Find Nearby Plumbers In Pueblo, Colorado

REMLE Plumbing's review set is small (4 reviews) and deeply divided, making any score inherently uncertain. Two reviews raise serious red flags: one alleges the contractor performed work without required permits, is not authorized to operate in Castle Rock, and behaved rudely and unprofessionally; another describes a technician who cut holes in walls, declared the job unfixable, left without completing work, and allegedly attempted to solicit a private cash repair after labeling the issue pre-existing through the warranty channel. One positive review praises professionalism, punctuality, affordability, and job completion, while a second positive review describes a straightforward garbage disposal swap handled professionally. The severe allegations in the negative reviews — including potential fraud, permit violations, and abandoned work — heavily drag down all four dimensions and cannot be ignored. Overall, the contractor's profile presents significant risk to prospective customers.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: One reviewer alleges the contractor performed a gas water heater replacement without pulling required permits and without proper business authorization in Castle Rock, CO — a potential safety and legal violation.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: One reviewer alleges the contractor abandoned a job mid-work (holes cut in walls), falsely reported the issue as pre-existing to the warranty company, and then solicited a private cash payment to fix the same issue — consistent with fraudulent behavior.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most recent reviews (2022) are both 1-star and contain the most serious allegations. The two positive reviews are from 2020 and 2022 respectively, with the 2020 review now over 3 years old and carrying reduced weight.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 4 reviews total. The WW Score cannot be considered reliable with this sample size, and results should be interpreted with extreme caution.
• PATTERN NOTE: The single 5-star review (2020) uses enthusiastic, capitalized language and broad praise with limited specifics, which warrants mild scrutiny, though it cannot be confirmed as inauthentic.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to the extremely small review sample (4 reviews), a stark split between positive and seriously negative accounts, and credible allegations of permit violations and potential fraud that materially undermine confidence in this contractor.

Two of the three reviews describe serious failures in communication and follow-through: one customer was cancelled on the start day after promised communication never came, and another was ghosted entirely after multiple rescheduling attempts. Only one review — dated 2018 — describes a positive experience with on-time arrival, transparent pricing, and completed work. The weight of negative experiences in professionalism and project completion drags the overall score down significantly. The single positive review provides some limited evidence of pricing transparency and workmanship quality, but is insufficient to offset the pattern of unreliability.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with caution.
• The sole positive review is from 2018, making it over 5 years old relative to the negative reviews from 2019. Recency weighting favors the negative reviews.
• Two separate customers independently reported being abandoned or ghosted — this is a consistent pattern of unreliability, not an isolated incident.
• The positive review uses somewhat generic praise ('good values,' 'all-around charm') alongside specific details; it does not appear fabricated but carries limited weight given the small sample size.
• No reviews are available from 2020 onward — there is no data on the contractor's current business practices or reliability.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with a clear recency skew toward negative experiences, and should be considered LOW reliability — prospective customers should seek additional references before hiring.

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans nearly a decade, making reliable scoring difficult. Two of the three reviews are severely negative, describing failed follow-through, broken promises, no-shows, and unresolved damage — directly impacting both professionalism and project completion scores. One positive review from 2014 describes a fast and clean drain clearing, which provides the only favorable data point. A critical flag is the allegation that the contractor has operated without a license for 11 years, which is a serious legal and safety concern. Pricing was not mentioned in any review and cannot be scored.

• SERIOUS FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor has not held a valid license for 11 years but continues to operate — this is a significant legal and consumer safety concern.
• RECENCY WARNING: Only one review is within the past 5 years (2020); the other two are from 2014 and 2012. The score may not reflect current business practices.
• PATTERN WARNING: Two reviews independently describe the same failure pattern — broken promises, repeated no-shows, and unresolved work — suggesting a systemic issue with follow-through.
• LOW REVIEW COUNT: Only 3 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable and directional only.
• ABANDONED WORK: One reviewer was forced to hire a competing plumber at after-hours rates to fix damage caused by this contractor, and is pursuing legal action.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning over 8 years and should be considered highly unreliable; the score is directional at best and the licensing allegation alone warrants serious caution before hiring.

This business is NOT a plumbing contractor but rather a commercial HVAC and plumbing supply distributor (Ferguson). The reviews reveal severe professionalism issues including unresponsiveness, refusal to serve customers without accounts despite no prior disclosure, and poor customer service. Pricing data is minimal and mixed. No meaningful data exists on project completion or technical experience as this is a parts supplier, not a service contractor. The WW Score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient dimensional coverage and the fundamental mismatch between the business model and the scoring framework designed for service contractors.

• CRITICAL: This business is a commercial supply distributor (Ferguson), NOT a plumbing contractor or service provider. The WW Score framework is designed for service contractors and is fundamentally misaligned with this business model.
• Multiple reviews (2019, 2010) describe refusal to sell parts to customers without pre-established accounts, with no prior disclosure of this requirement during phone inquiries. This represents a serious professionalism and customer service failure.
• One review (2024-06-20) describes a threatening incident involving a gun and motorcycle, which is a serious safety and conduct concern unrelated to business operations but reflects on the environment.
• Review from 2013 appears to be about a Kitchen-Aid refrigerator product complaint, not Ferguson services—likely misattributed or cross-posted review.
• Review from 2016 contains only 'unknown' text with a 5-star rating—insufficient data, treated as unusable.
• Most reviews are older than 1 year (5 of 7 usable reviews from 2010-2019). Only 1 recent review from 2024.
• Professionalism score of 42 is driven by explicit mentions of poor communication, unresponsiveness, and refusal to serve. This is well-evidenced but represents a supply distributor context, not a service contractor.

This score is unreliable and should not be used. The business is a commercial supply distributor, not a plumbing service contractor, making the WW Score framework inappropriate. Additionally, only 2 of 4 dimensions have data, most reviews are 5+ years old, and the business model does not align with service-based scoring criteria.

All three reviews are overwhelmingly negative with consistent patterns of severe failures across professionalism, project completion, and reliability. Customers report repeated no-shows, broken promises, incomplete work requiring rehiring of other contractors, and poor communication. Professionalism is critically compromised by unreliability, lack of punctuality, and absence of accountability. Project completion is the most damaging dimension—all three reviews explicitly document abandoned or severely deficient work. Pricing concerns emerge in one review regarding payment methods and deposit handling. Experience is questionable given the quality of completed work and need for rework by other contractors.

• CRITICAL: All three reviews are from 2022 (oldest data available). No recent reviews provided—cannot assess if issues have been corrected.
• PATTERN DETECTED: All three reviews describe nearly identical failure modes—repeated no-shows, leaving jobs unfinished, blaming supply stores, and requiring customers to hire other contractors to complete work. This consistency suggests systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: Review 1 mentions contractor brought an employee who appeared to be under the influence and dropped tools dangerously. No apology offered.
• PAYMENT CONCERN: Review 1 reports contractor refuses credit cards and claims machine has been broken for 3+ weeks—raises red flags about payment practices.
• LICENSING QUESTION: Review 2 explicitly questions whether contractor is a licensed plumber in the state.
• DEPOSIT HANDLING: Review 3 documents $1000 deposit (50% of contract) with minimal labor delivered in return.
• NO POSITIVE REVIEWS: Zero positive feedback across all three reviews analyzed. This is a critical red flag.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (only 3 reviews), but the data strongly suggests severe and systemic operational failures. All reviews are from 2022 with no recent data to assess current performance. The consistency of failure patterns across independent reviewers indicates genuine problems rather than isolated complaints. This contractor should be approached with extreme caution.

All three reviews are severely negative and describe critical failures across multiple dimensions. The company failed to show up for appointments multiple times without proper communication (project completion and professionalism failures), allegedly performed unnecessary work to generate business (experience/ethics concern), and retained customer funds without delivering services (pricing/fraud allegation). Only 3 reviews were available, which is below the threshold for reliable WW Score calculation. The recency of two reviews from 2024 and 2022 indicates these are not isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring (minimum 5 recommended)
• SEVERE ALLEGATIONS: First review alleges $8,000 fraud with no refund — potential legal/criminal matter
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: Second and third reviews describe repeated failure to honor scheduled appointments (3 separate instances in one review)
• PROFESSIONALISM COLLAPSE: Multiple mentions of poor communication, no-call no-shows, and dismissive attitude toward customers
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of three reviews from 2024 suggest ongoing operational problems, not historical issues
• NO POSITIVE REVIEWS: 100% of sample is 1-3 star ratings with no counterbalancing positive feedback

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews), but the available data presents an extremely negative profile with allegations of fraud, repeated no-shows, and poor professionalism that warrant serious caution before engaging this contractor.