Find Nearby Plumbers In Longmont, Colorado

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews. Two recent positive reviews (2016, 2018) praise workmanship, attitude, and competitive pricing, but a 2018 review documents a critical failure in professionalism: a rude, dismissive phone interaction where the contractor refused service and blamed the customer for miscommunication. The refusal to travel 10 minutes resulted in a week-long delay and forced the customer to hire someone else. While experience and pricing appear solid when service is delivered, the professionalism failure and project abandonment significantly undermine overall trustworthiness.

• CRITICAL: One review documents service refusal and unprofessional conduct (rudeness, blame-shifting, lack of empathy). This is a severe professionalism and project completion failure.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are from 2016 and 2018; the negative review is also from 2018. All reviews are 6+ years old. Current performance cannot be assessed.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews limits confidence in any dimension. A single negative experience carries disproportionate weight.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing praise (5-star) and severe criticism (1-star) suggests either significant variability in service delivery or potential changes in business practices over time.

This score should be treated with caution due to very limited review volume, extreme age of all reviews (6+ years), and stark inconsistency between positive and negative experiences. The documented service refusal and unprofessional conduct is a serious red flag that cannot be ignored, but the small sample size prevents definitive conclusions about current reliability.

Lamas Plumbing shows severe deficiencies in professionalism and project completion. Three of four reviews document critical failures: no-shows, missed callbacks, incomplete work despite full payment, and lack of follow-through on promised scheduling. One positive review from 2014 praises Carlos's communication and technical knowledge, but this is heavily outweighed by three detailed negative accounts spanning 2014–2015 describing systematic abandonment of work and broken commitments. The contractor's responsiveness and integrity are the primary concerns driving the low score.

• CRITICAL: Three of four reviews describe identical failure patterns—incomplete work (90–95% done), non-responsive callbacks, and no-shows for scheduled appointments. This suggests systemic operational failure, not isolated incidents.
• One positive review (2014-01-18) stands in stark contrast to three detailed negative reviews. The positive review is generic in praise and lacks specificity about actual work completed, while negative reviews provide extensive detail and corroboration of problems.
• All reviews are from 2014–2015 (9–10 years old). No recent reviews available to assess whether business practices have improved.
• Two reviewers explicitly state they paid in full before work completion, suggesting a business model vulnerability that Carlos exploited.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (n=4) and age of reviews (2014–2015), but the consistency and specificity of three negative accounts provide moderate confidence that serious professionalism and completion issues existed during this period. Current operational status is unknown.

MME Home Services presents a deeply mixed and concerning picture across all four dimensions. The two positive reviews (both from 2020-2021) praise Morris for responsiveness, helpful advice, and fair pricing on furnace-related work, but these are significantly outweighed by two detailed 1-star reviews describing serious failures. The negative reviews document botched installations, an inability to complete repairs, property damage, refusal to stand behind work, and a contractor who acknowledged being near bankruptcy and unable to return to fix problems. Project completion is the most alarming dimension, with two reviews explicitly describing abandoned or failed work and one involving legal action and a BBB complaint. Pricing confidence is also undermined by a $814 charge for unresolved work and allegations of payment sought for inferior workmanship.

• Two of four reviews are detailed 1-star accounts describing serious workmanship failures, property damage, and contractor non-responsiveness — these carry significant weight.
• One negative review mentions the contractor disclosed he was 'on the verge of bankruptcy' and was unable to return to complete or fix work — a major red flag for reliability.
• A BBB complaint and legal action were filed by one customer, indicating disputes beyond simple dissatisfaction.
• All reviews are from 2020–2021; no reviews from the past 12 months are present, meaning current business status and quality cannot be assessed.
• The two positive reviews lack specific detail about project scope and outcomes, while the two negative reviews are highly detailed and specific — this asymmetry reduces confidence in the positive scores.
• With only 4 total reviews, the sample size is very small and scores should be treated with caution.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all dated 2020–2021, and should be treated as LOW reliability — the small sample size, absence of recent data, and two serious documented failure cases mean this score may not reflect current service quality but strongly suggests significant risk.

Aquaflow Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of the owner and staff ignoring calls, failing to return communications, and one reviewer explicitly labeling the company 'unprofessional.' Project completion is the weakest area, with multiple reviewers describing abandoned or incomplete work, failed repeat repair attempts, and one case where a sewer line was literally left unconnected in the dirt. Experience scores are also poor, with documented instances of unqualified apprentices performing work beyond their skill level and misdiagnosed repairs requiring third-party correction. The one positive review from 2013 provides a small counterpoint on pricing and general satisfaction, but it is heavily outweighed by four detailed negative accounts spanning 2010–2015.

• All reviews are older than 9 years (most recent: 2015). This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current business practices.
• Only one positive review exists (5-star, 2013) and it is brief and generic with no specific detail, which limits its credibility relative to the four detailed negative reviews.
• Multiple reviews independently describe the same pattern: incomplete or failed work followed by the owner/company going silent and ignoring follow-up calls. This consistency across unrelated reviewers strongly suggests a systemic business conduct issue.
• One reviewer explicitly identifies the company as operating under two names: Aquaflow Plumbing and JC Plumbing. This dual-name operation warrants caution and further verification.
• One reviewer reported legal action was being pursued. This is a significant integrity flag.

This WW Score carries moderate statistical confidence given 5 reviews with usable data, but the score's trustworthiness as a reflection of current business quality is significantly undermined by the fact that all reviews are from 2010–2015 and no recent data is available.

With only 3 reviews total, this dataset is too small to produce a reliable WW Score. The reviews show extreme polarization: two 5-star reviews praising efficiency, pricing, and trustworthiness, versus one 1-star review from 2015 citing severe communication failures, unresponsiveness, and incomplete project delivery during a heating emergency. Professionalism and pricing show modest positive signals (2 mentions each), but project completion is undermined by a critical failure case. The age disparity (one review from 2015, two from 2021–2023) and small sample size prevent confident scoring.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient for reliable scoring. Minimum 5–8 reviews recommended.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: Two 5-star reviews vs. one 1-star review with no middle ground suggests either inconsistent service quality or potential selection bias.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from December 2015 (9+ years old). Two reviews are from 2021–2023. Older review may not reflect current operations.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: The 1-star review documents a serious failure — no heat for a week, unresponsive communication, delayed parts, no proactive customer notification. This is a critical service failure.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONTRADICTION: Positive reviews cite 'informative' and 'trusted' service; negative review explicitly states 'never answer the phone' and lack of communication. This suggests inconsistent professionalism or possible service degradation over time.

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. With only 3 reviews and extreme polarization, any calculated score would be meaningless. Collect at least 5–10 additional recent reviews before relying on a WW Score for this contractor.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score. The reviews present sharply contradictory evidence: one describes severe professionalism and pricing failures (bait-and-switch pricing, rudeness, regulatory delinquency status), while the other praises responsiveness and technical competence in a safety-critical situation. The extreme polarity and minimal sample size make any aggregate score unreliable.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation (minimum 3 required)
• EXTREME POLARITY: Reviews are contradictory (1-star vs 4-star) with no middle ground, suggesting either inconsistent service quality or potential data quality issues
• REGULATORY RED FLAG: First review explicitly states company is in 'delinquency status with Colorado' — this is a serious compliance concern that should be independently verified
• PRICING INTEGRITY ISSUE: First review documents alleged bait-and-switch pricing ($90 quoted, $207 charged next day with dismissive explanation)
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: First review describes rude behavior and refusal to honor stated price quote
• RECENCY ISSUE: Second review is from October 2020 (3+ years old); first review is from January 2022 (2+ years old) — both are significantly dated
• SAMPLE SIZE CRITICALLY LOW: Confidence in all dimensions is LIMITED due to 1–2 mentions per dimension

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and extreme contradictions between reviews. The regulatory delinquency claim and pricing dispute in the first review are serious concerns that warrant independent verification before engaging this contractor. Do not rely on any aggregate score here — evaluate each review independently and verify the company's current licensing and regulatory status.