Find Nearby Plumbers In Lakewood, Colorado

This contractor's reviews are overwhelmingly negative, with pricing being the single most consistent and severe complaint across nearly every review — customers repeatedly describe quotes as outrageous, inflated by 200–300% above competitors, and in some cases outright fraudulent (e.g., a $950 quote for a $60 part fixed by a $0.20 gasket). Professionalism is mixed: a small number of reviews note courteous and punctual technicians, but others describe dismissive, dishonest, and unhelpful behavior including misdiagnosis, failure to return calls, and leaving work incomplete (thermostat removed and never replaced). Project completion is poor overall — multiple jobs were either misdiagnosed, not completed, or resulted in the customer seeking another contractor to finish the work correctly. Technical experience appears weak, with multiple instances of incorrect diagnoses and recommendations to replace equipment that did not need replacing, though a few reviews note that the specific task assigned was completed adequately.

• The majority of reviews are older than 1 year — most date from 2007 to 2015, with no reviews from the past several years. This score may not reflect current business practices.
• One positive review (4-star, 2011) uses notably promotional language ('DEFINATELY call TIME PLUMBING IN THE FUTURE') and references a different company name ('TIME Plumbing') than the others ('Appletree'), suggesting it may have been submitted to the wrong business profile or is not a genuine review for this contractor.
• No fake review patterns detected among the negative reviews — they contain specific dollar amounts, part names, job descriptions, and named technicians, which indicates authentic customer experiences.
• The single clearly positive review is an outlier and carries very low weight given the volume and specificity of negative reviews surrounding it.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the review volume is low (9 reviews) and most are more than 5 years old, but the consistency and specificity of complaints — particularly around pricing and misdiagnosis — across multiple independent reviewers lends credibility to the low scores assigned.

The review set is dominated by strongly negative experiences. Three of four reviews explicitly describe rude, dismissive, or unhelpful staff — including a technician, a supervisor, and a receptionist — driving professionalism to a very low score. Two reviews note that the problem was never resolved or that technicians were inexperienced, pulling project completion and experience scores down sharply. The single positive review (from 2011) describes a professional, efficient, and fairly priced repair, which provides the only upward data points across pricing and experience, but it is over a decade old and carries limited weight. Overall, the pattern is one of consistent service failure with one isolated positive outlier.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable and indicative only.
• The sole positive review is dated 2011, making it over 13 years old. It receives significantly reduced recency weight.
• Three of four reviews are from 2015–2016, also outside the preferred 12-month recency window. No recent reviews are present.
• Three separate reviewers independently used the phrase 'if I could leave 0 stars I would' — while this may reflect a common idiom, it is worth noting as a pattern. No evidence of fake positive reviews detected, but the review volume is too low to assess fake review risk meaningfully.
• Pricing score of 85 is based on a single review from 2011 and should be treated with extreme caution.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all older than 8 years, with no data from the past 12 months — it should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current service quality.

All four reviews are uniformly positive (5-star ratings) with consistent praise for Kevin's responsiveness, communication, punctuality, and technical competence. Reviews explicitly mention prompt response times, same-day service, professional demeanor, and problem-solving ability. However, the sample size is very small (n=4), and critically, no review addresses pricing, value, or cost transparency. Two reviews are from 2021, limiting recency. The absence of any critical feedback or pricing discussion raises concerns about sample representativeness.

• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews met, but statistical reliability is very limited.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 50% of reviews (2 of 4) are from 2021, over 2 years old. Only 2 reviews from 2023.
• UNIFORMITY PATTERN: All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback whatsoever. This perfect uniformity is atypical and may suggest selection bias or incomplete review dataset.
• MISSING PRICING DATA: Zero mentions of pricing, cost, or value for money across all reviews. This is a critical gap for WW Score reliability.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Some reviews use similar enthusiastic language ('awesome', 'highly recommend', 'pleasure to work with') but with sufficient specificity (same-day service, phone diagnosis, responsiveness) to avoid flagging as definitively fake.

This score should be treated with significant caution due to insufficient sample size (n=4), complete absence of pricing feedback, and suspicious uniformity of ratings. A minimum of 10-15 reviews with balanced feedback is needed to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

With only 4 reviews available, this dataset is insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation. Professionalism is supported by 3 mentions highlighting respectfulness, honesty, and accommodating service. Project completion is mentioned in all 4 reviews with consistent positive outcomes (quick resolution, problem fixed). Experience is mentioned in only 2 reviews with positive technical assessment. Pricing data is entirely absent from all reviews, preventing evaluation of value and fairness. The review dates span 2019–2023, with 3 reviews older than 1 year.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 reviews met but confidence remains limited due to small dataset
• RECENCY CONCERN: 75% of reviews (3 of 4) are older than 1 year (2019–2020); only 1 review from 2023
• MISSING PRICING DATA: No reviews mention pricing, value, quotes, or affordability; cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Reviews 2 and 3 contain vague language ('great job,' 'did a good job,' 'quick and hassle free') with minimal specific detail; Review 2 contains awkward phrasing ('took some money,' 'Great swing on the job') suggesting possible translation or authenticity concerns
• LIMITED DETAIL: Most reviews lack specifics about what work was performed, how problems were diagnosed, or what made service exceptional beyond general satisfaction

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (4 reviews) and missing critical data dimensions (pricing). The professionalism and project completion scores are based on limited mentions and should be treated as preliminary indicators only. Recency bias is significant with 75% of data older than 1 year. Do not rely on this assessment for major contractor decisions without additional recent reviews.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a trustworthy WW Score. The reviews are also highly polarized (1-star vs 5-star) with conflicting accounts of the same contractor's professionalism and work quality. Review dates span 6 months in 2018, making both reviews older than 12 months and potentially stale. No dimension has sufficient mention count (5+) to establish HIGH confidence.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: Ratings are 1-star and 5-star with contradictory claims about professionalism and quality. This suggests either highly variable service or potential review authenticity concerns.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from 2018 (5+ years old). No recent data available to assess current contractor performance.
• CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS: Review 1 describes slow work, incomplete job, and poor follow-through. Review 2 describes prompt service and knowledgeable work. Cannot reconcile without additional data.
• LIMITED MENTION COUNTS: All dimensions have 1-2 mentions only, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all scores.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and extreme polarization between reviews. Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making. Additional recent reviews are essential before drawing conclusions about this contractor's reliability.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score. The reviews present a stark contradiction: one 5-star review praising the team's work ethic and reliability, and one 1-star review criticizing poor responsiveness and failure to return a callback. Professionalism scores are heavily polarized (excellent communication in one review, complete lack of responsiveness in the other). No pricing information was provided in either review. The limited sample size and extreme polarity make any aggregate score unreliable.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Extreme polarity: one 5-star and one 1-star with no middle-ground reviews suggests potential selection bias or incomplete review history
• Both reviews are older than 12 months (2015-2016), limiting recency relevance
• Second review focuses on failure to respond to inquiry rather than completed work quality — different evaluation basis than first review
• Insufficient data across all dimensions to establish confidence in any aggregate score

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required) and extreme polarity between reviews. Any WW Score derived from this data would be meaningless and should not be used for decision-making.