Find Nearby Plumbers In Chattanooga, Tennessee

Andy OnCall Chattanooga presents a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism is the most frequently discussed dimension and is heavily dragged down by multiple reviews citing no-shows, missed appointments without notice, poor follow-through on communication, and a failure to apologize after unresolved issues — though a handful of positive reviews do praise punctuality and polite attitudes. Pricing is a significant concern, with two reviews explicitly calling out quotes that were far above competitors or final charges that exceeded agreed estimates, while only a couple of reviews describe pricing as fair or reasonable. Project completion is the most damaging area: multiple reviewers report jobs that were not properly finished, a contractor who had to return multiple times without resolving the issue, and a plumbing job that resurfaced with zero callback response. Experience scores modestly higher due to a few reviewers praising skill and knowledge, but negative workmanship complaints temper this considerably. The overall picture is of a company with inconsistent quality and serious reliability concerns.

• RECENCY WARNING: Several reviews are significantly dated — 5 reviews are from 2011 to 2016, 1 from 2018, 1 from 2019, and 1 from 2020. Only 4 reviews are from 2022 or later. The older reviews may not reflect current business practices, but the negative patterns (no-shows, overcharging, incomplete work) appear across multiple time periods including recent ones.
• PATTERN WARNING: The negative reviews are highly specific and detailed with named issues (no-shows, price inflation, unresolved callbacks, shoddy repairs not fixed), lending them strong credibility. The positive reviews are comparatively generic in some cases, though a few name specific workers and describe specific jobs.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 2 reviews explicitly describe being stood up for scheduled appointments with no communication, and 1 additional review describes a contractor arriving 3 hours late. This is a recurring and serious professionalism concern.
• CALLBACK FAILURE PATTERN: At least 2 reviews describe the company failing to return calls or respond to messages after a job was completed or a problem arose, suggesting a systemic issue with post-job customer service.
• PRICE DISCREPANCY FLAG: One reviewer obtained a competing quote that was 65% lower than Andy OnCall's estimate. Another reviewer was charged over $500 after being quoted $350. These are significant pricing integrity concerns.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews spanning 2011 to 2024 with HIGH mention counts across all dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the wide date range of reviews and the fact that recent reviews (2022–2024) still include at least one serious complaint about unresolved workmanship issues.

The review set is deeply mixed, with a significant number of negative experiences pulling scores down across all dimensions. Professionalism suffers from multiple accounts of rude phone staff, a plumber arriving 4 hours late, and a manager who blamed the customer for a miscommunication. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with several reviewers explicitly calling out excessive charges — including $450 to fix a drip, $546 for a cartridge and handle, and hundreds spent on unnecessary pipe replacement — though a small number of reviewers praised fair or competitive pricing. Project completion is inconsistent: some jobs required callbacks because the first technician did not complete the work properly, while others praised fast and thorough service. Experience scores moderately, with a handful of reviewers praising skilled and knowledgeable technicians like Ryan and Todd, but offset by accounts of misdiagnosis, misinformation, and incomplete work.

• Three reviews contain only 'unknown' or a single period ('.') as review text with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• Two reviews are dated 2016 or earlier and several others range from 2011–2019, meaning the majority of reviews are older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2024-01-27). Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months of the most recent review. Scores may not reflect current service quality.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though several 5-star reviews are vague or lack specific detail. The presence of detailed negative reviews adds credibility to the overall dataset.
• One review references a specific employee ('Dennis') engaging in potentially deceptive pricing practices and misrepresenting warranty coverage — this is a serious ethical flag.
• One review alleges a plumber took advantage of a resident with an intellectual disability to authorize unauthorized work — this is a significant ethical and legal concern that warrants serious attention.
• One review alleges a promised refund was later rescinded by the owner after a manager had committed to it — indicating potential management integrity issues.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: while the mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence across all dimensions, the heavy skew toward older reviews (many from 2011–2019) and only 2 reviews within the past 12 months means this score may not accurately reflect the contractor's current performance.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews. Two recent reviews (2022, 2020) describe abandonment and no-shows, indicating critical failures in professionalism and project completion. Two older reviews (2020, 2019) praise quality work and honest pricing. The stark contradiction suggests either significant operational decline or inconsistent service delivery. Professionalism is heavily penalized due to explicit mentions of stranding customers, no-shows, and poor communication. Project completion scores reflect incomplete work and broken commitments. Pricing receives moderate credit from positive mentions, but this is outweighed by reliability failures.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews explicitly describe no-shows, abandonment, and failure to follow through on commitments (2022 and 2017 reviews). These are serious red flags.
• INCONSISTENCY DETECTED: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (2020, 2019) and damning 1-star reviews (2022, 2017). This suggests either significant service degradation or highly variable performance.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent review (2022) is a 1-star with serious complaints. This is more recent than the positive 2020 review and suggests current problems.
• LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total. Score reliability is constrained by small sample.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size and extreme polarization. The recent 1-star reviews describing no-shows and abandonment are serious concerns that override older positive reviews. A potential customer should seek additional recent references before engaging this contractor.

The review corpus is deeply polarized: a cluster of enthusiastic 5-star reviews praises responsiveness, friendly technicians, and fair pricing, while a substantial and highly detailed set of 1-star reviews documents serious misconduct including alleged fraud, upselling of unnecessary work, failure to honor warranties, sewage contamination, property damage, and chronic failure to return calls. The negative reviews are notably more specific and credible, describing dollar amounts, named employees, timelines, and legal escalations, which weighs them heavily in scoring. Professionalism is severely undermined by repeated reports of management ignoring calls and complaints across multiple years, even as individual technicians sometimes receive praise. Pricing scores are dragged down by multiple accounts of charges ranging from $450 to $7,000 for work that was either unnecessary, incomplete, or later fixed by competitors for a fraction of the cost. Project completion is the weakest area, with multiple reviews describing work that was not finished, not effective, or actively made the situation worse. Experience scores reflect a mixed picture where some technicians demonstrate clear competence while others caused additional damage or misdiagnosed problems entirely.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR COORDINATED REVIEWS: A large cluster of 5-star reviews share the same date (2023-06-10) with generic, brief praise and no specific details. Several of these reviews have no text at all (rating only). This pattern is consistent with review padding or coordinated posting and significantly reduces confidence in the positive reviews.
• THREE BLANK REVIEWS (no text, only a star rating) were excluded from qualitative scoring but counted in total review tally.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent and detailed negative reviews are from 2024, indicating problems are ongoing and not historical. The most recent positive review with substance is also from 2024, but is outnumbered by negatives in that period.
• PATTERN OF MANAGEMENT NON-RESPONSE: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024) report the same behavior — inability to reach the owner or management, promises of callbacks never fulfilled, and legal escalation. This is a systemic operational flag, not isolated incidents.
• ALLEGED FRAUD: At least two reviews describe what they characterize as deliberate fraud — charging for unnecessary work, using electrical tape on pipes, and refusing to honor warranties. One review mentions involvement of a lawyer. These are serious allegations that materially affect all dimension scores.
• COMMISSION-BASED UPSELLING: One reviewer explicitly notes technicians appear to be paid on commission, which is corroborated by multiple accounts of unnecessary upselling across different years.

This WW Score carries HIGH statistical confidence due to the large number of reviews with usable data across multiple dimensions, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously given the suspected review padding among the 5-star cluster and the severity of documented misconduct in the negative reviews, which suggest the true performance level may be even lower than the score reflects.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While early interactions demonstrate kindness and responsiveness (positive professionalism mentions), major project execution reveals serious deficiencies: incomplete work, scope creep with unauthorized cost increases, unfinished contracted items, poor quality finishes, and broken promises. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with evidence of abandoned work items, extended timelines, and failure to honor written contracts. The company appears capable of small jobs (light replacement) but fundamentally unable to manage large contracts. Two older reviews (2019) contain the most detailed negative feedback; more recent reviews (2023) show mixed results with communication improvements but lingering trust issues.

• MAJOR RED FLAG: Extensive evidence of scope creep, unauthorized cost increases (thousands of dollars more demanded mid-project), and contract violations in the 2019 review. This is a pattern of financial and professional misconduct.
• CRITICAL: Multiple incomplete work items explicitly listed in original contract were abandoned due to 'running out of money' — ceiling fan installation, fireplace mantel relocation, shelved cabinet, crown moulding painting, broken tile repair.
• QUALITY CONCERNS: Documented poor workmanship including blotchy wall paint, two-toned ceilings, flooring glue residue not removed, cuts left in walls. These suggest inadequate quality control.
• TIMELINE ISSUES: Original contract signed May 2019, second contract June 21, 2019, work still incomplete by August 1, 2019 (3+ months for a remodel). Promises of follow-up work repeatedly broken.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed negative review is from 2019 (5 years old). However, 2023 reviews show ongoing communication/follow-up issues, suggesting systemic problems persist.
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (generic praise, no specifics) and detailed 1-star reviews (specific examples, dates, contract references). The positive reviews lack substantive detail and may not reflect typical experience.
• VULNERABLE POPULATION CONCERN: Explicit warning against hiring for elderly customers due to exploitation of trust and failure to deliver.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 6 reviews, the data shows extreme polarization with credible, detailed negative evidence of contract violations and incomplete work versus generic positive reviews lacking specifics. The 2019 major project failure is well-documented but dated; 2023 reviews suggest ongoing issues but with less severity. Recommend potential customers request references for projects of similar scope and obtain detailed written contracts with completion milestones before engaging.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 3 reviews spanning 2017 to 2023. The two older positive reviews highlight strong punctuality, responsiveness, and knowledgeability, but these are now over 5 years old and carry reduced weight. The most recent review (2023) is a serious negative outlier, alleging unprofessional and intimidating conduct, an unauthorized visit to a customer's home, and a disputed $175 service charge — all of which significantly drag down professionalism and pricing scores. With only 3 reviews total, no dimension reaches HIGH confidence, and the score should be treated with considerable caution. The recency of the negative review is particularly concerning as it may reflect a change in business conduct over time.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The only review from the past 12 months (relative to 2023) is a 1-star review alleging rude, intimidating behavior and an unauthorized service visit. The two positive reviews are from 2017 and 2018 — over 5 years old — and should be weighted less heavily.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT ALLEGATION: The 2023 review alleges the contractor showed up at a customer's home without scheduling or consent, charged a $175 service fee without authorization, and behaved in a rude and intimidating manner. The reviewer mentions contacting police. This is a significant red flag.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews are available. While the WW Score has been calculated, it is not statistically reliable. A minimum of 8–10 reviews would be needed for meaningful confidence.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: The reviews are sufficiently distinct in language and detail to appear genuine, but the small sample size limits any firm conclusion.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with a wide date range and a serious recent negative allegation, making it LOW reliability — treat this score as a preliminary signal only and seek additional references before hiring.