Find Nearby Plumbers In Littleton, Colorado

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior across multiple reviews. Project completion is solid with on-time delivery and thorough cleanup noted. Technical skill and workmanship quality are well-regarded, particularly for complex installations. Pricing feedback is limited but mixed—one reviewer appreciated transparency and cost-saving advice, while another noted standard plumbing rates are high. The single 1-star review alleging code violations is a significant concern that cannot be ignored, though it lacks specifics and predates other reviews by 2+ years.

• One critical 1-star review (2022) alleges non-compliance with building codes and lack of BBB accreditation. This is a serious claim but lacks detail and is substantially older than other reviews. Recommend verification of current licensing and code compliance status.
• Review dates span 2019–2024 with a 3-year gap between the negative review and subsequent positive reviews. Unclear if issues were resolved or if the negative review is an outlier.
• Limited pricing data (2 mentions) makes the pricing dimension less reliable. One review explicitly praised cost transparency; the other noted standard high plumbing rates without complaint.
• Small sample size (5 reviews total) limits statistical confidence. Recommend collecting additional recent reviews for more robust scoring.

This WW Score of 82.3 should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and the presence of an unresolved serious allegation regarding code compliance. The positive reviews are detailed and credible, but the negative review warrants investigation before making a hiring decision.

Rich consistently receives strong praise across all four dimensions, with multiple reviewers highlighting his punctuality, fair pricing, and quality workmanship. Five of six reviewers describe completed jobs with positive outcomes, including passing inspection and delivering work the same or next day. Pricing is a notable strength, with several reviewers explicitly calling out competitive rates and no upselling. The one negative review — citing rudeness over the phone and unwillingness to schedule on a weekend — meaningfully pulls down the professionalism score, as it represents a real and specific complaint rather than a vague dissatisfaction. All reviews are older than 12 months (most dating to 2017–2020), which limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• ALL REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 12 MONTHS: The most recent review is from May 2020, over 4 years ago. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred from this data.
• RECENCY CONCERN: No reviews from the past 1–2 years are present. Business quality, availability, and pricing may have changed significantly.
• ONE NEGATIVE REVIEW: A 1-star review from December 2017 specifically cites rude phone behavior and refusal to schedule on weekends. This is a credible, specific complaint and has been factored into the professionalism score.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 total reviews. While all dimensions reached the 5-mention threshold, the absolute number of reviews is low and limits statistical reliability.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to consistent positive signals across all dimensions, but should be treated with caution given that all reviews are more than four years old and the total sample size is only six reviews.

Mile Hi Drain and Sewer receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions, with professionalism and project completion being the most frequently mentioned. A standout review describes a technician catching a potentially fraudulent diagnosis from a competitor, explaining findings clearly on a monitor, and completing the work on-site at a very reasonable price — this speaks strongly to both experience and integrity. Pricing is mentioned favorably in two reviews, with one describing savings from a near five-figure competitor quote and another calling pricing fair. However, the total review count is very low (4 reviews), three of which are more than five years old, significantly limiting the reliability of this score.

• Only 4 reviews total — sample size is too small to draw high-confidence conclusions about consistent performance.
• All 4 reviews are dated between 2015 and 2019 — none fall within the past 12 months. This score may not reflect current service quality.
• One review (2015-12-09) contains no specific service details and reads as a generic character defense rather than a firsthand service account. This review was excluded from usable data scoring as it provides no scorable dimension evidence.
• No negative reviews are present in this dataset. While this could reflect genuine quality, it may also indicate an incomplete or curated review sample. Score should be interpreted cautiously.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample (4 total), all reviews being over 5 years old, and the absence of any critical or mixed feedback — consumers should seek more recent and numerous reviews before making a hiring decision.

Priority Plumbing and Heating has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately — many individual technicians (Levi, Zhayn, Isaac, Kaleb, Josh, Paul, Zane) are praised for courtesy, communication, and attitude, but the company is repeatedly criticized for poor management responsiveness, broken callbacks, and in one case a technician displaying outright attitude toward a customer. Pricing is the weakest dimension: multiple reviews across several years describe bait-and-switch advertising ($49/$99/$139 advertised vs. much higher actual charges), opaque quoting practices, and at least one instance of billing for footage not used — with only a handful of reviews explicitly praising value. Project completion is significantly dragged down by several serious negative reviews describing abandoned or incomplete work, jobs requiring multiple return visits, a mainline replacement left with sewage leaking for six months, and a furnace/AC installation that required repeated callbacks over years — though many simpler jobs are reported as completed cleanly and on time. Experience scores moderately positive overall, with many reviewers praising individual technicians' technical knowledge and problem-solving, but offset by credible accounts of incorrect diagnostics, undersized piping, improper installations, and a case where a technician failed to identify a gas leak after replacing a unit.

• THREE blank reviews with only a 5-star rating and no text were detected (dates: 2025-05-26, 2025-05-19, 2025-03-11). These provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star average.
• Several 5-star reviews from 2025 use very similar structures (technician name + brief praise) with minimal specifics, which may indicate coached or templated reviews. Confidence in the high-volume recent positive reviews is slightly reduced.
• Multiple serious 1-star reviews describe a consistent pattern involving the VP/owner Sean Farris: poor follow-through, avoidance of callbacks, and pressure to remove negative reviews. This is a significant organizational red flag beyond individual technician performance.
• Pricing complaints span from 2016 through 2025, indicating a persistent and systemic issue with advertised vs. actual pricing — not an isolated incident.
• One reviewer explicitly states skepticism about the authenticity of 5-star reviews, and the volume of generic short 5-star reviews relative to detailed negative reviews warrants caution.
• Several reviews are older than 12 months (2016–2023). While they inform long-term patterns, they were weighted less heavily than 2024–2025 reviews in scoring. The negative patterns (pricing, incomplete work, management responsiveness) appear consistent across all time periods.
• A review from 2022 describes 9 visits unable to fix a leaking faucet, and a 2023 review describes a job left unfinished for 18 months — these are severe project completion failures that materially lower that dimension's score.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning multiple years and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but prospective customers should weigh the serious and recurring negative patterns around pricing transparency, management accountability, and project completion heavily — the score of 68.4 reflects genuine mixed performance, not a data gap.

Efficient Plumbing Services presents a highly polarized profile. Brian Davis demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship quality (82/100), with many customers praising his skill and problem-solving ability. Professionalism scores 72/100, reflecting consistent positive feedback on courtesy and communication in successful engagements, but severely undermined by three documented instances of rudeness, hanging up on customers, and aggressive behavior. Project completion is the weakest dimension (62/100) due to multiple documented failures to show up for scheduled appointments, leaving customers without service on urgent issues like active leaks. Pricing is contentious (65/100): while many customers report fair pricing and value, at least two reviews detail concerns about non-transparent billing practices and inflated service charges relative to actual parts costs. The company's reliability is compromised by inconsistent service delivery.

• CRITICAL: Multiple documented instances of appointment no-shows and failure to follow through (reviews from 2023-04-27, 2017-03-22, and implicit in 2023-05-05 incident). This is a pattern, not isolated.
• CRITICAL: Owner Brian Davis exhibits aggressive and dismissive communication in at least two documented phone interactions (2023-05-05 shouting and hanging up; 2017-03-22 flaking and poor follow-up). This directly contradicts 'professional' claims.
• PRICING CONCERN: At least two reviews (2013-06-20 and 2013-03-17) document concerns about non-transparent billing, inflated regular prices with artificial discounts, and charges that do not align with actual parts costs. One customer discovered parts cost <$10 but was charged $239.45.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most positive reviews are from 2011-2015 (older than 8 years). Recent reviews (2023) are predominantly negative. This suggests service quality has deteriorated significantly over time.
• POLARIZATION: Extreme rating distribution (nine 5-star, three 1-star, one 4-star, one 3-star) with no middle ground. Positive reviews often include unsolicited defenses against negative reviews, suggesting awareness of reputation damage.
• DEFENSIVE PATTERN: Multiple positive reviews explicitly tell readers to 'ignore negative reviews' (2014-05-18) or defend against accusations of being a 'con-artist' (2011-03-16, 2014-05-18). This defensive posture in positive reviews is a red flag for underlying credibility issues.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 68.2 reflects the mixed data, the recent pattern of appointment failures, documented rudeness, and billing transparency concerns—combined with the stark recency decline from 2011-2015 positive reviews to 2023 negative reviews—suggests the current reliability of Efficient Plumbing Services is significantly lower than the overall score indicates. The company's ability to complete projects on schedule and communicate professionally appears to have deteriorated materially in recent years. Prospective customers should weight recent reviews (2023) much more heavily than older positive reviews and should request clear, itemized quotes in writing before engaging services.

John demonstrates strong technical expertise and skill in plumbing work, with multiple reviews praising his diagnostic ability and quality of completed jobs. Pricing is generally fair and competitive when jobs proceed normally. However, professionalism is severely compromised by documented incidents of verbal abuse, screaming at customers, and unpredictable behavior in response to minor delays or pricing objections. Project completion is solid when the work begins, but two reviews document jobs abandoned mid-process due to emotional outbursts. The stark contrast between positive technical reviews and negative behavioral incidents creates significant reliability concerns.

• CRITICAL: Multiple independent reviews (3 of 7) document verbally abusive behavior, screaming, and aggressive outbursts toward customers. Two reviews explicitly describe the contractor leaving jobs incomplete due to emotional reactions.
• Temporal pattern: Negative behavioral incidents cluster in 2016-2018 period; most recent positive review is from 2023. Unclear if behavioral issues have been resolved or if recent reviews are from different circumstances.
• Professionalism score heavily penalized by documented unprofessional conduct (tardiness, verbal abuse, abandonment). Positive reviews do not mention or address these behavioral concerns, suggesting they may be from customers who did not experience these incidents.
• One negative review (2016-06-06) describes a $500 quote for work the customer completed themselves for $32 in parts, raising questions about pricing accuracy and job assessment, though this is a single data point.

This score should be treated with caution. While technical competence appears genuine (HIGH confidence), the professionalism dimension is severely compromised by multiple credible accounts of abusive behavior and job abandonment, creating substantial risk despite positive work quality ratings. The WW Score reflects a contractor with strong skills but serious interpersonal and behavioral liabilities that materially impact customer experience.