Find Nearby Plumbers In Greeley, Colorado

Professionalism received the most mentions across reviews, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, politeness, cleanliness, and communication — though one serious negative review from 2020 described incomplete work and a dismissive attitude toward finishing the job. Project completion is dragged down significantly by that same 2020 review, in which a fixture was left uninstalled and an additional trip charge was demanded to complete work the contractor had not finished. Pricing received only two mentions: one implicit positive (a discount was credited for damages) and one negative (the same 2020 incident where the credit was insufficient given the scope of the problem). Experience scores moderately, with the detailed 2014 review describing skilled problem-solving on complex older plumbing, offset by the 2020 review describing a failure to even inspect a recommended fixture before installation. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool, the age of most positive reviews, and one substantive negative review that raises real concerns about accountability.

• Only 7 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about consistent contractor behavior.
• 5 of 7 reviews are from 2020 or earlier, with 4 reviews dating to 2014–2016. Only 2 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). The score may not reflect current performance.
• Several reviews ('Yes. Very good and good to work with', 'Overall great', 'unknown') are extremely vague with no specific details. These provide minimal usable signal and may inflate the star rating without adding meaningful evidence.
• The 1-star review from 2020 is the most detailed negative review and describes multiple compounding failures: property damage, incomplete installation of a recommended fixture, and an attempt to charge extra to finish the job. This is a significant red flag for project completion and accountability.
• The review marked 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and no text was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence — the review pool is small, the majority of reviews are over four years old, and the most recent substantive negative review raises serious concerns about project completion and contractor accountability that are not offset by the volume or specificity of positive reviews.

Zac demonstrates mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is inconsistent: one review praises his efficiency and demeanor, while another explicitly criticizes unprofessional communication (ignoring calls/texts during a project). Project completion shows a critical gap—one review documents incomplete work and failure to return for trim-out, resulting in customer-incurred permit costs. Pricing receives limited positive mention in one review. Experience/skill is moderately supported by two reviews noting competent work on specific tasks. The severe project abandonment issue significantly impacts the overall score despite some positive professionalism mentions.

• CRITICAL: One review (2020-01-31) documents serious project abandonment—contractor failed to complete rough-in follow-up work and became unresponsive, forcing customer to hire inspector and pay permit fees. This is a major red flag for reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of three reviews are significantly outdated (2015 and 2020). Only one review is from the past 12 months (2024-09-21), limiting confidence in current performance.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: Stark contrast between 5-star review (2024) and 1-star review (2020) suggests inconsistent service quality or possible changes in business practices. The 2024 review lacks detail on project complexity.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Score reliability is inherently limited.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to very small sample size (3 reviews), significant recency gaps, and one documented case of serious project abandonment that raises substantial concerns about follow-through and professionalism despite recent positive feedback.

Practical Plumbing presents a deeply divided picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, a substantial number of reviewers — many of them long-term customers — praise Jim's responsiveness, courteous demeanor, fair pricing, and solid workmanship on routine jobs. However, a serious and recurring pattern of negative reviews significantly drags down every dimension: multiple independent reviewers allege that Jim diagnosed expensive, unnecessary repairs (ranging from $2,000–$4,300) without using a camera, collected upfront deposits, and then either failed to return or refused refunds. Professionalism is further undermined by multiple accounts of Jim becoming aggressive, confrontational, and hanging up on customers when questioned about his work or billing. Project completion suffers from documented instances of abandoned jobs, repeated cancellations, and work left incomplete. On the experience dimension, at least two separate reviewers had second opinions confirm that Jim's diagnoses were entirely wrong, and one detailed review describes a hot water tank installation that blocked a drain and was left non-functional. The score reflects a contractor who may perform adequately on simple jobs but carries significant and well-documented risk on larger projects.

• SERIOUS FRAUD PATTERN: At least four independent reviewers across different time periods (2014, 2023, 2024) allege that Jim diagnosed costly unnecessary repairs ($2,000–$4,300) without camera inspection, collected upfront cash deposits, and then failed to return or refused refunds. This is a consistent and specific pattern, not isolated complaints.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states Jim is unlicensed in Michigan; another states he is only a licensed apprentice who cannot pull permits. A third negative reviewer advises finding someone 'licensed and insured.' This is a significant red flag that was not rebutted in any positive review.
• AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR: Multiple reviewers independently describe Jim becoming confrontational, aggressive, or hanging up on customers when questioned about pricing or work quality. This is corroborated across at least three separate reviews.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews with identical text (the Warren seniors scam review) appear with dates 2023-07-18 and 2023-07-19 — one slightly longer with the licensing note added. These appear to be the same reviewer posting twice and were counted as one unique incident for scoring purposes.
• BLANK/USELESS REVIEWS: Two reviews contained no text (only a 5-star rating) and one contained only a period. These were excluded from dimensional scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most serious fraud and misconduct allegations are concentrated in the most recent reviews (2023–2024), suggesting the situation may have worsened over time rather than improved. Older positive reviews (2012–2018) may not reflect current service quality.
• POSSIBLE NAME DISCREPANCY: One positive review references 'Tim at Practical Plumbing' and another references 'Chris and Practical Plumbing' and another references 'Todd' — it is unclear if these are different employees or if some reviews may belong to a different business entirely, which could artificially inflate positive scores.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: One review references Park Ridge/Northwest Chicago area, while the majority of reviews reference Metro Detroit/St. Clair Shores/Warren Michigan. This raises the possibility that some reviews may be for a different business with a similar name, contaminating the dataset.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to review volume, but the score itself should be treated with serious caution given the documented pattern of alleged fraud, licensing concerns, aggressive behavior, and the possibility that some positive reviews belong to a different business — prospective customers should exercise significant due diligence before hiring.

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews spanning 2013–2019) and paints a mixed picture. The most detailed and recent review is a damning 1-star account describing a full week of silence followed by a dismissive email refusing a job already accepted — a serious professionalism and communication failure that heavily drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. One older 5-star review praises good work and fair pricing across multiple jobs, and a third review from 2013 is too vague to contribute meaningfully beyond a neutral signal on completion. The contrast between the detailed negative review and the sparse positive ones prevents any dimension from scoring confidently high.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with significant caution.
• Reviews span 2013 to 2019 — all reviews are older than 5 years with no recent data available. Current contractor quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• The 2013 review ('Everything worked fine, didn't have any problems') is extremely generic with no specific detail, limiting its analytical value.
• The most recent and most detailed review is a 1-star complaint describing job abandonment and poor communication — this is a serious red flag that is weighted heavily given its specificity.
• Small sample size makes it impossible to determine whether the negative experience is an outlier or representative of a pattern.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than 5 years, with highly conflicting signals and very limited detail — it should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality.

These reviews are for a plumbing supply store (George T Sanders Company / R N R Supply), not a contractor or plumber service provider. The WW Score engine is designed to evaluate contractor/plumber performance on dimensions including punctuality, project completion, workmanship quality, and pricing for services rendered. Supply store reviews address inventory, customer service in a retail context, and product availability—fundamentally different from evaluating a tradesperson's service delivery. No scoreable data exists for any of the four required dimensions.

• CRITICAL: Reviews are for a plumbing supply store, not a contractor/plumber service provider. WW Score cannot be calculated.
• Review dates range from 2017–2019 (4–7 years old). No recent data available.
• No evidence of project completion, pricing transparency, professional service delivery, or technical workmanship in a contracting context.

This WW Score cannot be calculated because the reviews do not evaluate a plumber or contractor service provider; they evaluate a plumbing supply retail business, which falls outside the scope of this scoring engine.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 5 reviews needed to produce a statistically meaningful WW Score. All three reviews are positive and mention professionalism and project completion favorably, with two reviews noting fair pricing and technical skill. However, the sample size is too small to generate reliable confidence in an overall score.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 5 reviews for reliable WW Score calculation
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language — limited diversity in feedback
• Review dates are significantly outdated (2017–2019) — no recent data from past 12 months
• Small sample size makes it impossible to assess consistency or detect patterns of concern

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume and age of data. A minimum of 5 recent reviews is required to calculate a reliable score.