Find Nearby Plumbers In Cheyenne, Wyoming

Plumbing Plus demonstrates strong professionalism and technical experience across the majority of reviews, with technicians frequently praised for being courteous, punctual, knowledgeable, and thorough in diagnosing problems and presenting options. Project completion is generally solid, with most jobs finished on time and as promised, though a meaningful minority of reviews describe abandoned work, no-shows, unresolved issues, and at least one case of property damage that was disputed. The most significant drag on the overall score is pricing, which is the single most-complained-about dimension across the review set — numerous customers across multiple years describe quotes and final bills as excessive, non-transparent, or far above market rate for comparable work, with several explicitly stating they would not return due to cost. Negative reviews also include billing disputes, double-charges, and upselling tactics that eroded trust, preventing a higher overall score despite the company's clear technical competence.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates (e.g., the 'Jake water leak investigation' review and the 'David A and Nick garbage disposal' review each appear twice within days of each other in May/June 2025). This pattern suggests possible review manipulation or platform import errors. Confidence in the most recent review cluster is slightly reduced.
• BLANK REVIEWS: At least 12 reviews contain no text and only a star rating (all 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data. Their presence inflates the raw star average without contributing evidence.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS ARE SYSTEMIC AND SPAN THE FULL DATE RANGE: Pricing complaints are not isolated incidents — they appear consistently from 2011 through 2025 across multiple technicians and locations, suggesting a company-wide pricing model issue rather than individual bad actors.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple reviews describe technicians failing to resolve the stated problem, charging for incomplete or ineffective work, and in some cases refusing to return or going silent after the job. One review describes a flood caused by installed plumbing with the company refusing to cover damages.
• NO-SHOW AND COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Several reviews across multiple years describe missed appointments without notice, failure to follow up with quotes, and unresponsive customer service after complaints — indicating recurring operational issues.
• UPSELLING CONCERNS: Multiple independent reviewers describe feeling pressured into unnecessary work or being presented with inflated multi-option quotes designed to anchor high. One reviewer explicitly used the term 'bait and switch.' This pattern is noted across different technicians and years.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly positive and may reflect genuine improvement, but the duplicate pattern in that cluster warrants caution. Reviews from 2016–2024 show a more mixed picture that is likely more representative of the company's baseline performance.

This WW Score is based on a very large review set spanning over a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence; however, the score should be interpreted with caution given systemic pricing complaints, recurring no-show and completion failures, suspected duplicate reviews in the most recent cluster, and a pattern of upselling that multiple independent reviewers flagged — the true customer experience is likely more variable than the high volume of positive reviews alone would suggest.

Gary's Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with courteous, responsive technicians who communicate well and show up on time. However, the company is significantly hampered by widespread pricing concerns—numerous reviews cite charges that are 50-100% above competitor quotes for identical work, with many customers feeling overcharged or misled. Project completion is generally solid, though some callbacks and incomplete work issues are documented. Technical expertise is evident, but pricing practices substantially undermine overall customer satisfaction and trust.

• PRICING PATTERN: Systematic overcharging is the dominant complaint across 67 reviews. Examples include $750 for a $12 part replacement, $4,700 vs. $2,000 for water heater installation, $950 vs. $516 for pressure valve replacement, and $600+ for jobs taking 30 minutes. This is not isolated—it is pervasive.
• FLAT-RATE BILLING OPACITY: Multiple reviews criticize the company's flat-fee pricing model without itemized breakdowns. Customers report being unable to understand what they are paying for, and the company refuses to provide labor/parts/hours details.
• DIAGNOSTIC FEE STRATEGY: The $40-$70 diagnostic fee is used as a barrier to comparison shopping. Customers report being locked in after paying the fee, then receiving inflated quotes. Some competitors waive this fee; Gary's does not.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: While many technicians are praised (Shane, Matt, Jeremy, Brandon, Craig, Jimmy), others are reported as rude, dismissive, or dishonest. One review describes a technician yelling and calling 911 falsely; another describes condescending behavior toward a 90-year-old client.
• INCOMPLETE WORK & CALLBACKS: Multiple reviews report jobs left unfinished, requiring second plumbers to complete work. One customer had to hire another plumber after Gary's failed to fix a furnace issue; another had a leak recur in the exact same location within 3 months.
• MISDIAGNOSIS & UNNECESSARY UPSELLS: Several reviews describe technicians recommending expensive repairs that were unnecessary or incorrect. Examples: recommending $3,000 in repairs when only a $10 part was needed; recommending septic pumping when the issue was a simple clog; recommending a $1,300 toilet replacement when a $35 fill valve was the solution.
• EMERGENCY RESPONSE FAILURES: Multiple reviews report poor after-hours responsiveness. One customer reported a technician sounding intoxicated on a weekend emergency call; another reported no callback for 4+ hours on a weekend sewage backup.
• APPOINTMENT RELIABILITY: One review explicitly states the company does not guarantee scheduled appointments—emergency cases are prioritized and scheduled appointments are cancelled without notice.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews report unanswered calls, unreturned voicemails, and unresponsive management. One customer reported leaving 3 messages with no callback; another reported emailing and calling with no response.
• POTENTIAL FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Several reviews use language suggesting deliberate deception: 'ripped off,' 'fraud,' 'lied,' 'crooks,' 'trying to rip me off.' One review describes a technician deliberately turning on a faucet to cause water damage, then calling 911 falsely.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews span 2009–2025, with significant clustering in 2020–2025. This suggests the pricing and service issues are ongoing, not historical.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: The majority of reviews appear genuine with specific details, named technicians, and varied complaint patterns. No obvious fake review clustering detected. However, some very brief 5-star reviews with no detail ('Went great,' 'Fine1 No problems') may be placeholder entries.

This WW Score of 72.8 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 48–89 mentions each). However, the score masks a critical structural problem: Gary's Plumbing excels at professionalism and technical skill but systematically overcharges customers by 50–100% relative to competitors. The company's pricing practices are so pervasive and well-documented that they substantially undermine the overall score. Customers should expect professional service but should absolutely obtain multiple quotes and be prepared to pay significantly more than market rate. The score reflects what customers receive (good work, good attitude) but not what they pay for it (often excessive).

Total Plumbing Solutions demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship quality, with multiple reviews praising knowledgeable technicians and effective problem-solving. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by documented instances of poor owner communication, dismissive attitudes toward customer concerns, and unprofessional phone handling. Project completion shows mixed results with some callbacks not honored promptly and incomplete initial work requiring follow-up. Pricing concerns emerge in multiple reviews citing unexpected charges, inadequate explanations for costs, and billing disputes. The company's performance is inconsistent across different technicians and situations.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: Three 5-star reviews submitted on identical date (2023-03-29) within 20 minutes of each other with suspiciously generic praise and minimal specifics. First review explicitly alleges these were posted in response to a 1-star review, suggesting coordinated fake review activity.
• SERIOUS SAFETY CONCERN: 2022-02-09 review documents use of water couplings instead of flared gas couplings on propane line repair, creating fire/explosion hazard. Propane line was also pinched between electrical and water conduit. This represents potential code violation and safety risk.
• OWNER CONDUCT ISSUES: Multiple reviews (2022-02-09, 2021-02-26, 2019-04-20) document unprofessional owner behavior including dismissiveness, refusal to listen to customer concerns, and poor communication. Owner Joe Gillespie accused customer of seeking free service rather than addressing legitimate warranty concerns.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews document incomplete repairs requiring callbacks (2021-09-16, 2020-07-21) and inadequate initial diagnostics.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews cite unexpected charges, inadequate explanations, and disputes over labor billing (2021-09-22, 2020-07-21).
• RECENCY BIAS: Most positive reviews are from 2018-2019 and 2021. Recent reviews (2022-2023) show more critical feedback, suggesting potential service quality decline.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical WW Score of 72.8 appears moderate, the underlying data is compromised by suspected fake reviews (3 coordinated 5-star reviews on same date), serious documented safety violations, and a clear pattern of owner unprofessionalism that contradicts positive technician feedback. The company demonstrates technical capability but significant reliability and integrity concerns that make this score less trustworthy than the confidence level suggests. Customers should independently verify recent performance and consider the documented safety incident before engaging this company.

Walter Plumbing shows mixed performance across a small sample of reviews. Positive reviews (2 of 3) praise professionalism, pricing competitiveness, and technical skill, with one long-term customer citing 20 years of satisfaction. However, a detailed 1-star review from 2021 documents a significant service failure: a plumber misdiagnosed an outdoor spigot issue, and the company refused to correct the error without additional payment despite the customer having already paid through a warranty. This incident substantially impacts project completion and customer care scores. The limited review volume (3 total) and age of the negative review (2021) create uncertainty; however, the specificity and severity of the complaint cannot be ignored.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is very small and limits statistical reliability
• Significant recency gap: negative review is from June 2021 (nearly 3 years old); positive reviews from 2020 and 2023. No recent negative feedback to confirm whether issues were resolved
• One detailed complaint documents service failure and poor follow-up/accountability — this carries substantial weight despite small sample size
• Two positive reviews lack specific detail (generic praise: 'friendly,' 'efficient,' 'professional') but do cite concrete examples (tankless water heater, faucet replacement, 20-year relationship)

This score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and the significant time gap between the negative incident (2021) and most recent positive review (2023). The score reflects a genuine conflict in customer experience, but additional recent reviews would be needed to determine whether the 2021 service failure represents a systemic issue or an isolated incident.

Marv's Plumbing & Heating shows a deeply polarized customer base with significant quality and service inconsistencies. While recent reviews (past 12 months) are predominantly positive, praising technician professionalism, responsiveness, and technical knowledge, older reviews reveal chronic systemic failures including missed appointments, poor communication, incomplete work, and aggressive pricing practices. The company demonstrates strong individual technician performance but fails consistently at project completion, follow-through, and accountability. Pricing complaints are substantial and specific, with customers documenting markups of 200-400% on parts and labor. The WW Score of 62.3 reflects these contradictions: competent technicians undermined by organizational dysfunction.

• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: 35 of 40 most recent reviews (past 12 months) are 5-star with minimal detail, while 25+ older reviews (2016-2021) contain detailed negative accounts of systemic failures. This suggests either genuine operational improvement or review manipulation.
• PRICING PATTERN: 18 explicit pricing complaints document consistent overcharging (control board quoted $600+ vs. $249 market price; thermostat $250 vs. $89 retail; furnace replacement $4,200 vs. $2,100-2,500 competitor quote; labor charges $98/hr vs. $85/hr market rate). This is not isolated—it is systematic.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Multiple detailed accounts of abandoned work, missed appointments without notification, parts on indefinite backorder (3+ months), and refusal to complete jobs. One customer waited 3 months for a fireplace repair with zero communication.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Recurring pattern across 8+ reviews of unanswered phones, missed callbacks, no-shows without notification, and management (Ryan Rich, Chris Ivey) refusing to engage or take responsibility.
• WARRANTY & ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES: Company refuses to honor warranty claims, blames customers for delays, and refuses to provide documentation. One customer charged $109 labor for a $1.50 part to fix installer's own error after warranty expired.
• QUALITY CONTROL: Multiple accounts of incorrect diagnosis (furnace replacement recommended when only sensor cleaning needed; sewer line replacement quoted at $10,000 when $200 fix available), faulty installations requiring rework, and damage to property (fence, shed, siding) with no accountability.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Recent 5-star reviews cluster heavily (35 in past 6 months) with generic praise ('great job,' 'very professional,' 'quick service') and minimal specificity. However, some recent reviews do contain detailed positive accounts with named technicians (Russell, Raymond, Preston, Nate), suggesting mix of genuine and potentially padded reviews.
• LEGAL HISTORY: Multiple references to court action, fraud allegations, and disputes over billing. One customer reported taking company to court; another threatened CC fraud reversal.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to extreme temporal polarization: recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive but lack depth, while older reviews contain detailed accounts of systemic failures that appear to persist in current operations (e.g., 2024 pricing complaint mirrors 2019-2022 patterns). The score reflects a company with competent individual technicians but serious organizational, communication, and pricing integrity issues. Customers should verify recent work quality independently and obtain written estimates with detailed part costs before engaging.

Master Mechanical shows significant inconsistency across dimensions. Project completion and experience scores are solid (82 and 80), with multiple reviews praising technicians like Aaron, Marty, and Ricardo for skill and follow-through. However, professionalism is severely compromised by documented instances of rude behavior, unprofessional communication, and poor customer service from owner Scott. Most critically, pricing practices are problematic—multiple reviews explicitly cite unfair billing for drive time charged both directions, inflated service charges, and questionable warranty handling. The company demonstrates strong technical capability but weak business ethics and customer relations.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviews (2021, 2012) document double-charging for drive time (to AND from appointments). One customer was charged $600 for a freon fill-up with only 1 hour on-site work. This pattern suggests systematic billing practices that customers perceive as unfair.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: 2022 review documents owner Scott's 'cursing and rude attitude' during service calls, described as a 'business model that he uses to intimidate customers.' Unprofessional text communication also documented. This is corroborated by 2016 review describing owner John as 'very cranky' and engaging in dishonest warranty practices.
• WARRANTY/ETHICS CONCERN: 2016 review details owner attempting to mislead customer about Trane warranty reimbursement process, pressuring upfront payment knowing customer would not be reimbursed. Owner admitted knowledge of non-authorized dealer status.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2021-2022 (recent), while many positive reviews are from 2012-2015 (7-10 years old). This suggests potential deterioration in service quality or business practices over time.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Several reviews contain minimal detail ('Everything went well,' 'It all went well,' 'unknown') which limits analytical value but does not suggest fabrication.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Same company receives both 5-star reviews praising specific technicians (Aaron, Marty, Ricardo) and 1-star reviews citing owner/management misconduct. Quality appears highly dependent on which technician is assigned.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While technical competency is evident, the company exhibits serious and documented issues with pricing transparency, owner professionalism, and business ethics that directly contradict claims of fair dealing. Recent negative reviews (2021-2022) suggest these are ongoing concerns, not isolated incidents. Customers should verify pricing structures and billing practices in writing before engaging this company.