Find Nearby Plumbers In Lakewood, Colorado

Only one review was available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is positive and mentions responsiveness, reasonable pricing, problem-solving ability, and long-term reliability. However, with only one data point, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and cannot be aggregated into a trustworthy overall score.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review is from 2021 (over 3 years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• Generic praise language ('always rave', 'great') without specific project details or concrete examples.
• Single review cannot establish patterns or validate consistency of service quality.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient data — a minimum of 3 reviews is required, and only 1 review was provided.

The single review analyzed is an extremely negative account alleging fraud, permit violations, theft, and abandoned work. The reviewer claims the contractor pulled a permit fraudulently under an expired license in another person's name, accepted $11,000 for a rough-in job and never completed it, and that subsequent workmanship issues emerged after he left the site. All four dimensions score near the bottom due to explicit allegations of dishonesty, non-completion, financial misconduct, and poor workmanship. Because only one review exists, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated, but the content of that review raises serious red flags across every measured dimension.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION: Reviewer explicitly claims contractor pulled a permit fraudulently under an expired license in another person's name.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: Reviewer alleges $11,000 was taken for work never completed, and that an employee named Dave stole $7,000 of project funds with possible contractor involvement.
• ABANDONED WORK: Reviewer states contractor left the job site and never returned to finish the project.
• WORKMANSHIP ISSUES: Reviewer reports ongoing plumbing failures emerging after contractor departed.
• RECENCY NOTE: This review is dated 2017-04-05, making it more than 7 years old. Conditions may have changed, but the severity of the allegations warrants retention as a serious warning.
• NO COUNTERBALANCING REVIEWS: There are no positive or neutral reviews to provide context or balance against these allegations.

This score is based on a single review from 2017 and should be treated with extreme caution — the allegations are severe and specific, but the absence of any additional reviews makes it impossible to determine whether this reflects a pattern or an isolated dispute.

Only a single review is available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The review praises Patton Plumbing for availability during emergencies and fair pricing, suggesting reasonable professionalism and responsiveness. Project completion is inferred from the mention of consistently 'coming through in a pinch,' though no specific job details are provided. No information about technical skill, workmanship quality, or specific experience was mentioned, leaving the Experience dimension entirely unscored. All scores are held conservative due to the extremely limited data set.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is generic in nature with no specific job details, names, or descriptions of work performed — this limits verifiability.
• Cannot rule out potential bias or inauthenticity with a single data point.
• Review is from May 2024, which is within the past 12 months and therefore carries full recency weight, but this is insufficient to offset the lack of volume.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — with only one vague review available, there is insufficient evidence to draw meaningful conclusions about Patton Plumbing's overall quality or consistency.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions professionalism (fast, friendly, efficient), project completion (water heater installed), and experience (did a great job), but provides minimal specific detail. No pricing information was mentioned. With only one data point, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Insufficient reviews (n=1) — cannot calculate reliable WW Score
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old) — recency is poor
• Generic praise with minimal specifics — limited actionable detail
• No pricing feedback provided

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable score — a minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a meaningful WW Score, and this single review is significantly outdated.

This single review paints a broadly positive picture across all four dimensions. The reviewer explicitly compared Les's pricing to five competing bids and found it significantly lower, supporting a strong pricing score. Project completion is evidenced by a detailed list of successfully finished jobs across seven separate service calls over roughly one year. Experience is supported by the variety and technical range of work completed — cartridge replacements, kitchen plumbing, toilet installs, leak repairs, drain snaking, and faucet installs. Professionalism is noted through the descriptor 'reliable,' though limited detail is provided on communication or punctuality specifically, keeping that score conservative.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2017-04-26, making it over 7 years old. Recency rule applies — this data may not reflect current service quality.
• Single-review basis means all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be treated as representative of overall contractor performance.

This score report is based on a single review from 2017 and should be considered highly preliminary — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or consistency can be drawn from this data alone.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly conservative and unreliable. The reviewer mentions honesty and fair pricing, suggesting reasonable professionalism and price-friendliness. The claim that Robert is a 'master plumber' and 'knows his job' provides minimal but positive evidence of experience. The phrase 'does a great job' loosely implies project completion but lacks any specific detail about a particular project or outcome. All scores are intentionally conservative given the extreme lack of data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from August 2022, which is over 2 years old — recency cannot be confirmed and no recent reviews are available to validate current performance.
• Review is generic and brief with no specific project details, which limits the ability to verify authenticity or depth of experience.
• WW Score cannot be calculated — insufficient review volume.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes, as it is based on a single, brief, and dated review with no corroborating evidence across any dimension.