Find Nearby Plumbers In Savannah, Georgia

Tarpley Plumbing receives a critically low WW Score of 18.2, driven by severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Four of five reviews are 1-star ratings documenting serious failures: incomplete work abandoned for months, unethical employee conduct (theft of customer funds, verbal abuse), unprofessional behavior (smoking on site, cussing at customers), and quality issues (wrong materials installed, theft allegations). The single 5-star review from 2017 praising quick response and professionalism is heavily outweighed by recent documented failures. Professionalism scores lowest due to documented screaming at customers, employee misconduct, and lack of accountability. Project completion is critically impaired by abandoned jobs and incomplete work. Pricing concerns emerge from inflated quotes and disputed charges. The company demonstrates a pattern of dysfunction rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: Four of five reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific allegations of serious misconduct—not generic complaints. This is not a fake review pattern but rather a genuine crisis pattern.
• Multiple reviews document the same owner (Jimmy Tarpley) and employee (Shane Ramsey) across different incidents, suggesting systemic rather than isolated problems.
• Allegations include: theft of customer funds ($1,900 check cashed without work completion), employee theft of jewelry from customer home, verbal abuse and screaming at customers, incomplete work abandoned for 4+ months.
• Review dates span 2017–2022, with most damaging reviews from 2018–2019. The single positive review is from 2017 and predates the documented crisis period.
• Owner's response to complaints documented as hostile and dismissive ('you have no common sense,' 'you are giving me trouble now'), suggesting accountability failures at leadership level.
• One review documents employee threatening to place lien on property and using profanity at customer; owner claimed to fire employee but employee reappeared on subsequent jobs.
• Quality issues documented: wrong PVC pipe type installed, incomplete pump installation, sidewalk repair done improperly without forms.

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. The score is based on five reviews with consistent, specific, and corroborated allegations of serious misconduct spanning multiple years and multiple customers. The pattern of failures is documented rather than alleged, and the single positive review is substantially outweighed by recent documented crises. This company presents significant risk to customers.

All three reviews are negative and paint a deeply concerning picture of this contractor. Professionalism is severely impacted by two explicit accounts of no-shows, failure to return calls, and unreliable scheduling, as well as one account of reckless driving by a company vehicle. Project completion is also flagged negatively, with one reviewer describing a pattern of taking a deposit and then abandoning the job without follow-through. Pricing and experience could not be scored as no reviewer provided information on those dimensions. The overall WW Score is extremely low, reflecting consistent and serious failures across the dimensions that could be evaluated.

• All 3 reviews are 1-star — no positive reviews exist in this dataset to balance the score.
• One review (2024-02-07) is from a non-customer and pertains solely to reckless driving behavior by a company vehicle; it does not reflect direct service experience but is included as a professionalism signal.
• One reviewer explicitly states the contractor has been unreliable for 20+ years, suggesting a long-standing pattern of poor behavior rather than isolated incidents.
• A deposit was reportedly taken and work was abandoned according to one reviewer — this is a serious consumer protection concern.
• Review volume is very low (only 3 reviews total). The WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable due to insufficient data volume.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews are distinct in language, specific in detail, and span multiple dates.

This score is based on only 3 reviews, all negative, covering a limited range of dimensions — it should be treated as a strong early warning signal rather than a statistically robust assessment, and prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references before engaging this contractor.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. Both reviews mention professionalism and pricing positively, with one review explicitly praising responsiveness, honesty, and fair pricing. One review highlights strong follow-through and accountability when a service issue arose. However, the extremely limited sample size and the age of one review (2013, over 10 years old) prevent reliable scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2013 (11+ years old). Only 1 review from recent period (2023). Historical data may not reflect current service quality.
• EXPERIENCE DIMENSION: No explicit mentions of technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability in either review.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making. Collect at least 3 additional recent reviews before relying on a WW Score.

Only one review contains actionable data about the contractor's service delivery. That review documents unprofessional behavior (aggressive driving and obscene gesture), which severely impacts the professionalism dimension. The first review appears to be an employee complaint about workplace culture and is not relevant to customer-facing contractor performance. No data exists regarding pricing, project completion, or technical experience. The sample size is critically insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score.

• First review appears to be an employee workplace complaint, not a customer review of contractor services — excluded from analysis
• Only 1 usable review provides contractor service data — far below minimum threshold for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are negative (1-star ratings) with no positive counterbalance
• No reviews mention actual plumbing/construction work quality, pricing, or project completion
• Review dates span 2023–2024 but sample size too small to assess recency patterns

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient usable data (only 1 relevant review). Any WW Score derived from this dataset would be meaningless and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews are severely negative and describe critical failures in professionalism and project completion. Review 1 (2023) documents poor communication with the business owner, refusal to engage directly, lack of warranty coverage, and incomplete problem disclosure. Review 2 (2016) describes abandonment of work mid-project after the customer prepared the site as requested, with the contractor claiming to be too busy and failing to honor his commitment. However, with only 2 reviews total, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per protocol. The data is insufficient to establish a trustworthy overall assessment.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review 2 is from February 2016 (8+ years old). Only Review 1 from November 2023 is recent. Historical data may not reflect current business practices.
• SEVERE NEGATIVE PATTERN: Both reviews describe critical service failures (abandonment, poor communication, lack of warranty). This is not a fake review pattern but rather consistent evidence of serious operational issues.
• NO PRICING DATA: Neither review provides information about pricing fairness or value, so pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• NO EXPERIENCE DATA: Neither review explicitly addresses technical skill or workmanship quality, only communication and follow-through failures.

This assessment is unreliable for decision-making purposes due to insufficient review volume (n=2). While both available reviews are severely negative and credible, a minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a valid WW Score. The age gap between reviews (2016 vs 2023) further limits confidence in current performance assessment.

Insufficient data to calculate WW Score. The two reviews provided do not contain evaluations of actual work performed. Both reviews focus exclusively on communication/contact issues (inability to reach the company by phone, lack of voicemail, missing cell phone and email contact information). These reviews do not assess professionalism during service delivery, pricing, project completion quality, or technical experience. No actionable contractor performance data is present.

• Insufficient reviews (n=2) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably
• Reviews do not evaluate actual work performed — both focus on pre-service contact difficulties
• No data on any of the four WW Score dimensions
• Business may be inactive or contact information outdated (as of 2021)

This report cannot be trusted as a performance assessment because no reviews contain evidence of actual service delivery, pricing, completion, or workmanship quality.