Find Nearby Plumbers In Chattanooga, Tennessee

This contractor's review profile is overwhelmingly negative, with six out of seven reviews rating him 1 star and describing serious misconduct. Multiple reviewers report abandoned work, stolen or misappropriated materials, unreturned house keys, incomplete jobs, and deceptive billing practices. The single positive review is from 2012 and carries minimal weight given the volume and severity of the negative feedback. Professionalism and project completion scores are near the floor due to explicit accounts of disappearing mid-job, leaving debris, and failing to honor commitments. Pricing received a very low score due to documented overcharging, billing for materials not used on-site, and charging for work not completed.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: Multiple reviewers allege theft of materials, misappropriation of client funds, and abandonment of paid work — this goes beyond poor workmanship into potential fraud.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: At least two reviewers explicitly state the contractor disappeared without completing paid projects, including a major renovation in Roselle, NJ.
• UNRETURNED PROPERTY FLAG: One reviewer reports the contractor refused to return a house key and took purchased materials to other job sites.
• IDENTITY/LOCATION FLAG: One reviewer alleges the contractor's listed address and phone number are fake, and provides what they claim is his real address — suggesting possible deliberate concealment.
• RECENCY WARNING: All negative reviews are dated 2017-01-09, suggesting they may have been submitted in a batch. The only positive review is from 2012, making it over 5 years older than the complaints and essentially irrelevant to current performance.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK: The six 1-star reviews share the same date (2017-01-09) which is unusual, but each contains distinct, specific, and detailed complaints with different scenarios — this pattern is more consistent with multiple aggrieved customers submitting reviews simultaneously than with fake negative reviews. No fake positive review pattern detected beyond the single vague 2012 review.
• DATA LIMITATION: Only 7 reviews total, with 6 clustered on one date. Score should be treated with caution despite HIGH confidence labels on individual dimensions.

This WW Score is based on a small but highly specific and detailed review set; the score of 14.2 is considered a reliable reflection of documented contractor behavior, though the clustering of negative reviews on a single date warrants acknowledgment — the specificity and variety of complaints across those reviews lend them credibility.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe a pattern of fraud, theft, and abandonment of work — including taking deposits or payments for materials that were never delivered, fabricating excuses, and repeatedly no-showing without notice. At least three reviewers explicitly describe losing money ($2,800, $3,500, and $14,000 referenced indirectly) with no refund or resolution. One reviewer noted work was started but never completed, requiring them to hire another contractor. The single 5-star review is extremely brief, generic, and lacks any specific detail, which raises serious authenticity concerns. The net picture across nearly all credible reviews is of a contractor that is dishonest, unreliable, and potentially operating a systematic scam.

• SUSPECTED FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers describe an identical scheme — contractor takes deposits or material payments, provides false delivery/arrival timelines, then disappears or stops responding. This is consistent across reviews from 2018 through 2022.
• ALLEGED CRIMINAL CONDUCT: One reviewer states they filed a police report and planned to contact the district attorney for misappropriation of funds. Another reviewer mentions the business filed for bankruptcy to avoid repaying customers.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPECTED: The single 5-star review (Anthony Harvey, 2018-05-31) is extremely short, uses generic praise with no specifics, and stands in stark contrast to every other review. The first reviewer explicitly warns that this company posts fake reviews on various sites. This 5-star review has been treated with very low weight.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2021–2022) continue to describe the same fraudulent behavior as older reviews (2018), suggesting no improvement over time. The most recent review is from January 2022, which is over 1 year old at the time of analysis.
• LOW REVIEW COUNT: Only 7 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as directional only and not statistically robust, though the consistency of negative accounts across multiple years increases reliability of the negative signal.

Despite the low review count, the WW Score is considered directionally reliable due to the high consistency of independently described fraudulent behavior across multiple reviewers spanning several years; the single positive review is likely inauthentic and was weighted minimally.

All four reviews are uniformly negative with 1-star ratings, describing severe failures across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by ghosting, non-responsiveness, poor communication, harassment, and failure to honor commitments. Pricing shows systematic overcharging, scope creep without consent, and refusal to refund for failed work. Project completion is severely deficient with incomplete repairs, recurring issues, abandoned work, and damage caused during service. Experience shows some initial competence but undermined by poor diagnostics and inability to resolve problems. The consistency and severity of complaints across all four independent reviews suggests systemic operational failures rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: All 4 reviews are 1-star ratings with uniformly severe complaints. This is not a fake review pattern but rather indicates a genuinely problematic contractor with consistent failures.
• Multiple reviews document ghosting, non-responsiveness, and communication breakdown—a pattern across different customers and time periods (March 2023 to August 2023).
• Evidence of aggressive collection tactics and harassment documented in reviews dated March 2023 and December 2023.
• Scope creep and unauthorized work documented in multiple reviews, suggesting predatory business practices.
• All reviews are from 2023, with most from mid-to-late 2023. No recent reviews available to assess if issues have been corrected.
• Insufficient positive reviews to calculate a meaningful WW Score. With only 4 reviews and all negative, any calculated score would be unreliable.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient total review volume (only 4 reviews) and complete absence of positive data. However, the uniformity and severity of documented failures across all four independent reviews strongly suggests this contractor has serious operational and ethical problems and should be avoided.

Insufficient data to calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 5 reviews needed for confident scoring. While the reviews mention professionalism (responsiveness, communication), project completion (quality work, timeliness), and experience (workmanship quality), each dimension is supported by only 1–2 mentions, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all dimensions. No pricing information was mentioned in any review.

• Total review count is 3, below the recommended minimum of 5 for reliable WW Score calculation.
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise and minimal specific detail, raising potential concerns about review authenticity or selection bias.
• One review (2022-04-28) contains crude language and lacks professional tone, reducing its credibility as a serious assessment.
• Review from 2014 is over 9 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• No pricing dimension data available across all reviews.
• Each dimension supported by only 1–2 mentions, resulting in very limited confidence.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews) and limited mention counts per dimension (1–2 each). Any score derived would be highly speculative and should not be used for decision-making. At least 5–10 reviews with substantive detail across multiple dimensions are needed for trustworthy scoring.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 total reviews were analyzed, with only 2 containing usable substantive data. Review 3 is empty (single period) and non-evaluative. The two substantive reviews are contradictory: one 5-star (2020) praising punctuality, courtesy, and workmanship; one 1-star (2016) describing a serious breakdown in communication, follow-through, and pricing transparency regarding a callback. The 4-year gap between reviews and the extremely limited sample size prevent reliable scoring.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews total; 2 are substantive. This is below the minimum threshold for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review 3 (2015-10-21) contains no evaluative content (single period only) and is non-usable.
• Extreme contradiction between Review 1 (5-star, 2020) and Review 2 (1-star, 2016) suggests inconsistent service quality or possible operational changes over time.
• Review 2 (2016) describes serious service failure: broken callback promise, unclear pricing communication, and abandonment of customer contact. This is a major red flag for Project Completion and Professionalism.
• Most recent review is from 2020 (4+ years old); no recent data available to assess current performance.
• All scores are based on 1–2 mentions each, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all dimensions.

This score cannot be calculated and should not be trusted. The sample size is far too small (n=2 usable reviews), reviews span 4+ years with no recent data, and they contradict sharply, suggesting either inconsistent service or significant operational changes. At least 5–10 recent reviews are needed for any meaningful assessment.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, all from 2006–2009 (15+ years old), making recency assessment impossible. Two reviews provide only generic praise without specific detail, while one detailed review (2006) reveals significant concerns: overpricing on fixtures ($135 vs. Home Depot alternatives), inefficient labor practices (1.5 hours spent breaking walls instead of using proper tools), attempted upselling of unnecessary services, and lack of follow-up communication. The limited mention count (2 per dimension) and extreme age of reviews prevent confident scoring.

• CRITICAL: All reviews are 15+ years old (2006–2009). No recent data available to assess current service quality or practices.
• Two reviews (2009, 2008) contain only generic praise with zero specifics—'old-fashioned service,' 'work done well'—with no actionable detail. Pattern suggests potential placeholder or low-information reviews.
• One detailed review (2006) reveals multiple red flags: overpricing on fixtures, inefficient labor allocation, attempted upselling of unnecessary services, and no follow-up communication. This suggests systemic issues, but age prevents confirmation of current practices.
• Insufficient review volume (n=3) and extreme recency gap make any scoring unreliable.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3, minimum threshold is 3 but confidence is severely compromised) and extreme age of all reviews (15+ years). Any scoring would be based on LIMITED confidence across all dimensions and outdated information. Do not rely on this analysis for current contractor evaluation.