Find Nearby Plumbers In Bartlett, Tennessee

Professionalism is the most consistently mentioned dimension across all five reviews, with four reviews praising courteous, respectful, and communicative technicians, while one highly negative review describes serious responsiveness and communication failures including unreturned calls and withheld pay. Pricing received only one mention — a positive note about employees trying to save the customer money — yielding a conservative score with very low confidence. Project completion is mixed: two reviews speak positively about work being done right and problems being resolved, but the negative review raises concerns about reliability and follow-through at an organizational level. Experience scores moderately, with three reviews referencing skilled, knowledgeable technicians who solved problems effectively. The single 1-star review significantly tempers what would otherwise be a strong positive picture.

• One review (1-star, dated 2018-07-14) appears to be from a former employee rather than a customer, describing payroll disputes and workplace treatment. This review may not reflect the customer service experience and should be interpreted with that context in mind, though it does raise legitimate concerns about company responsiveness and trustworthiness.
• All positive reviews are dated 2018–2019, making them over 5 years old. No recent reviews are present. The score should be treated with caution as it may not reflect current service quality.
• Small sample size of only 5 reviews significantly limits reliability. Scores based on 1–2 mentions carry very low evidentiary weight.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small review sample (5 reviews), all reviews being more than 5 years old, and one ambiguous negative review from a likely former employee that nonetheless signals potential organizational concerns around communication and responsiveness.

Above and Beyond Electric receives strong praise for professionalism and courtesy from multiple reviewers, with staff like Pam and technicians like Luke, Nathan, Robert, and Zach frequently cited as kind and professional. However, professionalism is meaningfully dragged down by a no-show appointment, a communication barrier complaint, and a pricing bait-and-switch pattern that left multiple customers feeling misled. Pricing is the weakest dimension by far, with three separate reviewers explicitly describing the $89 service call fee as a trap, quotes as unreasonably high, and the overall model as profit-driven rather than customer-focused — though one reviewer did describe the pricing as affordable and another praised honest quotes. Project completion scores moderately well, with most jobs described as finished and one reviewer noting work was done quickly, but one no-show and one instance of improperly calibrated lights that the customer had to fix themselves pull the score down. Experience scores reasonably well based on explicit mentions of knowledgeability and quality workmanship across several reviews.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are from 2012–2020, with the most recent review dated June 2020. No reviews from the past 12 months are present. This score may not reflect current business quality.
• PRICING PATTERN FLAG: Three independent reviewers (2013, 2018, and one negative review) describe a consistent pattern of refusing phone estimates, charging an $89 service call fee, and then presenting high quotes — suggesting a deliberate business model rather than isolated incidents. This is a structural concern, not a one-off complaint.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: One reviewer noted that installed motion detector lights were not calibrated or set up properly upon job completion, requiring the customer to finish the work themselves.
• NO-SHOW INCIDENT: One reviewer explicitly states the company failed to appear for a scheduled Saturday appointment, causing the customer to rearrange their schedule unnecessarily.
• COMMUNICATION CONCERN: One reviewer reported significant difficulty understanding the technician due to a language barrier, which contributed to a frustrating and disputed pricing interaction.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review volume is low at 10 reviews, all data is over 3 years old, and while most dimensions have enough mentions to score with HIGH confidence, the pricing dimension in particular reflects a strongly negative and consistent pattern that meaningfully suppresses the final score.

JC Plumbing shows highly inconsistent performance across all dimensions. While some recent reviews (2019, 2024) praise professionalism, communication, and fair pricing, the majority of reviews spanning 2011–2016 document serious problems: excessive charges, incomplete work requiring callbacks, poor punctuality, and unprofessional behavior. Pricing emerges as a critical weakness, with multiple customers reporting overcharges of $300–$600 per job and hidden fees not disclosed during initial calls. Project completion is undermined by incomplete repairs, jobs requiring multiple visits, and work left unfinished. The company shows a stark quality divide between skilled technicians (Daniel, Gerardo) and inconsistent service delivery overall.

• RECENCY BIAS ALERT: Most negative reviews are from 2011–2016 (9+ years old). Recent reviews (2019, 2024) are significantly more positive. This suggests either major business changes or survivorship bias (dissatisfied customers from early years no longer review).
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Reviews describe both 'Master plumber' level work and incompetent service from the same company, suggesting high variability in technician quality or management oversight.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Multiple reviews explicitly state that service charges and diagnostic fees were not disclosed during phone calls, contradicting customer expectations. This pattern appears deliberate.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: At least 4 reviews document jobs requiring callbacks, repeat visits, or work left unfinished (water heater leak, septic line still blocked after 2 visits, shower control malfunction).
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW (2016-03-24): Review text is only '.' with 5-star rating—appears to be placeholder or fake. Confidence slightly reduced.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEW (2016-04-27): Review text is 'unknown' with 5-star rating—insufficient data, treated as unusable but counted in total.
• POTENTIAL FAKE POSITIVE PATTERN: The 2019 review is exceptionally detailed and effusive with multiple specific praises (before/after video, text/email updates, fair estimate, responsive, skilled). While plausible, it stands out as notably more articulate than typical reviews and may be self-written or incentivized.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 20 reviews with HIGH confidence in individual dimensions, the extreme temporal split (mostly old negative reviews vs. recent positive reviews) and documented pricing deception patterns suggest the score may not reflect current service quality. The WW Score of 54.8 reflects historical performance; recent reviews suggest possible improvement, but insufficient recent data (only 2 reviews from past 5 years) prevents confident assessment of current reliability.

The reviews present a deeply mixed picture of this contractor. Two positive reviews highlight professionalism, friendliness, and transparent pricing, while a detailed 1-star review describes a shoddy installation, a dismissive and rude owner who failed to properly diagnose an obvious ductwork failure, and dishonesty around product type. A 3-star review praises technical knowledge and courtesy but flags a lack of transparency around service call charges. The serious installation failure and the owner's poor follow-through on a warranty issue weigh heavily on project completion and experience scores. With only 4 reviews spanning 2018 to 2023, confidence in any dimension is limited and the score should be treated with caution.

• Very small sample size (4 reviews) spanning approximately 5 years — scores are not statistically reliable.
• The most recent reviews are from 2022 and 2023; two reviews are from 2018–2019 and carry reduced recency weight.
• The 1-star review (2022) describes a serious installation defect, failure to diagnose properly, rude owner behavior, and dishonesty — this is a significant red flag that materially drags down all dimensions.
• The 5-star reviews lack granular specifics in some areas (e.g., the 2023 review is brief and generic), which slightly reduces confidence in those positive signals, though they do not appear to be fake.
• No pattern of fake reviews detected, but the small sample size means a single outlier review has outsized influence on the score.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with moderate-confidence data across all dimensions and should be considered a preliminary signal only — prospective customers should seek additional references before making a hiring decision.

The review set is extremely small and spans a wide date range (2013–2017), making any conclusions low-confidence. Two of the three reviews are strongly negative: one describes a no-show with a disconnected phone number and disputed blame, and another details an unauthorized post-service charge of $60 above the agreed price — both serious professionalism and pricing failures. The single positive review does describe a prompt, courteous, and fairly priced technician named Frank, which prevents scores from bottoming out entirely, but it cannot offset the weight of the two negative accounts. Project completion is undermined by the no-show incident and the billing dispute, while experience receives only one passing mention and is scored conservatively as a result.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as highly unreliable and directional only.
• Reviews span 2013 to 2017 — all data is more than 6 years old and may not reflect current business operations or ownership.
• One review alleges a post-service unauthorized charge ($120 quoted, $180 billed) with no satisfactory resolution — potential billing integrity concern.
• One review alleges a complete no-show with a disconnected phone number — potential business reliability or continuity concern.
• The single positive review is specific and credible (names technician Frank and coordinator Casey), but it is outnumbered 2-to-1 by negative reviews.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all older than 6 years, and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current service quality — treat with extreme caution.

This contractor's score is heavily dragged down by two deeply negative reviews that describe serious failures across nearly every dimension. Review 2 alleges dishonesty, refusal to provide invoices, switching technicians without notice, unfinished work, and harassment over payment. Review 3 describes an escalating series of failed repairs totaling $1,350, with the drain still clogged and a hole left in the wall — a textbook project completion failure. The sole positive review (Review 1) praises a specific technician named Matthew Hall for professionalism and thoroughness during a routine maintenance visit, which provides a small upward pull on professionalism and experience scores. The overall picture is one of inconsistent service quality, with serious concerns about honesty, follow-through, and value for money.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with significant caution.
• Two of three reviews are strongly negative and describe potential deceptive practices including refusal to provide signed invoices and upselling that did not resolve the stated problem.
• Review 3 describes a contractor who repeatedly changed the scope and price of work, ultimately leaving the job incomplete with property damage (hole in wall). This is a serious red flag.
• Review 2 explicitly alleges lying, harassment for payment, and abandonment of unfinished work — these are among the most serious complaints a contractor can receive.
• The single positive review (5-star) concerns a routine maintenance visit under a VIP membership plan, which is a lower-complexity job than the failed repairs described in the negative reviews. It may not be representative of complex project performance.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the extreme polarization (one 5-star, two 1-star) suggests highly inconsistent service delivery rather than a stable quality baseline.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable as a general indicator of contractor quality — prospective customers should seek significantly more review data before making a hiring decision.