Find Nearby Plumbers In Lakewood, Colorado

Conifer Plumbing and Heating presents a deeply divided record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately due to a significant number of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and communication, but these are substantially offset by repeated, serious complaints about no-shows, cancelled appointments without notice, failure to return calls or emails, and at least one instance of a technician hanging up on a customer. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out charges of $450–$500 for diagnostics alone, parts marked up far above retail, and hidden or unexpected fees for estimates — several customers reported finding the same work done for less than half the quoted price elsewhere. Project completion is mixed: several reviews praise follow-through and callback service, but there are credible accounts of abandoned jobs, warranty work refused, a furnace improperly installed that voided its own warranty, and a boiler repair that required a competitor to fix a defective part the company installed. Experience scores in the mid-range because while many positive reviews describe skilled, knowledgeable technicians, there are multiple documented misdiagnoses — including one case where a competitor identified and fixed an entirely different problem for less money — and at least one instance of improper installation causing long-term damage.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least 4 reviews appear to be near-identical or exact duplicates submitted on different dates (the 'Dan at Conifer Plumbing' review appears twice; the 'Dan and Jeff furnace repair' review appears twice; the 'do it yourselfer cabinet sink' review appears twice; the 'new gas line for gas stove' review appears twice; the 'boiler gas odor' review appears twice). These duplicates were counted only once per unique review for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed positive reviews are from 2016–2019 or earlier. The most recent reviews (2022–2025) skew heavily negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Recent reviews were weighted more heavily in scoring.
• PATTERN WARNING: Several 5-star reviews contain no substantive detail (e.g., blank text with 5 stars, 'Good', 'great.', 'Customer service and reliability beyond expectation!!!!!!!!') and were treated as low-evidential-value for scoring purposes.
• SERIOUS COMPLAINT PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same issues — unexpected diagnostic fees, no-shows, cancelled appointments, failure to honor warranty work, and misdiagnosis. This consistency across unrelated reviewers increases the credibility of negative feedback.
• WARRANTY FAILURE: One reviewer explicitly states a furnace installed by Conifer had its 10-year warranty voided due to improper installation, and the company did not respond to complaints. This is a significant project completion and experience flag.
• PRICING CONCERN: At least 4 reviewers independently reported being charged $300–$500+ for diagnostics or service calls where little or no effective work was performed, and multiple found the same repairs completed by competitors for significantly less cost.

This WW Score is based on 63 reviews spanning over a decade with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the strong divergence between older positive reviews and more recent negative reviews suggests the score may overstate current service quality, and prospective customers should weight the 2022–2025 reviews most heavily when making a hiring decision.

Courtesy Plumbing and Heating presents a deeply divided review profile. A meaningful subset of customers — particularly those served by technicians Drew, Jason, Alec, Jenna, and David — report genuinely positive experiences with professionalism, responsiveness, and technical competence. However, these positives are substantially offset by a large volume of serious negative reviews spanning pricing gouging allegations, no-show appointments, incomplete or incorrect work, unlicensed technician concerns, and failure to follow through on promises. Pricing is the single most damaged dimension, with numerous reviewers across multiple years independently describing charges as wildly inflated — sometimes 5–10x market rate — and several alleging deceptive upselling practices. Project completion also suffers significantly, with multiple documented cases of technicians failing to return as promised, leaving work unfinished, or performing incorrect repairs that required third-party correction. The company's overall score is dragged down by the consistency and specificity of these negative accounts across a long time span.

• PRICING CONCERNS — HIGH SEVERITY: At least 10 independent reviewers across multiple years (2013–2025) describe pricing as grossly inflated, with specific dollar comparisons provided. Examples include: $800 for a PRV not correctly set; $925 for a faucet and P-trap with ~$200 in parts; $1,170 quoted for a $120 control board; $1,200 quoted for a job with $100 in parts; $300 for 30 minutes of work; $5,000 quoted for an AC repair that cost $600 elsewhere. This is a persistent, multi-year pattern — not isolated incidents.
• UNLICENSED TECHNICIAN ALLEGATIONS: Two separate reviews (Dec 2024 and Sep 2023) allege that technicians performed work on apprentice licenses without required supervision, in violation of Colorado law. One review references a DORA cease and desist order and expired licenses in Colorado Springs and Sedalia. These are serious legal and safety concerns that could not be independently verified from reviews alone but are highly specific and credible.
• NO-SHOW / BROKEN PROMISE PATTERN: Multiple reviews document technicians (particularly Eddie) failing to return as scheduled with zero communication. A separate business review documents repeated broken payment promises over 30+ days. This pattern of unreliability appears across multiple technicians and contexts.
• DECEPTIVE UPSELLING ALLEGATIONS: At least 3 reviews (2021 furnace CO scare, 2021 AC control board, 2021 AC switch) describe technicians diagnosing expensive problems that were later found to be non-existent or trivially inexpensive by other companies. The CO/furnace incident involving an elderly woman is particularly concerning given the vulnerability of the customer.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews contain minimal detail (e.g., 'Jason was great', 'Jenna is amazing! Thank you', 'Great service!', blank text with 5 stars, 'Thorough and efficient'). While not conclusive, the pattern of very short, unspecific 5-star reviews alongside highly detailed negative reviews warrants caution. Confidence in the positive score contributions is reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2013 to 2025. Negative pricing and upselling complaints appear consistently across the entire date range, suggesting these are not isolated historical issues. The most recent reviews (2025) still include serious complaints about no-shows, rigid policies, and incorrect work, indicating problems have not been resolved under current management.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES DOCUMENTED: The Kwincii incident (2023) involved improperly installed tub pipes and drain causing water damage, with the technician refusing to acknowledge fault. The Eddie incident (2024) involved installing a drain on the wrong side, leaving trash, and failing to clamp a fitting — causing ~20 gallons of water damage. These are not minor errors.
• COLLECTIONS / BILLING DISPUTE: One review (2022) describes being sent to collections after the owner allegedly provided a zero-dollar invoice for botched work. Another review (2025) describes a subcontractor not being paid for damage repair work despite repeated promises over 30+ days.

This WW Score is based on 67 reviews spanning 2013–2025 with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the persistent and specific nature of negative reviews — particularly around pricing, unlicensed work allegations, and no-show behavior — means the score of 54.2 should be treated as a genuine warning signal, and prospective customers should exercise significant caution before hiring this company.

Pipeworx presents a deeply split profile: earlier reviews (2015–early 2016) consistently praise Walter's communication, punctuality, honesty, and quality workmanship, while a cluster of reviews from mid-to-late 2016 describe serious misconduct including taking large deposits for HVAC units and disappearing, failing to complete contracted work, and ignoring calls and emails after payment. The project completion dimension is severely dragged down by multiple credible accounts of abandoned jobs and outright fraud totaling over $20,000 in stolen deposits across multiple victims. Professionalism scores are similarly bifurcated — highly praised in earlier reviews but undermined by documented no-shows, broken promises, and unresponsiveness in later reviews. Pricing and experience scores remain relatively higher because the positive reviews on those dimensions are credible and specific, but they cannot offset the serious red flags in completion and follow-through.

• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple independent reviewers (at least 4) describe Walter taking cash or credit card deposits for HVAC/AC units and then disappearing without performing the work or returning contact. Total alleged theft exceeds $20,000 across victims in the same building.
• UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR WARNING: One reviewer explicitly states they checked the DORA (Colorado) website and Walter is NOT licensed. This is a critical consumer safety concern.
• PATTERN OF POST-PAYMENT GHOSTING: Multiple reviews describe Walter becoming unreachable immediately after receiving payment, including ignoring texts, calls, and emails.
• INCOMPLETE WORK DOCUMENTED: At least one reviewer was left with a temporary, non-code-compliant plumbing solution after Walter failed to return to finish the job despite repeated scheduling attempts.
• CREDIT CARD FRAUD ALLEGATION: One reviewer states Walter falsely claimed to a credit card company that services were performed when they were not, which the reviewer corroborated with the manufacturer's rep.
• TEMPORAL DECLINE IN QUALITY: Reviews from 2015 and early 2016 are overwhelmingly positive, while reviews from mid-to-late 2016 are overwhelmingly negative. This suggests a significant deterioration in business conduct over time.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews are from 2015–2019. No reviews from the past 5+ years are present, making it impossible to assess current business status or conduct.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Positive reviews contain specific details, named individuals, and varied language. Negative reviews are independently corroborated with specific dollar amounts and consistent patterns. The review set appears authentic overall.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the volume of reviews, but the score itself must be interpreted with extreme caution — the contractor has multiple credible, corroborated fraud allegations and documented unlicensed operation, and prospective customers should treat this profile as high-risk regardless of the positive historical reviews.

Hot Water Now exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile with stark contrasts between older positive reviews (2014-2016) and recent negative experiences (2020-2024). While the company demonstrates genuine technical expertise in tankless water heater systems—particularly Rinnai units—this strength is severely undermined by aggressive pricing practices, poor follow-through on commitments, and inconsistent professionalism. Recent reviews consistently report overcharging, failure to return calls, incomplete invoicing, and upselling of unnecessary replacements. The company's pricing appears to have escalated significantly, with multiple customers reporting $6,000+ charges for installations that competitors quote at $3,500-$4,500. Professionalism scores are dragged down by unresponsive management, subpar customer service, and lack of accountability despite owner Keith's involvement in some cases.

• TEMPORAL PATTERN ALERT: Positive reviews cluster heavily in 2014-2016 (8 five-star reviews), while negative reviews dominate 2020-2024 (10 one-star reviews). This suggests significant deterioration in service quality or business practices over time.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple recent reviews (2020-2024) report inflated pricing ($6,000 for tankless installs when market rate is $3,500-$4,500). Pattern suggests systematic overcharging or aggressive upselling.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURES: At least 4 recent reviews explicitly mention owner Keith failing to return calls, respond to emails, or follow through on promised callbacks and remedies despite being contacted directly.
• DIAGNOSTIC INTEGRITY: Multiple reviews (2021-2023) describe technicians recommending expensive replacements ($6,000 units) when actual problems were minor ($30-$50 fixes). Pattern suggests either incompetence or deliberate upselling.
• PERMITTING ISSUES: 2020 review documents serious code violations (improper gas line installation, failed load calculations, unpermitted work) that required third-party remediation and gas company shutoffs.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Same company receives both 5-star praise for honest work and 1-star condemnation for deceptive practices, suggesting highly variable technician quality or business model changes.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 24 reviews with substantial mention counts, the extreme temporal polarization (positive 2014-2016 vs. negative 2020-2024) and pattern of recent complaints regarding pricing, follow-through, and diagnostic integrity suggest the company's current performance may be significantly worse than the overall score indicates. The score is heavily influenced by older positive reviews that may not reflect current operations. Customers should prioritize recent reviews (2020+) when making decisions.

Cheaper Rooter exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across professionalism and project completion, which are the two most heavily weighted dimensions. While some customers praise honesty and fair pricing (5 positive reviews), the overwhelming majority (13 of 18 reviews) document serious failures: no-shows despite promises, unfinished work, poor workmanship, rude/unprofessional behavior, and failure to follow up on callbacks. Critical incidents include leaving a sewer pipe open for 24 hours, severing a sprinkler line without repair, installing a drain a foot above grade, and causing water damage without remediation. The company's responsiveness and communication are particularly problematic, with multiple reports of unreturned calls and broken commitments. A small subset of loyal customers report positive experiences with honesty and fair pricing, but these cannot offset the pattern of operational failures and customer harm.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS AND BROKEN PROMISES: Multiple reviews (2020, 2018, 2015) document failure to show up after scheduling or follow through on promised callbacks. Owner Michael A. Medina explicitly stopped taking calls in at least one case.
• POOR WORKMANSHIP AND INCOMPLETE JOBS: Crawlspace drain installed incorrectly (foot above grade), sewer line not compacted causing subsidence, shower fixture crooked and loose, tub pipes unconnected and drilled incorrectly, toilet bolt replaced with screw, sink drains left unattached. Multiple instances of work requiring expensive rework by other contractors.
• FAILURE TO REMEDIATE DAMAGE CAUSED BY COMPANY: Severed sprinkler line left uncapped (customer had to cap and fill sinkhole themselves); water damage to ceiling and drywall from improper water shutoff (promised repair never completed months later); trench subsidence never addressed despite 3 weeks of daily calls.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Reports of rude/yelling owner, disrespectful workers, employee using toilet without flushing, dragging dirty equipment across carpet, talking over customers, laughing at customer, employee too hungover to work, leaving job site messy.
• POTENTIAL FRAUD PATTERN: One detailed review alleges sewer line scam where company claimed line was busted, charged $4,000 deposit, did no work, and subsequent inspection showed line was in good condition. Allegation of collusion with excavation company.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2014-2020 (older than 1 year). However, recent reviews (2023, 2020) still document serious failures, suggesting ongoing issues. Positive reviews cluster in 2013-2015 and 2020, suggesting inconsistent service quality over time.
• POLARIZED REVIEW PATTERN: 13 one-star reviews vs. 5 five-star reviews with minimal middle ground. Positive reviews often mention owner 'Mike' by name and emphasize honesty/fair pricing. Negative reviews focus on execution failures and unprofessionalism. This suggests service quality may depend heavily on which employee/owner handles the job.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on 18 reviews with substantial evidence across all dimensions, particularly project completion (14 mentions) and professionalism (13 mentions). The pattern of failures is consistent, specific, and documented across multiple years and customer types. However, the existence of genuinely positive reviews from repeat customers and real estate professionals indicates the company is capable of good work in some circumstances, suggesting inconsistency rather than universal incompetence. Potential customers should be aware of significant execution and follow-through risks.

Adams Plumbing and Heating has a deeply mixed review record spanning 2009–2023, with a clear pattern of serious complaints dominating the majority of reviews. Professionalism is heavily penalized by multiple accounts of unanswered calls, canceled appointments with no notice, rude technicians, and broken promises by the owner — offset only partially by a handful of reviews praising polite and responsive service. Pricing is one of the weakest dimensions, with numerous explicit complaints about undisclosed trip fees, billing for time not worked, charges of $500/hour equivalent, and customers feeling deceived or overcharged — with only a few reviewers finding prices fair or reasonable. Project completion is similarly troubled, with documented cases of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, furnace repairs that failed, incorrect plumbing installations left uncorrected, and a particularly serious allegation of property damage with no restitution. Experience scores slightly higher due to a few reviews praising skilled and knowledgeable technicians, but is undermined by multiple accounts of technicians unable to diagnose basic problems, making issues worse, or performing incorrect installations.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 3 years, with most negative reviews concentrated between 2014–2019. Only one review is from the past 12 months (2023). The score may not reflect current business performance.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE FLAG: One reviewer (2020) explicitly states that negative reviews are from a prior owner/manager and that current ownership is different. This cannot be independently verified from the review data alone, but it is a meaningful contextual note.
• POTENTIAL FAKE/BIASED REVIEW: The 2020 review urging readers to 'disregard poor reviews' and directing them to Google contains no specific service details and reads as a reputation-management post rather than a genuine customer experience. Confidence in that review is reduced.
• REVIEW 'unknown' (2016-12-21, 5 stars): Contains no text and no usable data. Excluded from scoring.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: One detailed review (2017) alleges the owner paid a contractor $200 to silence a complaint from an elderly customer, and failed to honor repeated commitments to repair damage caused during a job. This is a significant integrity flag.
• PATTERN OF BROKEN PROMISES: Multiple independent reviews describe the owner or staff making verbal commitments (refunds, return visits, repairs) that were never honored, suggesting a systemic follow-through problem rather than isolated incidents.
• HIDDEN FEES PATTERN: At least three independent reviews explicitly mention undisclosed trip charges or billing practices that were not communicated upfront, suggesting a structural transparency issue in pricing.

This WW Score is based on 26 reviews with usable data spanning 14 years, with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, making the score mathematically reliable — however, the heavy skew of negative reviews toward older dates and an alleged ownership change means consumers should weigh recent reviews (2020–2023) more heavily when making a hiring decision.