Find Nearby Plumbers In Lakewood, Colorado

Rick's plumbing work demonstrates strong technical expertise and fair pricing, with most recent positive reviews praising his skill, efficiency, and affordability. However, significant professionalism concerns emerge from multiple reviews (2017–2019) documenting poor communication, non-responsiveness to callbacks, and lack of invoice documentation—issues that directly contradict the glowing testimonials from 2012–2016. The most recent negative review (2019) also raises concerns about parts management and transparency. While his workmanship and problem-solving ability remain consistently praised, the pattern of communication failures and follow-up issues substantially undermines overall reliability.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 4–8 years old (2012–2016). The three most recent reviews (2017–2019) are predominantly negative, suggesting a deterioration in service quality or business practices over time.
• COMMUNICATION PATTERN: Multiple reviews from 2016–2017 explicitly document failure to return calls, texts, and provide invoices despite initial good work. This is a recurring theme, not isolated.
• INVOICE/DOCUMENTATION ISSUE: Review from 2016-11-23 flags that payment came from a 'squarespace address that lists an e-cig shop,' raising legitimacy and tax compliance concerns.
• PARTS MANAGEMENT: 2019 review indicates customer purchased parts that were not used and was charged $140 for parts already owned—suggests poor planning or communication about materials.
• CONFIDENCE REDUCTION: The divergence between older glowing reviews and recent negative reviews creates uncertainty about current service standards. Score reflects this volatility.

This WW Score should be treated with caution. While the numerical score of 78.2 reflects strong technical ability and fair pricing, the temporal pattern of deteriorating professionalism and communication—especially in the most recent reviews—suggests the score may overstate current reliability. Potential customers should be aware of documented callback and documentation issues before engaging.

Vinny's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional service, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and fair pricing across multiple reviews. However, a critical 1-star review from 2019 describing incomplete work and ghosting significantly impacts the project completion score, raising serious reliability concerns. The majority of positive reviews are from 2014, with only two recent reviews (2024 and 2023), making it difficult to assess current operational standards. The stark contrast between the 2019 abandonment complaint and recent positive feedback suggests either a significant past issue or potential inconsistency in service delivery.

• RECENCY CONCERN: 5 of 8 reviews are from 2014 (10 years old). Only 2 reviews from past 12 months. Current performance may differ significantly from historical data.
• CRITICAL RELIABILITY FLAG: One detailed 1-star review (2019) explicitly describes incomplete work, multiple no-shows, and ghosting. This directly contradicts the project completion dimension and suggests serious past reliability issues.
• PATTERN INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between 2019 abandonment complaint and recent 2024 positive review. Unclear if issue was resolved or if it represents isolated incident.
• SAMPLE SIZE: Only 8 total reviews limits statistical confidence. Recent data particularly sparse (only 2 reviews in past 12 months).

This score should be treated with caution. While recent reviews are positive, the 2019 ghosting complaint raises legitimate concerns about reliability, and the heavy weighting toward decade-old reviews limits confidence in current performance. A score of 78.2 reflects strong technical skills but material uncertainty around project completion follow-through.

Three of four reviewers express general satisfaction with professionalism, communication, and workmanship, with one reviewer specifically praising upfront explanations and transparent discussion of potential additional work. However, the pricing dimension is meaningfully dragged down by a direct complaint about a billed amount ($165) exceeding the quoted price ($120), which is a concrete and serious concern around pricing integrity. Project completion and experience scores are moderately positive but rest on a small number of reviews, limiting confidence. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with apparent strengths in professionalism and skill, tempered by a documented pricing discrepancy and a very small review pool.

• Very small review pool (4 reviews total) — scores should be treated as low-confidence indicators only.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (oldest from 2018, most recent from 2021) — recency weighting applied; no recent data available to confirm current service quality.
• One review explicitly documents a quoted price of $120 but a charged price of $165 with no explanation — this is a concrete pricing integrity concern and has been weighted accordingly.
• All positive reviews are 5-star with limited specificity in some cases (e.g., 'These guys are great!'), which could suggest mild generic praise, though at least two positive reviews include specific details that reduce fake review concern.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all older than 12 months, and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary indicator — significantly more recent reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a reliable representation of current service quality.

Mountain Drains presents a deeply mixed picture across its review history. On the positive side, when technicians do show up, multiple reviewers praise the quality of workmanship, technical knowledge, and fair pricing — with specific callouts for Chris, Danny, and other crew members doing thorough, skilled work. However, a significant and recurring pattern of no-shows, unreturned calls, and abandoned jobs drags down both professionalism and project completion scores substantially. At least 10 reviews explicitly describe being stood up, ignored after initial contact, or left mid-job without follow-through — a serious reliability problem that cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents. Pricing is generally viewed favorably by those who received service, with several reviewers noting Mountain Drains was cheaper than competitors and transparent about costs. The experience dimension scores highest because reviewers who received completed work consistently praised the skill level, but this is tempered by the fact that many customers never got that far.

• RECURRING NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 10 reviews across multiple years (2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2024) describe the same failure mode — scheduled appointments not honored, calls not returned, and customers left without resolution. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (April 2024) is a 1-star no-show complaint, suggesting the no-show problem has not been resolved over time. The majority of positive reviews are from 2017–2023, with the most recent positive review from late 2023.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE UNADDRESSED: One review (May 2021) describes the crew's equipment leaking on carpets and gouging wooden stairs, with no return call to address the damage. This is a serious liability and professionalism flag.
• OVERCHARGING COMPLAINT: One review (May 2021) describes being charged what the reviewer called a 'ridiculous amount' for 30 minutes of drain clearing work, in addition to the property damage caused.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians arriving without proper tools, leaving to retrieve them, and in some cases not returning — a pattern seen in 2015 and 2027 reviews.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS APPEAR GENUINE: The positive reviews contain specific names (Chris, Danny, Bobby, Joe, Schuyler), specific job details, and varied writing styles. No fake review pattern detected among the positive reviews.
• REVIEW SPAN: Reviews span from 2011 to 2024 (13 years). Older reviews (2011–2015) are given reduced weight. The mixed pattern of positives and negatives appears consistent across all time periods, suggesting no clear improvement or decline trend.

This WW Score is based on 35 reviews spanning 13 years with high mention counts across all four dimensions, making it statistically reliable — however, the score reflects a genuinely divided service record where excellent outcomes and serious failures coexist, and prospective customers should weigh the no-show and non-responsiveness pattern heavily when deciding whether to hire this contractor.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 10+ years. Positive reviews (2013–2021) consistently praise professionalism, experience, and honesty, with mentions of punctuality, politeness, and technical knowledge. However, a critical 2023 review documents serious project abandonment and financial misconduct—the contractor took $300 upfront, failed to complete work, became unresponsive, and blocked the customer's phone. An additional 2020 review alleges dishonesty and poor service. The pattern suggests either deterioration in service quality over time or potential identity/management confusion (reviews reference 'Nick,' 'Andy,' and 'Andrew'). Pricing data is sparse and contradictory. The WW Score reflects the severe weight of recent abandonment and non-completion against older positive feedback.

• CRITICAL: 2023 review documents project abandonment, non-completion, customer payment retention ($300), and blocking of customer contact—severe breach of project completion and professionalism.
• IDENTITY INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple names (Nick, Andy, Andrew) for the same business. One review explicitly questions whether 'Nick' is actually 23 years old, contradicting claims of 18+ years experience.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are 2–11 years old (2013–2021). The two most recent reviews (2023, 2020) are both 1-star with serious complaints. This suggests possible service degradation.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews from 2021 use similar phrasing ('went great,' 'very professional,' 'would hire again') and lack specific detail. One review contains apparent typos ('Wentclened upm'), raising authenticity questions.
• INCOMPLETE DATA: Pricing mentioned in only 2 reviews with conflicting signals (one calls rates 'very reasonable,' the other reports excessive upfront demand). Experience claims are unverified and contradicted by age allegation.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While older reviews suggest competence, the recent 2023 abandonment and payment retention incident is a severe red flag that cannot be ignored. The identity confusion across reviews and the stark contrast between old and new feedback suggest either significant business changes or data integrity issues. Do not rely on this score alone—investigate the 2023 complaint and verify current business practices before hiring.

Two positive reviews highlight Tom's 20+ years of experience, quick emergency response, and ability to handle a range of plumbing work, which supports moderate scores in professionalism, project completion, and experience. However, a detailed and credible 1-star review significantly drags down the professionalism and pricing dimensions, describing refusal to provide an itemized invoice, aggressive behavior when the customer sought competing quotes, and pricing that the owner himself confirmed was $595 in labor for roughly 40 minutes of work. The pricing dimension is scored very low based on this single but highly specific and damaging account. The two 5-star reviews lack granular detail and use somewhat generic praise, which limits their ability to fully offset the negative review.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable until more reviews are available.
• The two 5-star reviews contain limited specifics and use broadly similar praise language ('amazing,' 'expert,' 'quickly and efficiently'), which raises a mild concern about authenticity, though not conclusive.
• The 1-star review is highly detailed and specific, including dollar amounts, timeline, and direct quotes from the owner — this review carries significant credibility weight.
• The owner's behavior described in the negative review (refusing itemized invoices, threatening to remove customer from schedule for price shopping) is a serious professionalism red flag.
• All three reviews are from early 2024, so recency is not a concern, but the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — the score may shift substantially as more reviews are collected, and the single negative review carries disproportionate influence given the small sample size.