Find Nearby Plumbers In Loveland, Colorado

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile across only 3 reviews, making any score highly uncertain. Two reviews are strongly positive, praising friendliness, honesty, and quality of work on HVAC and plumbing. However, one detailed and serious negative review from an 88-year-old customer alleges dishonesty, failure to return money, poor workmanship, and a BBB complaint — with the reviewer claiming the owner admitted wrongdoing to the BBB but still did not make restitution. The negative review significantly drags down all dimensions, particularly professionalism and project completion, as it contains specific, credible allegations rather than vague dissatisfaction. With only 3 reviews total, no reliable pattern can be established.

• SERIOUS INTEGRITY CONCERN: One reviewer alleges the owner lied to the BBB, admitted fault, promised a refund, and then failed to deliver it. This is a specific, documented allegation that carries significant weight.
• REVIEW VOLUME TOO LOW: Only 3 reviews exist. No statistically reliable conclusions can be drawn about consistent performance.
• POLARIZATION WARNING: Reviews are split between 5-star and 1-star with no middle ground, which can indicate either genuine service inconsistency or review manipulation.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The two 5-star reviews use somewhat generic praise ('fine business,' 'jobs well done,' 'loyal customer') with limited operational specifics. Cannot confirm authenticity.
• RECENCY NOTE: All three reviews fall within approximately the past 13 months (August 2023 to June 2024), so recency weighting does not significantly differentiate them.

This WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable due to the critically low review count of 3, a serious unresolved integrity allegation involving a BBB complaint, and the absence of sufficient data to establish any consistent performance pattern.

The reviews for this contractor paint a consistently negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by multiple accounts of rude communication, a bait-and-switch pricing complaint, a no-show after a confirmed appointment, and insulting behavior toward a customer. Pricing is a major red flag, with reviewers describing unexplained charges of $540 for a faucet replacement, over $400 for an unsolved drain clog, and a disputed $169 'free' estimate fee — all suggesting a pattern of opaque and potentially predatory billing. Project completion is poor, with at least two reviews describing work that was not completed or problems that were not resolved, and one instance of a scheduled appointment being cancelled last-minute. The one positive review, in which Bob identified a less invasive repair than a competitor suggested, provides a small amount of evidence of competent problem-solving, which is the only reason the experience score is not lower.

• PRICING PATTERN WARNING: Multiple reviews independently describe unexplained or disputed charges, suggesting a systemic issue with billing transparency rather than isolated incidents.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH ALLEGATION: One reviewer with 25 years of construction industry experience explicitly describes a bait-and-switch scenario involving a 'free' estimate that resulted in a $169 charge and a rude follow-up call.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: At least two reviews describe jobs that were not completed — one clogged drain that remained unsolved after $400+ in charges, and one appointment that was cancelled the same day.
• RECENCY NOTE: All reviews are dated between 2017 and 2020. No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 analysis date) are present. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews are available. This is above the minimum threshold of 3 but still a very small sample. The WW Score should be treated with caution.
• SINGLE POSITIVE REVIEW: Only 1 of 5 reviews is positive. The positive review is specific and plausible, but it is heavily outweighed by 4 detailed negative accounts.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, all dated between 2017 and 2020, and should be treated as a limited historical signal — the score reflects a strongly negative pattern across pricing, professionalism, and project completion, but cannot speak to the contractor's current performance.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Review 1 (2013) provides strong evidence across all dimensions: excellent project completion (large multi-system HVAC installation completed smoothly), high professionalism (availability, coordination, patience), fair pricing (quote matched or beat competitors), and strong experience (commercial and residential background). Review 2 (2006) is 18+ years old and mentions good work quality but significant punctuality issues (very late for appointment). The extreme age gap and very small sample size prevent reliable WW Score calculation.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review 2 is from January 2006 (18+ years old) — severely outdated and not representative of current service
• Review 1 is from September 2013 (11+ years old) — outside typical 12-month recency window
• Professionalism score penalized: Review 2 explicitly states 'VERY LATE' for appointment, indicating punctuality problems
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to mention counts of 1–2

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score with only 2 reviews, particularly when the most recent review is 11 years old and the older review is 18 years old; any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

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 two reviews present sharply contradictory evidence: one 5-star major remodel project (2021-2022) praising fair pricing and follow-through, and one 1-star deck repair (2021) describing abandonment, non-responsiveness, and unresolved callbacks. The extreme polarity and small sample size make any aggregate score unreliable.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation (minimum 3 required).
• EXTREME POLARITY: One 5-star and one 1-star review with contradictory claims about the same contractor's responsiveness and follow-through.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2021-2023; the negative review is from October 2021 (over 3 years old) and describes ongoing unresolved issues.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONFLICT: Review 1 praises staying on task and returning calls; Review 2 explicitly states contractor no longer answers phone and failed to honor callback commitment.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONFLICT: Review 1 describes successful major completion; Review 2 describes abandoned deck repair work with no resolution despite promises.
• POSSIBLE BUSINESS STATUS CHANGE: Review 2 speculates contractor may have died or ceased operations, which could explain the service gap between 2021-2023.

This score cannot be trusted and should not be used for decision-making. With only 2 reviews showing extreme contradictions and both from 2021-2023, there is insufficient reliable data to assess this contractor's current performance or capabilities. Additional recent reviews are essential before drawing any conclusions.

Both reviews are positive and suggest a contractor who is responsive, punctual, and delivers quality work. The pricing dimension received a conservative score because one reviewer explicitly noted he was not the cheapest, though they felt the quality justified the cost. Project completion and experience scores are modestly positive but held conservative due to very limited review volume and lack of specific detail. All scores are treated with caution given only two reviews are available, both from 2012.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are over 10 years old (dated 2012). These reviews carry significantly reduced weight and do not reflect recent performance.
• Review volume is too low to detect fake review patterns, but the generic nature of praise (e.g., 'very good', 'highly recommended') with minimal specifics warrants caution.
• No recent reviews present — current service quality cannot be assessed from this data.

This score profile should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — it is based on only 2 reviews, both more than a decade old, providing insufficient and outdated evidence to draw meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current performance.

The single review available is a detailed, highly negative account describing a contractor who allegedly held an expired license, accepted payment and then abandoned the job, failed to show up without communication, and was observed drinking alcohol on the job site. Professionalism and project completion scores are near zero due to explicit descriptions of no-shows, ghosting after payment, and unprofessional conduct. Pricing received a slightly higher but still very low score because the reviewer noted the contractor initially came in with a low price, which may have been a bait tactic rather than genuine value. Experience is scored near the bottom given the implied inability to complete the work and the suggestion from another company that this pattern is repeated across multiple customers. Only one review exists, so the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• CRITICAL: Contractor's license is alleged to have been expired at the time of work — reviewer directs others to verify via DORA's website.
• CRITICAL: Reviewer alleges contractor abandoned the job after receiving payment (check written 8/3/2021, last seen 8/17/2021 with no return).
• CRITICAL: Contractor was allegedly observed consuming alcohol on the job site by 10:00 AM.
• WARNING: Reviewer reports awareness of at least 4 customers with similar experiences, suggesting a pattern of misconduct rather than an isolated incident.
• WARNING: Only 1 review is present — WW Score cannot be calculated with fewer than 3 reviews. All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence only.
• NOTE: Review is dated 2021 — this data is more than 3 years old. Current contractor behavior may differ, but the severity of the allegations warrants strong caution.

This score report is based on a single review and cannot produce a reliable WW Score; however, the allegations described are severe, specific, and corroborated by the reviewer's account of multiple similar cases, and should be treated as a serious warning signal pending additional review data.