Find Nearby Plumbers In Westminster, Colorado

Planet Plumbing has a strong base of loyal, repeat customers who consistently praise individual technicians by name for professionalism, friendliness, and responsiveness — including weekend and emergency availability without surcharges. However, a meaningful minority of negative reviews (roughly 15–18% of the total) raise serious concerns across all four dimensions: multiple reviewers allege dishonest or inflated pricing, at least two describe being quoted thousands of dollars for work that turned out to be unnecessary or trivially fixable, and several describe incomplete or substandard workmanship requiring return visits or third-party correction. Management responsiveness and customer service handling of complaints is a recurring weak point, with multiple reviewers noting that managers failed to return calls or refused to accept responsibility for errors. The score reflects a company with genuine strengths in field-level service but notable and recurring failures in pricing transparency, quality consistency, and complaint resolution.

• Three reviews contain no substantive text (one blank, one 'unknown', one single period) and were excluded from dimension scoring — these may be placeholder or fake entries inflating the star average.
• One review ('Honest company', 5 stars, no detail) is too generic to be scored and may be inauthentic.
• Pricing concerns are significant and recurring: at least 6 separate reviewers explicitly describe being quoted prices far above market rate or being charged more than quoted, including a $10,000 sewer line quote for a minor root issue, an $800 quote for an $8 part, a $2,400 estimate for a problem the customer fixed in 2 hours, and a $700 quote for a job quoted at $150–$200 by phone.
• At least 3 reviews describe work that was left incomplete, done incorrectly, or required a second company to fix — including a toilet that rocked and leaked after reseating, a tankless water heater install described as 'mid-level DIY quality', and a gas leak missed entirely that was found in 5 minutes by a utility technician.
• One review alleges sexual harassment by a technician named Kyle (2017). This is a serious conduct flag even given its age.
• One review alleges property damage (broken door) with the company subsequently refusing to honor their verbal commitment to repair it.
• Several older negative reviews (2011–2018) describe owner/management non-responsiveness and refusal to accept responsibility — a pattern that also appears in more recent reviews (2024–2025), suggesting this is a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• Recency note: The majority of reviews span 2019–2025, with a strong cluster in 2024–2025. Negative reviews are distributed across the full date range, indicating persistent rather than improving issues. More weight was given to post-2023 reviews.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set (125 reviews) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given a consistent pattern of serious pricing and workmanship complaints that suggest meaningful quality inconsistency depending on which technician is assigned.

GMP Plumbing shows strong professionalism and technical skill, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, communication, and quality workmanship. However, the score is tempered by significant project completion issues: two severe 1-star reviews document serious failures including missed callbacks, permit mismanagement, unauthorized credit card charges, and incomplete repairs. Pricing is generally competitive, though one customer overpaid for a patch job. The company demonstrates inconsistency—excellent execution on most jobs contrasts sharply with critical failures in customer communication and follow-through on others.

• Two catastrophic 1-star reviews (2015-07-24 and 2015-09-15) document serious professional failures: missed callbacks, permit violations, unauthorized charges (fraud allegation), and poor customer handling. These are detailed, specific complaints with clear evidence.
• Multiple 5-star reviews with minimal detail ('unknown', 'well pleased will use again', 'Seemed to go fine') suggest possible review padding or generic praise, though most detailed reviews are substantive.
• All reviews are older than 1 year (oldest from 2012, most from 2013-2015). No recent reviews available to assess current performance or whether issues have been resolved.
• One 2-star review (2014-04-01) documents incomplete work and overcharging, suggesting a pattern of quality control issues beyond the two major failures.
• Significant recency gap: 8 years since most recent review. Current company performance is unknown.

This score should be treated with caution due to severe data recency issues (no reviews in 8+ years) and the presence of two detailed, credible catastrophic failures that substantially undermine confidence in consistency and reliability, despite many positive reviews from the same period.

Kerwin Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across 28 reviews. Technical competence is solid with 15 mentions of skilled workmanship and problem-solving. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with 18 reviews explicitly criticizing rates as excessive, with complaints ranging from $150–$500 for routine jobs. Project completion is generally reliable, though one major incident involved water damage and refusal to cover repairs. The company shows a pattern of premium pricing that conflicts with customer expectations of fair value.

• PRICING PATTERN: 18 reviews cite excessive pricing (roughly 33% of dataset). Multiple complaints about $200–$500 charges for simple 15–30 minute jobs. This is the most consistent negative theme.
• QUALITY CONTROL VARIANCE: One review (2023-06-10) describes significant errors—reversed hot/cold lines, resulting leak causing floor damage, and refusal to cover repairs. Another (2018-06-11) describes an inexperienced technician requiring step-by-step guidance.
• BILLING INTEGRITY CONCERN: One detailed 2023-12-14 review alleges forged signatures, false charges (extra hour, apprentice fees, trip fees), and unresponsive management. This is a serious allegation but appears isolated.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2025, 2024) are uniformly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2017–2020) contain more critical, detailed complaints. Recent positive reviews lack specificity.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 8 reviews contain no text, only ratings (5 five-stars, 1 one-star, 2 blanks). These cannot be analyzed and reduce data quality.
• DUPLICATE COMPLAINT: The hose bib repair complaint ($41 part, $275 labor for 30 min) appears twice (2020-06-10 and 2020-05-06), suggesting either duplicate submission or pattern of similar overcharging.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported (15+ mentions each), pricing concerns are substantial and consistent across 18 reviews spanning multiple years, suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated complaints. Recent reviews lack detail and may not reflect current practices. The single allegation of billing fraud and one quality control failure warrant caution. Recommend requesting itemized quotes and checking recent customer references before engaging.

Phelps Plumbing has a clearly split reputation: the majority of positive reviews praise fair pricing, professional demeanor, quality workmanship, and good communication, while two significant negative reviews describe no-shows and complete failure to follow up — serious reliability failures that materially drag down the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers independently noting below-market rates and even a case where the plumber charged less than the estimate. However, the two no-show incidents (one in 2023, one in 2024) represent a pattern of punctuality and reliability problems that cannot be dismissed as isolated. Experience scores reasonably well based on specific descriptions of quality work, but the overall picture is one of inconsistency rather than consistent excellence.

• Two separate reviews (April 2024 and November 2023) describe complete no-shows with no follow-up communication — this is a recurring reliability pattern, not a one-off incident.
• Several older reviews (2019 and earlier) reference different technicians by name (Patrick, Tino), suggesting the business may have changed staffing or structure; these reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• The oldest review (2013) is over 10 years old and was given reduced weight in scoring.
• Reviews from 2019 and earlier were deprioritized in favor of 2023–2024 reviews per recency rules; the more recent reviews show a more mixed picture than the older ones.
• No strong fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in length, detail, and rating, and negative reviews are specific and credible.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the review count is low (13 total), the most recent reviews reveal a concerning no-show pattern that contrasts with older positive reviews, and the presence of multiple named technicians suggests the business may not deliver consistent quality across all jobs.

Afford-A-Rooter presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. On the positive side, a large number of reviewers praise individual technicians — particularly Jason, AJ, Jared, and Trevor — for being knowledgeable, punctual, professional, and skilled, and many customers report competitive pricing and jobs completed on time and on budget. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of serious negative reviews significantly drags down every dimension: multiple reviewers report no-shows, missed appointments without notice, unreturned calls, and abandoned or incomplete work (including one case where a sewer line was only half-replaced without disclosure). Pricing complaints include charges exceeding signed contracts by thousands of dollars, inflated invoices, and at least one credible allegation of fraudulent upselling on a sewer scope. Office staff — particularly individuals named Sue, Robin, and Natalie — are cited by name in multiple independent reviews for rude, confrontational, and unprofessional behavior including yelling at and hanging up on customers. The volume and specificity of negative reviews across many years and many reviewers prevents any dimension from scoring in the high range.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Trevor ('Trevor is amazing! I always have appreciated direct and to-the-point consultation...') appears twice with dates 2025-05-26 and 2025-05-23 — identical text, near-identical dates. This is a likely duplicate submission and was counted only once for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Trevor as a 'local family run business' ('Such a great company to work with! This is a local family run business...') appears twice with dates 2022-06-07 and 2022-01-30 — identical text. Counted only once for scoring.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: The review praising Trevor for sewer line work ('Trevor was great. Helped me out in a pinch last minute...') appears twice with dates 2023-06-07 and 2023-05-28. Counted only once.
• MULTIPLE BLANK REVIEWS: At least 10 reviews contain no text at all (only a star rating). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per Rule 1 and Rule 2.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2013 to 2025. A significant portion of reviews (roughly 60+) are dated prior to 2022 and carry reduced weight. The most recent reviews (2024-2025) continue to show both strong positives and serious negatives, suggesting the mixed quality pattern is ongoing and not improving.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT/INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 5 independent reviews describe work that was started but not completed, callbacks that were never honored, or jobs left unfinished for weeks or months. This is a significant and recurring operational failure.
• PATTERN OF COMMUNICATION FAILURES: At least 8 independent reviews describe unreturned calls, no-shows without notice, or complete inability to reach the company after service was initiated.
• PATTERN OF STAFF MISCONDUCT: At least 4 independent reviews name specific office staff (Sue, Robin, Natalie) for rude, confrontational, or unprofessional behavior including yelling at and hanging up on customers.
• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: At least 2 reviews allege being charged significantly more than the quoted or contracted price (one alleging $3,500 over contract, another alleging billing for time the driver was lost). One detailed review alleges a fraudulent sewer scope assessment attempting to extract $8,500 for unnecessary work.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE PATTERN: Multiple reviews (at least 3) describe damage to sprinkler/irrigation systems during excavation work, with the company refusing to repair them properly or at all.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: LOW-MODERATE. The majority of positive reviews contain specific names, job details, and varied language, suggesting authenticity. However, the duplicate reviews and a cluster of very short, generic 5-star reviews (e.g., 'Great and friendly service', 'He did an excellent job!', 'nice') with no detail warrant mild caution.

This WW Score of 62.4 is based on a large volume of reviews (175 total, 163 with usable data) spanning over a decade, giving it HIGH statistical confidence, but the score reflects a genuinely polarized contractor where excellent individual technician performance coexists with serious and recurring systemic failures in communication, project completion, pricing integrity, and office professionalism — prospective customers should read negative reviews carefully before hiring.

Proactive Sewer and Drain presents a deeply split picture across its review history. Older reviews (2016–2018) consistently praise Phil and the team for professionalism, responsiveness, fair pricing, and technical competence, while more recent reviews (2021–2024) reveal serious failures in project completion, communication, and follow-through — including no-call no-shows, ghosting after payment, unresolved sinkholes, and damaged property left unrepaired. Pricing scores are buoyed by multiple explicit mentions of competitive and transparent quotes, but this is undercut by one reviewer alleging double-billing for a scope service. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple recent reviews describing abandoned or incomplete work, repeated cancelled appointments, and failure to honor callbacks. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor that may have been reliable under previous management or ownership but has shown significant and documented decline in recent years.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are overwhelmingly negative (1-star), while the positive reviews are predominantly from 2016–2018. This suggests a meaningful decline in service quality over time, possibly linked to ownership or management changes as noted by one reviewer.
• OWNERSHIP CHANGE FLAG: One reviewer explicitly questions whether there has been a change in ownership, citing a dramatic drop in service quality compared to prior years. This is a significant reliability flag.
• PATTERN WARNING: Several negative reviews describe nearly identical failure modes — no-call no-shows, ghosting after payment, unresolved property damage, and sprinkler/landscaping damage left unaddressed — suggesting these are systemic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: The positive reviews from 2016–2018 are generally specific and credible. However, the April 2023 5-star review ('All workers were friendly and professional') is notably brief and generic compared to the detailed negative reviews from the same period, warranting mild scrutiny.
• DOUBLE-BILLING ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2021) explicitly states they were billed twice for a sewer scope on what should have been a single-visit job, describing it as 'scammy.' This is a pricing integrity concern.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries HIGH overall confidence in its directional accuracy, but consumers should weight the 2023–2024 negative reviews most heavily as they reflect the contractor's current operational state.