Find Nearby Plumbers In Grand Junction, Colorado

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews spanning 8+ years. The most recent review (2020) documents serious failures: overcharging for parts ($98 vs $20 online), incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, poor attitude during follow-up, and potential damage to additional components. Three older reviews (2012–2016) praise professionalism, friendliness, and workmanship. The dramatic negative shift in the recent review, combined with explicit complaints about pricing transparency and project completion failures, significantly lowers the overall score. Experience appears solid based on technical capability mentioned in positive reviews, but professionalism and pricing practices are severely compromised by the 2020 incident.

• CRITICAL: Most recent review (2020) describes serious service failures including overcharging, incomplete repairs, poor attitude, and potential damage. This is the most recent data point and should be weighted heavily.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Three positive reviews are from 2012–2016 (4–8 years old). The 2020 review suggests significant deterioration in service quality over time.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between glowing older reviews and the detailed negative 2020 review raises questions about consistency or potential changes in business practices/personnel.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: The 2020 review explicitly documents overcharging ($98 for a $20 part) and refusal to allow customer-sourced parts—a major red flag for fair pricing.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RISK: The 2020 review documents incomplete repair, delayed callback, and potential damage to unrelated components—critical failures in this dimension.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (4 reviews) and extreme recency disparity. The most recent review documents serious failures that contradict older positive reviews, suggesting either deterioration in service quality or inconsistent performance. The 2020 incident is recent and detailed enough to warrant significant concern, but the small sample size and age of positive reviews limit overall confidence. Potential customers should heavily weight the 2020 negative review and seek additional recent references before engaging this contractor.

This contractor's review set is sharply divided between a small cluster of positive reviews and several highly detailed, serious negative accounts. Professionalism scores very low due to documented incidents of a technician verbally abusing a customer's daughter with profanity and yelling, as well as a contractor abandoning communication after a dispute — these are severe, specific allegations that heavily drag the score down despite three positive mentions of courteous and responsive service. Pricing is a significant concern, with two detailed reviews describing hidden fees and unauthorized charges levied against a senior citizen, resulting in one of the lowest dimension scores. Project completion is also seriously undermined by one review describing abandoned piping left on-site, an unpaid subcontractor who placed a lien on a customer's home, and another describing a $90K+ heating system installed without a critical controller that caused over a year of excessive propane consumption with no compensation offered. Experience receives a moderate score because positive reviews cite knowledgeable and skilled technicians, but the heating system installation failure and the controller omission represent a meaningful technical failure that tempers confidence.

• Two reviews (2017-05-04) appear to be near-identical in content, phrasing, and incident description, submitted by what appears to be the same customer or household on the same day — one may be a duplicate. Both were counted but treated as a single incident for scoring purposes to avoid double-penalizing.
• The majority of reviews (6 out of 7) are older than 12 months from a current reference point, with most dating from 2017–2020 and one from 2011. No recent reviews are present, making it impossible to assess current service quality. Scores should be treated with caution.
• The 2011 review describes a $90K+ commercial/residential heating installation failure — this is an extreme outlier in project scale and may not reflect typical residential service quality, but it is a documented and specific complaint and has been included in scoring.
• The positive reviews are notably brief and generic (e.g., 'great service, knowledgeable staff, quick and efficient') with little specific detail, while the negative reviews contain highly specific, verifiable claims. This asymmetry reduces confidence in the positive reviews.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review sample, the age of most reviews, the presence of a likely duplicate review, and the stark contrast between vague positive reviews and highly detailed negative ones — prospective customers should weight the specific negative accounts heavily when making a hiring decision.

The review pool is extremely small and contains a significant red flag: two reviews are exact duplicates in text, rating, and date, strongly suggesting a fake or double-submitted review. The one unique positive review praises Robert for completing difficult TV and art hanging jobs, suggesting some technical competence. However, a separate 1-star review describes Craig never showing up for an appointment and failing to communicate, which is a serious professionalism failure. The conflicting names across reviews (Robert vs. Craig) may indicate multiple workers under one profile, making it difficult to assess the business as a whole. No pricing information was mentioned in any review.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews share identical text, rating, and timestamp — this is a strong indicator of a fake or artificially inflated review. Confidence has been reduced accordingly.
• CONFLICTING WORKER NAMES: Reviews reference two different individuals (Robert and Craig), suggesting either multiple employees or contractors under one profile. Scores may not reflect a single consistent service provider.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The negative review is from 2020, while the duplicate positive reviews are from 2023. The small sample size makes it impossible to determine a reliable trend.
• VERY LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews total, with 2 being duplicates, leaving effectively 2 unique data points. The WW Score cannot be considered reliable under these conditions.

This WW Score has very low reliability due to a critically small review pool, a detected duplicate review suggesting potential manipulation, and conflicting reviewer experiences that cannot be reconciled with confidence.

AP Plumbing's reviews paint a consistently negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is the most heavily documented dimension and is severely damaged by repeated no-shows, failure to return calls, missed appointment windows, and poor communication across the majority of reviews — with only two reviews offering any positive counterpoint. Project completion is similarly poor, with multiple accounts of abandoned appointments, incomplete work, and jobs requiring multiple rescheduled visits that still failed to materialize on time. Pricing drew explicit concern in one detailed review alleging double-dipping on labor charges and inflated fees for trivial work, with a second review noting unresolved billing confusion with the home warranty company. Experience scores slightly higher due to two genuinely positive reviews praising plumber knowledge and workmanship, but these are heavily outweighed by accounts of technicians arriving unprepared, lacking tools, and refusing to perform required work. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with serious systemic operational failures.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews date from 2012–2015. Only one review is from 2015, and none are from the past several years. This score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current operations.
• PATTERN FLAG: The two positive reviews (5-star ratings from 2012 and 2013) are notably generic in praise relative to the highly specific negative reviews. The 2012 positive review contains no detail about the job performed. Low-confidence positive outliers in an otherwise overwhelmingly negative dataset.
• SYSTEMIC ISSUE: Multiple independent reviewers describe the same failure patterns — no-shows, unreturned calls, missed windows, and poor scheduling — suggesting organizational dysfunction rather than isolated incidents.
• BILLING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly alleges the company charged inflated fees for trivial work and may have been double-billing labor on top of warranty payments. A second reviewer reports unresolved billing confusion involving the home warranty deductible.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the high mention counts for professionalism and project completion provide statistical grounding, but the age of all reviews (2012–2015) means this score should be treated as a historical indicator only and not assumed to reflect current contractor performance.

Raven Plumbing, Heating & Backflow Prevention receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely undermined by repeated failures to return calls, no-shows, lack of paperwork, and poor communication — with only one positive review describing a professional experience. Project completion is a critical failure point, with multiple reviews describing unresolved leaks, abandoned jobs, months-long waits for parts, and a catastrophic basement flood caused by technician negligence. Technical experience is consistently rated as poor, with multiple reviewers describing technicians who did not know how to perform basic wiring or repairs, and one instance where a technician admitted to using the wrong part. Pricing transparency is also a concern, with two separate reviews alleging overbilling — one for inflated labor hours and another for a heavily marked-up water heater. The single positive review, while detailed and credible, is insufficient to offset the volume and severity of negative feedback.

• 7 out of 8 reviews are negative (1-star), indicating a strong pattern of poor service rather than isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews describe technician incompetence across different service types (HVAC, plumbing, water heater), suggesting a systemic skill and training problem rather than one-off failures.
• Two separate reviews allege billing fraud or overbilling — one for added labor hours not performed, and one for excessive parts markup — which is a serious red flag.
• A review from 2019 describes a technician who was confirmed by Raven staff to have been fired for prior mistakes, suggesting the company was aware of quality issues and continued operating without adequate vetting.
• Review dates span from 2017 to 2023, indicating persistent and long-standing problems rather than a temporary decline in service quality.
• The sole positive review (2021) is detailed and specific, and does not appear fake, but it is a significant outlier against the overall pattern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review (2023) is also negative and involves alleged billing fraud, suggesting problems have not improved over time.

This WW Score is based on 8 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries MODERATE-to-HIGH confidence given the consistency and specificity of the negative feedback, though the small total review count limits full statistical reliability.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Project completion is critically weak, with multiple instances of incomplete work, failed repairs requiring callbacks, and incorrect installations (wrong motor HP, furnace leaks). Professionalism is severely compromised by late arrivals, poor communication (4-day callback delays), hostile behavior, threats of liens, and continued harassment over paid invoices. Pricing shows significant overcharges (quoted $200, charged $350 for incomplete work) with lack of transparency. Technical competence is questionable, with poor workmanship explicitly noted by competing contractors and repeated failures to diagnose or fix problems correctly. The single 5-star review from 2018 is heavily outweighed by four recent 1-star reviews documenting serious operational and behavioral failures.

• CRITICAL: Hostile behavior and threats documented — contractor threatened to lien property and engaged in continued harassment over paid invoices
• CRITICAL: Multiple incomplete/failed repairs — furnace leak requiring second company, swamp cooler motor not replaced, plumbing work 50% complete
• CRITICAL: Significant price discrepancies — quoted $200, charged $350 for incomplete work; competitor completed same job in 1 hour vs. 4+ hours
• CRITICAL: Poor responsiveness — 4-day callback delay documented
• CRITICAL: Quality concerns — competing contractor (Coppersmith) explicitly stated prior work was 'awful'
• Recency concern: One positive review from 2018 is 6+ years old; four negative reviews span 2016-2024, with most recent (April 2024) being most severe
• Pattern of repeated failures: Multiple customers report incomplete work, failed diagnostics, and billing disputes across different service types (plumbing, HVAC)

This score is highly reliable and should be trusted. The WW Score of 22.3 is based on consistent patterns of failure across multiple dimensions documented by five different customers over an 8-year period, with the most severe incidents occurring recently (2024). The contractor's behavior, work quality, and business practices present significant risk.