Find Nearby Plumbers In Thornton, Colorado

This contractor's review set is small (4 reviews) and deeply divided, making any score highly uncertain. Professionalism is severely undermined by a documented no-call, no-show after a scheduled appointment and a complaint about unprofessional conduct, partially offset by two positive reviews praising courtesy and responsiveness. Project completion is a significant concern, with one reviewer explicitly stating the job was left incomplete and had to be entirely redone by another company. Pricing received one positive mention — a water main replacement described as significantly cheaper than competitors — but a single mention carries very little weight. Experience scores low due to the incomplete work complaint directly calling out lack of professionalism and quality, though two positive reviews suggest competent work in those instances.

• Very small sample size (4 reviews) — WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable and directional only.
• Two of the three positive reviews are dated within minutes of each other (2019-12-20 13:26 and 2019-12-20 15:13), which is a potential indicator of coordinated or inauthentic reviews. Both are generic in praise with limited specific detail.
• Recency concern: Three of four reviews are from 2019, making them over 4 years old. Only one review (the no-show complaint) is from 2023, and it is negative.
• The most recent review (2023) is a 1-star no-call, no-show complaint, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time.
• Confidence has been reduced across all dimensions due to the small sample size and suspected inauthentic review pattern.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 4 years, with suspected coordinated positive reviews and a pattern of serious negative complaints — it should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or consistency.

This contractor's review set is deeply polarized, with 4 of 8 reviews being 1–2 star ratings describing serious concerns about dishonesty, inflated estimates, and incompetence. The most damaging review details a technician who appeared to fabricate a diagnosis to upsell a $4,277 system replacement that turned out to be unnecessary — a $20 sleeve fix resolved the issue. Multiple other negative reviews describe wildly inflated quotes for work that competitors either did for a fraction of the price or deemed unnecessary entirely. The positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are largely vague and lack specific detail about the work performed, limiting their ability to offset the serious red flags raised by the negative reviews. Pricing in particular is a major liability, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing deceptive or grossly overpriced estimates.

• SERIOUS CONCERN — Multiple reviews (3 of 8) describe inflated or fabricated estimates ranging from $2,400 to $3,995 to $4,277 for work that competitors completed for a fraction of the cost or deemed entirely unnecessary.
• POTENTIAL DECEPTIVE PRACTICES — The April 2024 review describes a technician who appeared to deliberately misuse a voltage meter and hide readings to justify an unnecessary full system replacement. This is a significant integrity red flag.
• POSITIVE REVIEWS ARE VAGUE — The 5-star reviews contain little to no specific detail about the work performed, pricing, or outcomes. While not conclusively fake, their lack of specificity limits their evidentiary weight.
• RECENCY NOTE — The most recent negative review is from April 2024, suggesting these concerns are not historical anomalies. The most recent positive review is from October 2023. Negative patterns appear to persist into the most recent review period.
• NO INVOICE PROVIDED — One reviewer explicitly noted they were not given an invoice after being charged $233, which raises transparency and accountability concerns.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME — Only 8 reviews total. Confidence in all dimension scores is limited by small sample size, and the WW Score should be interpreted cautiously.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the small review sample (8 reviews), a deeply split rating distribution, and multiple credible accounts of deceptive or incompetent service that significantly outweigh the vague positive reviews in evidentiary weight.

Lakota Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 28.4, driven by severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by no-shows, rescheduling failures, and poor communication—customers report broken appointments and unresponsiveness to emergency calls. Pricing concerns are substantial, with multiple complaints of overcharging, undisclosed additional fees, and inflated part costs. Project completion is severely compromised, with incomplete work, warranty denial on defective installations, and failure to respond to service requests. Only one review mentions positive workmanship (Justin's courtesy), but this is vastly outweighed by systemic operational failures. The company's owner explicitly stated he does not stand by his work, which is a critical red flag.

• CRITICAL: Owner explicitly stated 'does not stand by his work' and refused warranty coverage on defective installation—indicates fundamental lack of accountability
• Multiple no-show and rescheduling incidents suggest chronic scheduling/operational problems
• Emergency service request (water intrusion) went unanswered for days—failure to respond to urgent calls
• Undisclosed price increases ($230 overcharge without prior notification) indicate lack of transparency
• Defective parts installed (broken shower rod nipple) and owner refusal to warranty suggests quality control failure
• Reviews span 2015–2021 with consistent pattern of complaints—not isolated incidents but systemic issues
• One positive review (2015) is heavily outweighed by four negative reviews with specific, detailed complaints

This score is highly reliable and should be trusted. The WW Score of 28.4 is based on consistent, detailed complaints across multiple dimensions over a 6-year period, with explicit evidence of poor professionalism, unfair pricing, incomplete project delivery, and owner refusal to stand behind work. The pattern is not random—it reflects systemic business practice failures.

This contractor's review profile is dominated by an overwhelming pattern of predatory pricing complaints spanning from 2015 through 2023, with dozens of reviewers independently documenting quotes that were 5x to 20x higher than what competing plumbers ultimately charged for the same work. Professionalism scores are severely dragged down by multiple accounts of no-shows, broken appointment windows without notification, rude staff (including one named employee repeatedly cited for hanging up on customers), and at least one report of a technician making an unwanted sexual advance toward a customer. Project completion is poor, with documented cases of technicians arriving without proper equipment, failing to fix the stated problem, abandoning follow-up appointments, refusing to return for warranty work, and in one case performing a temporary repair without disclosing it as such. The handful of positive reviews (roughly 8 out of 42) praise specific technicians by name and describe responsive, quality service, suggesting inconsistent staffing quality rather than a uniformly competent operation. The experience dimension reflects a mix of technically capable technicians in a minority of cases against a majority of reviews describing incompetent diagnosis, improper repairs, and deliberate misrepresentation of required work to inflate costs.

• PRICING PREDATION PATTERN: At least 28 reviews independently document quotes that were 3x to 20x higher than what other plumbers charged for identical work. This is a systemic and consistent pattern, not isolated incidents.
• DECEPTIVE PRACTICES: Multiple reviews allege deliberate misrepresentation of required work scope, including one documented case of a false report to a home warranty company claiming a valve was 'rusted shut' to avoid liability.
• NO-SHOW AND ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to arrive within quoted windows, failing to return for follow-up appointments, and the company not proactively communicating delays.
• VULNERABLE CUSTOMER TARGETING: At least three reviews explicitly allege the company targeted vulnerable individuals including a young woman alone at night, a 25-year-old woman, and an elderly senior citizen, using fear tactics to pressure immediate agreement to inflated quotes.
• WARRANTY NON-COMPLIANCE: At least two reviews describe the company refusing to honor its own stated warranty on prior work.
• REFUND REFUSAL: At least two reviews describe the company refusing to issue refunds for services not rendered or overcharged, including a disputed $150 emergency callout fee.
• POSITIVE REVIEW QUALITY CONCERN: The 8 positive reviews are notably more detailed and specific than typical fake reviews, referencing named technicians and specific scenarios, and are therefore treated as likely genuine. However, they represent only 19% of the total review pool and do not offset the volume and consistency of negative feedback.
• RECENCY NOTE: The negative review pattern is consistent and continuous from 2015 through September 2023, indicating no meaningful improvement in business practices over an 8-year period. The most recent reviews (2022-2023) continue to reflect the same core complaints.

This WW Score of 18.7 is based on 42 reviews spanning 8 years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's actual service quality and business practices.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by aggressive communication, threats of legal action against reviewers, failure to return calls, and unprofessional behavior by ownership. Pricing is a major concern with multiple reports of grossly inflated estimates, overcharging, and lack of transparency. Project completion is severely hampered by incomplete work, failure to stand behind services, and unresolved issues. While some technicians demonstrated competence, the company's overall execution and follow-through are unreliable. The pattern of negative experiences spans multiple years with no evidence of improvement.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document threats of legal action against customers for leaving negative reviews (2014, 2017 reviews). This is a severe red flag for business conduct and suggests potential retaliation against honest feedback.
• CRITICAL: Evidence of self-review manipulation — one review explicitly notes the company gave itself a 5-star review, suggesting fake review practices.
• PATTERN: Consistent failure to return calls and follow up across multiple reviews spanning 2012-2018, indicating systemic communication breakdown.
• PATTERN: Multiple reports of grossly inflated estimates and overcharging (e.g., $1300 for $20 repair, $700 upfront charge with questionable delivery, $260 for no service).
• PATTERN: Work quality issues repeated across multiple reviews — sprinkler winterization failures causing freeze damage, incomplete drain work, incorrect repairs.
• RECENCY: Most reviews are 5+ years old (2012-2017), with only 2 reviews from 2018 and 2015. However, the 2018 review also documents serious issues, suggesting problems persist.
• CONCERN: One review (2015) documents potential financial exploitation of an elderly customer ($700 upfront for work completed differently than quoted).
• NOTE: The single 5-star review (2015-11-28) is notably brief and generic compared to detailed negative reviews, raising questions about authenticity given the company's documented self-review practices.

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 9 reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific negative evidence across all dimensions. The pattern of complaints is corroborated across multiple independent reviewers over a 6-year period, and the severity of documented issues (legal threats, overcharging, incomplete work, non-responsiveness) is extreme and unambiguous. This company presents significant risk to consumers.

Clarence Porter Plumbing demonstrates critically poor performance across all measured dimensions. Every single review rates the company at 1 star and documents severe failures in professionalism (rudeness, unprofessional communication, poor attitude toward customers), project completion (incomplete repairs, abandoned work, multiple callbacks required, jobs left unfinished), and technical experience (incorrect installations, inability to diagnose problems, poor workmanship requiring customer corrections). Pricing concerns emerge in multiple reviews involving warranty claims and disputed charges. The consistency and severity of complaints across a 9-year span (2013–2022) indicates systemic operational failures rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: All 7 reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly severe complaints. While this is not necessarily fake (reviews are detailed and specific), the 100% negative rate is extreme and warrants caution in interpretation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews span 2013–2022. Most recent review is from January 2022; older reviews (2013–2018) are 5–9 years old. However, the 2018 and 2022 reviews show identical complaint patterns, suggesting no improvement over time.
• PATTERN ALERT: Multiple reviews mention being referred by home warranty companies and subsequent poor service. This suggests a systemic issue with how the company handles warranty work.
• CUSTOMER INTERACTION ISSUES: Multiple reviews document rude behavior, unprofessional communication, and poor listening skills, particularly from office staff. One review explicitly describes an office manager as unable to interact professionally.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: 6 of 7 reviews explicitly mention incomplete repairs, incorrect installations, or work that failed shortly after completion, indicating a core competency problem.
• LEGAL/FINANCIAL ESCALATION: One review documents the company threatening a lien on the customer's house over a disputed $100 charge, suggesting aggressive collection practices.

This WW Score of 8.2 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 7 detailed reviews spanning 9 years, all documenting severe and consistent failures across professionalism, completion, and experience. The uniformity and specificity of complaints, combined with no positive reviews to balance the assessment, indicate this company has fundamental operational and customer service problems. This score accurately reflects a business with critical deficiencies.