Find Nearby Plumbers In Brentwood, Tennessee

Insufficient data — only 1 review provided. This single review documents severe professionalism failures (non-responsiveness, call avoidance) and project completion issues (inability to obtain inspection, apparent abandonment of work). The reviewer also references 36 unanswered BBB complaints and regulatory board involvement. However, a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews to establish meaningful patterns and confidence.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required)
• Review is from 2014 (10+ years old) — recency is severely compromised
• Single review references external regulatory complaints (BBB, TN licensing board) — suggests systemic issues but cannot be independently verified from review text alone
• No pricing data available
• No experience/workmanship data available

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A single review from 2014 cannot establish a trustworthy WW Score. Minimum 3 recent reviews are required to proceed.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across nearly every dimension. The contractor failed to communicate proactively, broke multiple promises about timelines, and never completed the work — raising serious concerns about project completion and professionalism. Pricing received a low score because the reviewer felt the price was already high and was then asked to pay additional amounts for materials beyond the agreed deposit, suggesting a lack of transparency. No information was provided about the quality of workmanship or technical skill, as the job was never completed. With only one review available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Reviewer explicitly alleges potential scam behavior: collected a deposit and material payments without completing or progressing the work.
• Contractor reportedly requested payment for materials separately after an initial deposit was already paid — possible financial misconduct flag.
• No pattern analysis for fake reviews is possible with a single review, but the level of specific detail (payment stages, broken promises, lack of communication) suggests this review is genuine.
• Review is dated 2022-05-05 — over 12 months old. No recent reviews are available to assess whether behavior has changed.

This score is based on a single review from over two years ago and should be treated with very low reliability — no meaningful WW Score can be produced until at least 2 additional reviews are available.

Only a single review is available, which is strongly negative and dated June 2024. The reviewer explicitly cited poor communication — rarely returning calls or texts — which directly impacts the professionalism score. The installation quality was described as mediocre and required a second contractor to correct the work, indicating serious deficiencies in both experience and project completion. No pricing information was mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored. With only one review, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• No pricing data mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension scored as null.
• Single review is a 1-star rating with specific, credible negative details — low scores are well-supported by the available evidence.
• Recency note: The sole review is from June 2024, which is within the past 12 months and therefore carries full recency weight.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall performance can be drawn until substantially more reviews are available.

This single review highlights strong technical skill, as Tom successfully repaired a shower valve that another plumber deemed unrepairable without costly tile demolition. Pricing is a clear positive, with Tom charging only one hour of labor versus a $1,000 competing quote. Project completion is supported by the fact that the repair was accomplished as described. However, with only one review, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, and professionalism dimensions such as punctuality, communication, and attitude were not mentioned at all.

• Only 1 review provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• No mentions of professionalism indicators (punctuality, communication, attitude, appearance) in any review.
• Single review cannot be cross-validated for authenticity or consistency patterns.
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis — treat with caution.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable indicator of overall contractor quality; significantly more reviews are needed before any WW Score can be meaningfully trusted.