Find Nearby Plumbers In Thornton, Colorado

Mark/IPC Plumbing shows strong professionalism and technical skill in most engagements, with 8 reviews explicitly praising punctuality, politeness, and communication. However, two detailed 1-star reviews from 2020 and earlier describe serious project completion failures: incomplete repairs requiring rework, refusal to honor callbacks, and disputed pricing practices. Pricing feedback is mixed—several reviews praise affordability and fair quotes, but two reviews allege inflated quotes, hidden part charges, and coupon misrepresentation. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects genuine competence undermined by documented failures in accountability and follow-through on critical jobs.

• CRITICAL: Two detailed 1-star reviews (2020-11-17 and 2020-01-08) describe serious failures: incomplete shower repair left leaking, refusal to refund or return for callback, and multiple sink leaks after installation causing cabinet damage. These are not vague complaints but specific, credible allegations of defective work and poor customer service.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Positive reviews cite 'affordable' and 'reasonable' pricing; negative reviews allege $7,500 quote with unnecessary work, $250 part-retrieval fees, and coupon misrepresentation. This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or highly variable customer expectations.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2015-2023; most negative reviews are from 2015-2020. However, the 2020 reviews are recent enough to be relevant and describe systemic issues (refusal to refund, no callback response).
• PATTERN CONCERN: The two negative reviews describe similar issues (incomplete work, refusal to make things right, unwillingness to refund), suggesting a pattern rather than isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW. Positive reviews contain specific details (sump pump, sink clogs, water heater installation, drain snaking with 50FT machine). Negative reviews are equally detailed and credible. No obvious repetitive phrasing or generic praise detected.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While professionalism and experience scores are supported by multiple positive reviews, the two detailed 1-star reviews describing incomplete repairs, refusal to honor callbacks, and pricing disputes significantly undermine confidence in project completion reliability. Customers should be aware of documented follow-through failures before engaging this contractor.

B&B Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and professionalism across multiple technicians, which drives reasonably solid scores in professionalism and experience. However, a significant negative review details a serious billing transparency failure — charging a full fee without completing the agreed work and without clearly communicating policy upfront — which meaningfully drags down the pricing and project completion scores. A separate review documents a dangerous gas leak situation caused by faulty installation of two water heaters, with poor responsiveness over several weeks, further undermining confidence in project completion and workmanship quality. The majority of high-quality, detailed reviews are from 2012–2016, with only one substantive recent review (2024), making it difficult to assess current service quality with confidence. The three 'unknown' or blank-text reviews with ratings were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.

• THREE REVIEWS CONTAIN NO USABLE TEXT ('unknown' or '.'): These reviews (2 rated 5.0, 1 rated 2.0, and 2 rated 1.0) were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide zero evidence for any dimension. Their ratings were noted but cannot be meaningfully interpreted.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Only one substantive review is from the past 12 months (August 2024). The majority of detailed reviews are from 2012–2016, meaning the WW Score may not reflect current service quality.
• SERIOUS SAFETY INCIDENT: One review (June 2015) describes gas leaks on two newly installed water heaters, weeks of unresolved propane loss, illness in the home, and poor responsiveness. This is a significant workmanship and follow-through failure that weighs heavily on project completion and experience scores.
• BILLING TRANSPARENCY FAILURE: One review (August 2016, 1-star) describes being charged $120 without the agreed work being completed, undisclosed billing policies, and a confusing service visit. This is a concrete negative data point for pricing and professionalism.
• MILD GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several 5-star reviews use brief, non-specific language ('great guys,' 'excellent service,' 'reliable and friendly'). While not conclusive evidence of fake reviews, these add limited scoring weight due to lack of specifics.
• NO SUSPECTED COORDINATED FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Positive reviews reference different technicians by name (Jesse, Benny, Frank, Mark, Ronnie, Anthony, Lou, Rick, John), which adds credibility and reduces fake review suspicion.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the dimension scores are grounded in explicit review evidence with meaningful mention counts, but the score is significantly undermined by the age of most reviews, three content-free submissions, and two serious negative incidents involving billing misconduct and a safety-related workmanship failure.

All four reviews speak positively about Kenny's professionalism, including punctuality, friendliness, and willingness to work on weekends and evenings. Project completion is consistently praised across reviews, with notable examples such as making multiple supply runs, disposing of old equipment, and returning promptly to repair a broken gas line. Technical experience is highlighted in three reviews, particularly the gas line installation with a dual shut-off that prevented a service shutoff — a detail suggesting genuine skill. Pricing is only mentioned in one review as 'competitive,' which limits confidence in that dimension. The overall picture is positive but the very small review pool constrains reliability significantly.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback of any kind — this warrants mild caution, though several reviews include specific, credible details that reduce fake review suspicion.
• All reviews are dated between January and February 2021 — no recent reviews within the past 12 months relative to a current evaluation, meaning performance consistency over time cannot be assessed.
• Minor pattern concern: generic praise appears in some reviews ('great to work with,' 'absolutely amazing'), but specific job details in most reviews reduce the likelihood of fabrication.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, all from early 2021, and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary indicator — more reviews, especially recent ones, are needed before this score can be trusted for decision-making.

All three reviews consistently praise professionalism, responsiveness, and respectful communication, driving the highest confidence score in that dimension. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews, though one reviewer explicitly notes Lorenzo is not the cheapest option, tempering the pricing score slightly. Project completion is supported by two reviews describing complex jobs carried out with minimal disruption and apparent follow-through, including a multi-unit re-plumbing and a corroded sewer line repair. Experience is evidenced by the same two reviews referencing technically demanding work and a master plumber designation, though the small sample limits confidence. Overall, the picture is positive but the very small review pool means these scores should be treated with caution.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as preliminary.
• One review (2019) is over 5 years old and carries reduced recency weight; only one review is from the past 12 months (2024).
• The middle review (2023) is extremely brief and generic, providing almost no specific detail — limited usable data extracted from it.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings; while not conclusive, the absence of any critical feedback across all reviews warrants mild caution.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning multiple years, with just one recent review, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be treated as a definitive assessment of current performance.

Paul the Plumber operates across what appears to be multiple similarly-named businesses or franchises, generating a very large and mixed review pool spanning roughly 2004 to 2025. Professionalism scores moderately well — the majority of positive reviews praise punctuality, communication, courteous technicians, and clean workmanship — but is significantly dragged down by a recurring pattern of no-shows, missed callbacks, rescheduling without notice, and in some cases rude office staff. Pricing is the single most damaging dimension: an exceptionally high volume of detailed negative reviews describe charges that are 3x to 10x market rate for simple jobs, refusal to provide itemized bills, flat-rate pricing that is not disclosed upfront, and a documented pattern of targeting elderly and vulnerable customers with inflated quotes. Project completion is generally positive for jobs that are actually completed, with many reviewers noting efficient and thorough work, but is undermined by multiple accounts of abandoned estimates, unresolved callbacks, and in some cases work that had to be redone by other plumbers. Experience scores reasonably well among positive reviewers who describe skilled diagnostics and quality workmanship, but is offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect installations, and technicians who had to call supervisors mid-job.

• PRICING PREDATION PATTERN: An unusually high volume of detailed, specific negative reviews — spanning multiple years and geographic locations — describe charges of $700–$5,500 for jobs that competitors completed for $100–$800. This is not isolated; it is a systemic pattern across dozens of independent reviewers.
• ELDERLY TARGETING: Multiple independent reviewers explicitly state the company exploited elderly or vulnerable customers (80+ year olds, widows, new homeowners) with inflated quotes and refusal to provide itemized bills. This is a serious ethical flag.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: A significant cluster of reviews dated 2021-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2023-06-10, 2024-06-09, and 2025-05-10 share identical or near-identical dates with no specific job details, suggesting possible review solicitation campaigns or batch submissions. Many of these are blank (no text, only a 5-star rating) and should be treated as low-signal.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30–40 reviews contain no text whatsoever — only a star rating (almost all 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.
• MULTI-ENTITY AMBIGUITY: Reviews reference multiple named technicians, multiple geographic locations (NH, NE, IL, TX, MA, CO, MN), and multiple business names (Paul the Plumber, Paul's Way Home Services, Paul's Way). It is likely these reviews aggregate multiple similarly-named businesses, which reduces the reliability of any single composite score.
• NO-SHOW AND CALLBACK FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years describe Paul or his team scheduling appointments and failing to appear or return calls, sometimes causing customers to take time off work unnecessarily. This is a recurring professionalism failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews are from 2024–2025 and carry full weight. Reviews from 2009–2018 are present but given reduced interpretive weight in narrative assessment. The pricing complaints are consistent across all time periods.
• ITEMIZED BILLING REFUSAL: Multiple reviewers report being denied itemized bills when requested, which is a transparency red flag and consistent with the pricing concerns.

This WW Score of 68.2 is based on a very large review pool and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its direction, but should be interpreted cautiously due to likely multi-entity aggregation, a documented pattern of price gouging complaints, suspected review solicitation inflating the 5-star count, and serious ethical concerns around billing practices — prospective customers are strongly advised to obtain itemized quotes in writing before authorizing any work.

Daniel & Donna Plumbing has a long history of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, and responsiveness, which drives a moderately positive professionalism score. However, two serious negative reviews — one of which appears to be a duplicate submission — describe significant failures in workmanship, pricing transparency, and follow-through, including a sump pump install that failed within a year and alleged billing at nearly $1,950/hour in effective labor cost. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers across different years noting charges felt high or unclear, and one detailed account of what the reviewer characterized as highway robbery. Project completion is similarly mixed: most jobs appear finished, but the negative reviews describe incomplete, failed, or improperly executed work with no satisfactory resolution. The experience dimension reflects a contractor who handles routine jobs competently but has documented failures on more complex installs.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The 1-star review dated 2024-07-24 appears twice with identical text — once with a timestamp of 14:42:29 and once with 00:00:00. This was counted as a single unique review for scoring purposes to avoid double-weighting.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews (approximately 18 of 25) are older than 12 months, with many dating back to 2006–2019. Only 4 reviews are from the past 12 months (mid-2023 to mid-2024). The most recent reviews include both the strongest positive and the most damaging negative account, creating meaningful uncertainty about current service quality.
• GENERIC/LOW-DETAIL REVIEWS: Several reviews ('unknown', 'it was wonderful!! excellent job', 'Very knowledgeable and friendly.') contain no usable specifics and were excluded from dimension scoring. These may inflate the raw star rating without contributing meaningful evidence.
• PRICING CONCERN — PATTERN: At least 4 independent reviewers across different years flagged pricing as high or unclear, including one reviewer who documented an effective labor rate of approximately $1,950/hour and another who was charged a flat $720 for 2.5 hours of work after expecting an hourly rate. This is a consistent and credible pattern.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE — HIGH SEVERITY: The 2024 1-star review describes a sump pump installation that failed within one year, alleged use of second-hand parts, refusal to honor a callback, and a recommendation that was reportedly illegal under local code. This is the most recent and most detailed negative account and carries significant weight.
• WRONG NAME IN ONE REVIEW: One reviewer refers to the contractor as 'Doug' rather than Daniel, which may indicate a mistaken review or a different employee/owner handling jobs — minor flag but noted.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the volume of reviews, but the score itself should be treated with caution given the wide variance in reviewer experiences, the presence of serious and well-documented recent complaints, and the fact that most positive reviews are more than five years old.