Find Nearby Plumbers In Chattanooga, Tennessee

This contractor's review profile is deeply mixed and spans over two decades, making reliable assessment difficult. Recent reviews (2023–2024) include serious allegations: one reviewer claims the contractor is unlicensed and overcharges for poor work, another accuses the company of fabricating a plumbing problem to extract nearly $3,000, and a third documents late arrivals, price discrepancies, and dirty workmanship. These are offset by several genuine-seeming positive reviews praising punctuality, politeness, and fair pricing — most notably a long-term customer of 10+ years. Pricing is a particular concern, with multiple independent reviewers citing overcharging or bait-and-switch pricing tactics. Project completion also has documented failures, including a contractor who abandoned a gas installation job out of anger and workers who left job sites dirty and unfinished.

• SERIOUS CREDIBILITY CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor is not a licensed plumber (2024-07-06). This is a significant red flag that could not be verified from reviews alone but warrants independent verification before hiring.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION: A 2024-01-10 review accuses the company of fabricating a plumbing problem to charge $2,600 for unnecessary work. The reviewer states a second plumber resolved the issue with a simple snake. This is a serious allegation.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple independent reviewers (2023-04-12, 2024-01-10, 2024-07-06) cite overcharging, hidden fees, or prices that changed after the job. This pattern across unrelated reviews is a meaningful signal.
• RECENCY CONCERN: A significant portion of positive reviews are from 2003 or earlier (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2007), which are over 20 years old and carry very little weight in assessing current service quality. These were included in mention counts but given minimal scoring weight.
• POSSIBLE MULTI-ENTITY REVIEW MIX: Reviews reference multiple named individuals (Cale, Gary, Guillermo, Eric Brown) and appear to describe different contractors or companies. This suggests the review pool may aggregate reviews for more than one business, reducing the reliability of any composite score.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several older reviews (2000–2003) are written in all-caps with generic praise and no specifics. While this may reflect the review platform style of that era, they add little evidentiary value and were treated with reduced confidence.
• ABANDONED WORK DOCUMENTED: A 2018 review documents a contractor (Cale) refusing to complete a gas installation job because a different plumber had finished the water portion — a clear project completion failure.
• WORKMANSHIP COMPLAINT: A 2023 review documents workers leaving job sites dirty, arriving late, and rushing work due to scheduling pressure from the company.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — while mention counts are high enough to generate scores, the review pool spans 24 years, likely covers multiple contractors or business entities, and contains serious unresolved allegations of unlicensed work, fraud, and price manipulation that materially drag down trustworthiness.

Britton Plumbing shows genuine strengths in responsiveness, communication, and going above and beyond for customers, as evidenced by multiple detailed positive reviews praising timely callbacks, proactive updates, and courteous behavior. However, two 1-star reviews introduce meaningful concern: one describes being charged a $60 service fee for no actionable work, while another simply states 'service was no good,' pulling down both pricing and project completion scores. Project completion is mixed — several reviews confirm solid follow-through, but the sewer drain incident where a competitor resolved the issue the very next day raises questions about technical limits. The review base is small (10 reviews) and heavily skewed toward older dates, with the most recent review from January 2021, meaning current performance cannot be reliably assessed. Confidence in this score is constrained by the limited and aging dataset.

• Most reviews are older than 3 years; the most recent review is from January 2021, and the majority are from 2011–2019. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred.
• One review ('unknown', 5 stars, no text) was excluded from usable data as it contains no actionable information.
• One review ('Would definitely use again', 5 stars) contains no specific detail and contributes minimal scoring evidence.
• The 1-star review from 2011 describes a $60 service charge for no work performed — a direct pricing and project completion concern that was weighted accordingly.
• Small sample size of 10 reviews total significantly limits score reliability across all dimensions.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — the dataset is small, predominantly outdated, and includes two negative reviews that meaningfully impact key dimensions, making it insufficient to draw confident conclusions about current service quality.

Zac demonstrates mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is inconsistent: one review praises his efficiency and demeanor, while another explicitly criticizes unprofessional communication (ignoring calls/texts during a project). Project completion shows a critical gap—one review documents incomplete work and failure to return for trim-out, resulting in customer-incurred permit costs. Pricing receives limited positive mention in one review. Experience/skill is moderately supported by two reviews noting competent work on specific tasks. The severe project abandonment issue significantly impacts the overall score despite some positive professionalism mentions.

• CRITICAL: One review (2020-01-31) documents serious project abandonment—contractor failed to complete rough-in follow-up work and became unresponsive, forcing customer to hire inspector and pay permit fees. This is a major red flag for reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two of three reviews are significantly outdated (2015 and 2020). Only one review is from the past 12 months (2024-09-21), limiting confidence in current performance.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: Stark contrast between 5-star review (2024) and 1-star review (2020) suggests inconsistent service quality or possible changes in business practices. The 2024 review lacks detail on project complexity.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. Score reliability is inherently limited.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to very small sample size (3 reviews), significant recency gaps, and one documented case of serious project abandonment that raises substantial concerns about follow-through and professionalism despite recent positive feedback.

Modern Supply receives mixed feedback across dimensions. Pricing is noted as competitive by some reviewers but higher-end by others, landing at a moderate middle ground. The most detailed negative review raises serious concerns about professionalism — specifically poor staff availability, withheld product information, and an indifferent attitude that led to a costly remodel mistake for the customer. Project completion is similarly mixed, with one reviewer noting a delayed delivery and an outcome that did not meet expectations, while others found their needs were met. Experience and product selection are generally praised, particularly the quality and variety of stock, though the negative review suggests knowledge gaps in customer guidance.

• One review has 'unknown' text and a 5-star rating — this review was excluded from scoring as it contains no usable data.
• Most reviews are from 2013–2014, with the most recent being over 10 years old. These scores may not reflect current business performance.
• One review is from 2006, which is nearly 20 years old and was given very low weight in scoring.
• Several 5-star reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Everything was good with them'), which limits their evidentiary value.
• With only 7 total reviews and most being over a decade old, this score should be treated with significant caution.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to a very small review sample, predominantly outdated reviews (2006–2014), one review with no usable text, and a significant negative review that meaningfully impacts professionalism and project completion scores.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across all dimensions. Positive reviews highlight responsive technicians like Zach and Cameron who arrived quickly, diagnosed problems efficiently, and completed work cleanly — representing genuine quality when things go right. However, two significant negative reviews describe serious failures: one technician spent 10 hours without resolving the issue and charged $600, while another charged $188 simply to misdiagnose a clogged toilet that the homeowners fixed themselves in 15 minutes. These failures drag down scores across professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience substantially. The overall picture is an inconsistent contractor where outcomes appear highly dependent on which technician is dispatched.

• Two reviews describe significant incompetence and potential overcharging, which are serious red flags for both experience and pricing dimensions.
• The most recent negative review is from 2022 and the most recent positive review is from 2023, suggesting inconsistency persists over time rather than representing an isolated period.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (only one review from 2023), reducing confidence in current service quality.
• The small sample size of 6 reviews limits statistical reliability — scores should be treated with caution.
• No suspected fake reviews detected; reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews spanning 2019–2023, with most data older than 12 months, making it a low-confidence snapshot that should not be treated as a definitive assessment of current service quality.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 3 reviews, making any score highly tentative. One reviewer had consistently positive experiences across multiple projects including galvanized-to-PEX replacement, drain work, and tankless water heater installation, suggesting real technical capability. A second reviewer reported the opposite extreme — late arrival, rudeness, dishonesty, an inflated bill, poor workmanship, and complete unresponsiveness after leaving the job. The third reviewer, while ultimately positive about timeliness and pricing, noted significant hesitation based on the existing review split. The negative review's specificity and severity substantially drags down professionalism, project completion, and experience scores, and cannot be dismissed.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.
• One review dates from 2016 (over 8 years old) and carries significantly reduced weight under recency rules.
• The 1-star review is highly specific and credible: it cites late arrival, rudeness, dishonesty, overcharging, incomplete/faulty work, and post-job unresponsiveness — multiple serious red flags across all dimensions.
• The positive reviews lack detail on pricing specifics (Review 1) or are from a single visit with limited follow-up data (Review 3), reducing their evidentiary weight.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 7+ years, with one severely negative and credible complaint, making the score LOW reliability and unsuitable for confident contractor selection without further data.