIAS — NEGATIVE: The most recent reviews (2024) are predominantly 1-star with serious allegations. The positive reviews are older (2018, 2022, 2023), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• FAKE REVIEW WARNING: One reviewer explicitly warns of fraudulent Google reviews for this company. The positive reviews use somewhat generic praise language and lack the specificity of the negative reviews. Confidence in positive reviews is reduced accordingly.
• SENIOR CITIZEN TARGETING ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly alleges the company takes advantage of senior citizens — this is a serious consumer protection concern and noted for transparency.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 10 reviews total. While sufficient to calculate a WW Score, the sample size limits statistical reliability.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review sample (10 reviews), a credible fake review warning from a customer, and a clear recency split where recent 2024 reviews are overwhelmingly negative — consumers should treat this score as a cautionary signal and exercise significant due diligence before hiring.

Professionalism is the most heavily mentioned dimension and is severely dragged down by two detailed negative reviews describing rude, unprofessional, and unreliable behavior — including no-shows, hang-ups, and a messy worksite — which offset the positive mentions of courtesy and responsiveness in other reviews. Project completion is similarly mixed: several reviewers report satisfactory completed work, but at least two describe incomplete or defective installations (a non-functioning thermostat, an abandoned job) and chronic scheduling failures. Pricing receives modestly positive mentions overall, though one reviewer paid $325 for a hammer hole in a ceiling with no resolution, which tempers the score. Experience scores in the middle range — some reviewers praise the quality of work over many years, while others describe shoddy workmanship requiring correction or follow-up. The overall picture is of an inconsistent contractor with a meaningful pattern of serious service failures.

• POSSIBLE IDENTITY CONCERN: The 1-star reviewer explicitly states the company operates under at least two names ('All Around Plumbing' and 'Plum O Matic') with the same personnel, suggesting potential reputation management or name-switching behavior.
• PERSONNEL INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple different named individuals (Ryan, JoeBob/Joe Bob Nunez, Dillan, Daren), suggesting either multiple operators under one brand or significant staff turnover, making it difficult to assess a single consistent service standard.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of reviews (8 out of 10) are from 2011–2015, which is more than 9 years old. Only one review is from the past 12 months (April 2023, 1-star) and one from 2022 (5-star). The WW Score is therefore based largely on outdated data and may not reflect current service quality.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews (particularly the 2014 and 2015 entries) are very brief and lack specific detail, which limits their evidentiary value. The 2015 'unknown' review with no text was excluded from scoring.
• PATTERN OF REPEAT FAILURES: The 2013 2-star review documents multiple instances of the same scheduling and workmanship failures over more than one year, suggesting systemic rather than isolated issues.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the heavy age of the review dataset (most reviews are 9–13 years old), the small number of recent reviews, personnel inconsistencies across reviews, and a possible pattern of operating under multiple business names to obscure reputation history.

JT Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven primarily by severe and consistent pricing complaints across 38 reviews. The company is repeatedly accused of price gouging, charging 2-10x market rates for routine work, and employing deceptive diagnostic and dispatch fees. Professionalism scores poorly (38/100) due to widespread reports of rudeness, unresponsiveness, missed appointments, and lack of transparency. Project completion is compromised by incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and failure to honor callbacks. While some older reviews (2018-2019) praise responsiveness and friendliness, the overwhelming majority of recent reviews (2021-2024) document systematic exploitation, particularly of vulnerable customers. The company's business model appears predicated on high-pressure sales tactics and undisclosed fees.

• CRITICAL: Systematic price gouging pattern — 38 of 45 reviews explicitly mention excessive pricing, with customers reporting charges 2-10x competitive rates for identical work
• CRITICAL: Deceptive fee structure — Multiple reviews report surprise $59 dispatch fees, $250-$350 diagnostic/quote fees, and hidden charges not disclosed upfront
• CRITICAL: Predatory targeting — Multiple reviews explicitly state the company targets vulnerable populations (disabled veterans, single women, homeowners unfamiliar with plumbing)
• CRITICAL: Incomplete/abandoned work — At least 8 reviews document jobs left unfinished, holes cut in walls/ceilings not repaired, and refunds promised but never delivered
• CRITICAL: Unresponsiveness — Numerous reports of missed callbacks, ignored requests for documentation, and failure to follow up on promised refunds
• CRITICAL: Licensing violations — One review documents an apprentice (licensed March 2023) being sent unsupervised to quote $35k-$40k jobs, violating Colorado law
• CRITICAL: Damage and liability denial — Multiple reviews report property damage (wall damage, flooded rooms, destroyed drywall) with company refusing responsibility
• CRITICAL: Review manipulation — Multiple reviews explicitly state that negative Google reviews are removed/deleted by the company, while positive reviews remain
• CRITICAL: Misrepresentation — One review documents a technician falsely claiming to be a 'master plumber supervisor' when holding only apprentice license
• PATTERN: Bait-and-switch quotes — Initial estimates significantly undercut, then dramatically increased mid-project or upon arrival
• PATTERN: Unnecessary upselling — Consistent reports of recommending expensive replacements when simple repairs would suffice (e.g., $1200 toilet replacement vs. $50 reset)
• PATTERN: Lack of documentation — Multiple reviews report no invoices, receipts, or work orders provided despite requests
• PATTERN: Inconsistent quality — Older reviews (2018-2019) are predominantly positive; recent reviews (2021-2024) are overwhelmingly negative, suggesting either company decline or review manipulation
• PATTERN: Retaliation — One review documents owner firing customer and writing negative review in response to customer complaint

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 45 detailed reviews with consistent, corroborating evidence across all four dimensions. The pricing dimension alone is supported by 38 reviews with specific dollar amounts and comparative quotes. The pattern of complaints is systematic, not isolated, and spans multiple years and customer demographics. The company's own responses (where documented) confirm rather than refute the allegations. This score reflects a business model fundamentally built on deception and exploitation.

Paul's Anytime Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with pricing being the single most damaging area. Multiple reviewers describe a consistent pattern of undisclosed charges revealed only after work has begun or been completed, with labor costs described as outrageous and far above competitor rates. Professionalism is severely undermined by reports of receptionists hanging up on customers, failing to return calls, blocking emails, and displaying dismissive or rude attitudes. Project completion is mixed — some jobs were finished, but several reviews cite incomplete work, failure to follow through on warranty or callback promises, and at least one serious safety failure involving an undetected gas leak. Experience scores slightly higher due to a handful of positive reviews praising specific technicians, but is dragged down by reports of missing tools, incomplete workmanship, and a dangerous missed gas leak diagnosis.

• PRICING PATTERN WARNING: Multiple independent reviews across different years describe the same deceptive pricing tactic — charges not disclosed upfront, revealed only after work begins or is complete, leaving customers with little choice but to pay. This appears to be a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One review (2016) explicitly states that Paul's technicians failed to detect a gas leak during a furnace inspection, which was later confirmed by the gas company. This is a serious safety and liability flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review is from September 2021. The majority of reviews span 2014–2021, with no reviews from the past 12 months relative to a current 2024/2025 evaluation. Business practices may have changed, but the pattern is consistent across the full date range.
• FAKE REVIEW AWARENESS: The three 5-star reviews are notably sparse in detail compared to the negative reviews. Two of the five-star reviews (2016 and 2021) are very brief and generic. However, one 5-star review (2016-10-13) contains specific detail about a furnace installation, lending it some credibility. The positive reviews are not flagged as definitively fake but should be weighted cautiously given the volume and specificity of negative accounts.
• CALLBACK/WARRANTY FAILURE: At least two reviews explicitly describe the company failing to follow through on promised callbacks after complaints, suggesting a pattern of ignoring post-service customer concerns.
• WORKMANSHIP ERRORS: The boiler installation review documents missing flush valves and an incorrect GFI wiring setup — both errors the company then charged to fix. This suggests quality control issues on larger jobs.

This WW Score of 28.4 is based on 15 reviews with strong coverage across all four dimensions and should be considered a reliable low-confidence signal — the score is low not due to lack of data, but due to consistent, specific, and multi-year negative evidence across pricing, professionalism, project completion, and experience.

This contractor has a deeply mixed and concerning review profile. One positive review praises reliability, reasonable pricing, and thoroughness on electrical work, but two negative reviews raise serious red flags about workmanship quality and billing practices. The most alarming feedback includes plumbing work that failed inspection on two counts and electrical work involving a dangerously improper grounding shortcut, suggesting significant technical deficiencies. One reviewer also accused the plumbers of unnecessary part replacements to inflate bills, pointing to potential dishonesty in pricing. The single positive review is insufficient to offset these serious safety and quality concerns.

• SAFETY CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly describes a dangerous electrical code violation — a ground wire cut and left dangling on a 3-prong outlet installation. This is a serious workmanship and safety red flag.
• INSPECTION FAILURE: Plumbing work reportedly failed inspection on two separate counts, indicating substandard technical execution.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERN: One reviewer alleges that plumbers replaced unnecessary parts they had on the truck in order to inflate the bill. This suggests potential dishonest pricing practices.
• RECENCY WARNING: All three reviews are from 2013–2018, meaning the most recent review is over 6 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current performance.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews are available. While the WW Score has been calculated, it should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size.
• SCORE SKEW: The single 5-star review covers electrical work by 'Len' specifically, while both negative reviews relate to plumbing and general contracting work, suggesting possible inconsistency across service types or personnel.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 3 reviews, all of which are more than 6 years old, a small sample that is heavily split between one positive and two serious negative accounts, and the absence of any recent data to confirm whether quality issues have been addressed.

The reviews for this company paint an overwhelmingly negative picture across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by consistent reports of dishonesty, no-shows, bad attitudes, failure to respond to communications, and allegations of training employees to be deceptive. Pricing is flagged as predatory and abusive, with multiple reviewers citing markups of 300–400% on parts and charges far exceeding market rates. Project completion is perhaps the most critically scored dimension, with multiple independent reviewers explicitly stating that paid work was never finished, permits were never pulled, inspections were failed and ignored, and other companies had to be hired to redo or complete the work. Experience scores marginally higher only because one reviewer noted a technician was knowledgeable and one portion of a bid was deemed reasonable by an independent expert, but this is heavily outweighed by reports of unlicensed electricians, code violations, and work that failed inspection.

• STRONG FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: Multiple independent reviewers explicitly allege that positive reviews for this company are purchased or incentivized. One reviewer was directly offered a rebate in exchange for a positive review and confirmed this in writing.
• OWNER SELF-REVIEW ALLEGATION: At least one reviewer states the owner has reviewed his own company to inflate ratings.
• GIFT CARD FOR REVIEWS: Multiple reviewers reference a pattern of the company offering gift cards or rebates in exchange for positive reviews, which is a deceptive practice.
• REGULATORY ACTION CONFIRMED: Multiple reviewers reference complaints filed with DORA (Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies) and state that DORA has taken or is taking action against this company.
• UNLICENSED WORKERS: At least two reviews independently allege that unlicensed electricians were sent to perform work.
• NO PERMITS PULLED: Multiple reviews independently confirm that permits were not obtained before work began, which is a legal violation.
• COURT JUDGEMENT: At least one reviewer states they were awarded a court judgement against this company after it failed to comply with a mediation order.
• UNPAID WAGES ALLEGATION: A former employee alleges the owner withheld final paychecks from multiple workers, including a single parent.
• ALL NEGATIVE REVIEWS ARE 1-STAR (except one 3-star): The review set analyzed contains no credible positive reviews. Any positive reviews on external platforms should be treated with extreme skepticism given the confirmed incentivized review scheme.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews in this dataset are from 2018–2021. No reviews from the past 12 months were provided. Current operational status and behavior of the company is unknown.

This WW Score is based on 7 reviews, all of which are negative and several of which contain corroborating, independently verifiable allegations (DORA complaints, court judgements, permit violations); the score is considered a reliable floor estimate, but the overall confidence in the broader review ecosystem for this company is severely undermined by credible and documented evidence of a fake review scheme.