Find Nearby Plumbers In Chattanooga, Tennessee

Only two of the three reviews contain usable content, with one review marked as 'unknown' and providing no actionable data. The single detailed review from 2009 highlights strong professionalism — the owner Ben is described as responsive and pleasant, with a notable example of showing up quickly during a Sunday emergency in winter. Experience with older homes is mentioned across two reviews, suggesting a genuine specialization in pre-modern plumbing systems. No pricing information was mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored. All reviews are over 14 years old, which significantly limits their reliability as a reflection of current service quality.

• All three reviews are extremely old — dated 2009, 2001, and 2000 — making them unreliable indicators of current performance. These reviews are 15 to 24 years old.
• One review (2001) contains only the word 'unknown' and provides zero usable data. It was excluded from scoring.
• The 2000 review is very brief and generic with no specific details, which limits its evidentiary value.
• Only 3 reviews total were provided, which is at the minimum threshold for score calculation. Results should be treated with significant caution.
• Pricing dimension has NO DATA — no review mentioned cost, value, or quotes in any form.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to an extremely small review set, all reviews being 15 or more years old, one review containing no usable content, and no pricing data available — consumers should seek more recent and numerous reviews before making a hiring decision.

Professionalism is the most consistently mentioned dimension across reviews, with multiple customers noting punctuality, responsiveness, clear communication, and courteous behavior — though one 1-star review from 2021 explicitly cited rude customer service, which meaningfully drags the score down. Project completion is generally positive, with reviewers noting jobs were finished cleanly and to satisfaction, but the sample size is small. Pricing was mentioned favorably in two reviews as fair and affordable, but with only two mentions this carries limited confidence. Experience was referenced in a few reviews through comments about quality repairs and precise workmanship, though specifics were sparse. Overall, the positive signals are real but the review pool is too small and too spread across time to support a high-confidence score.

• Small sample size of only 6 reviews — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Significant recency gap: 3 of the 6 reviews are from 2020–2021, meaning they are 3–4 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• One explicit 1-star review citing 'horrendously rude customer service' with no rebuttal or context — this is a meaningful negative signal that cannot be dismissed.
• The 3 most recent reviews (2024) all reference 'Kevin' while older reviews reference 'Loren and his crew' — this may indicate a change in ownership, staff, or business structure, making cross-period comparisons unreliable.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include a negative review, which supports authenticity.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review pool (6 reviews), a significant time gap between review clusters, a possible change in personnel or ownership between review periods, and one explicit negative review that introduces meaningful uncertainty.

This contractor shows strong project completion and pricing performance, with work finished on time or early and competitive quotes. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a critical failure to return customer calls, which directly contradicts the positive responsiveness noted in one other review. Experience appears solid based on quality workmanship and problem-solving. The WW Score of 73.8 reflects mixed performance: excellent execution when engaged, but serious communication gaps that damage trustworthiness.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are 6–15 years old (2008–2013). No recent data available to assess current performance or whether issues have been addressed.
• CONTRADICTORY PROFESSIONALISM DATA: One review praises 'very good' responsiveness; another explicitly criticizes failure to return three voicemail messages. This suggests inconsistent communication practices or possible service degradation over time.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews limits confidence in any dimension. Scores should be treated as preliminary indicators only.
• MISSING DATA: No explicit mentions of appearance, politeness, or detailed technical skill assessment in any review.

This score should be treated with caution due to very small sample size (4 reviews), all from 6–15 years ago, and contradictory professionalism signals that suggest either inconsistent service or historical data that may not reflect current operations.

Reese Plumbing has a strong track record in the positive reviews, with customers praising punctuality, professionalism, technical skill, and willingness to stand behind their work — including correcting mistakes made by other plumbers. Pricing was described as fair and reasonable in two reviews. However, one 1-star review from 2018 describes a serious failure: the plumber no-showed twice without any communication, and calls went unanswered — a significant professionalism and project completion concern that meaningfully drags down both dimensions. The positive reviews span from 2019 to 2024, while the negative review is from 2018, suggesting possible improvement over time, though the sample size is too small to confirm a trend. With only 5 reviews total, confidence in this score is limited and should be interpreted cautiously.

• Very small sample size (5 reviews total) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• One 1-star review (2018) describes two consecutive no-shows with zero communication and unanswered phone calls — a serious professionalism and reliability red flag.
• Most positive reviews lack granular detail on pricing; only 2 reviews explicitly mention cost, limiting confidence in the pricing dimension.
• Recency note: Only 1 review is within the past 12 months (April 2024). Two reviews are from 2019, one from 2021, and one from 2018. The dataset skews older and may not reflect current service quality.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, and specificity, suggesting authentic authorship.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 6 years and should be considered a low-confidence preliminary assessment; prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional recent references before hiring.

This contractor shows a deeply split performance profile. A strong cluster of recent positive reviews (2024–2025) praises individual technicians — particularly Lamar, Tony, Jeremy, Moe, Aaron, and Corey — for friendliness, professionalism, and effective problem-solving. However, a significant number of negative reviews describe serious failures including incomplete or abandoned work, raw sewage left in a yard after a $15,000 job, fraudulent billing, no-shows, broken promises, and price gouging — some of which are recent (2025). Pricing is a notable weak point, with multiple reviewers citing excessive charges, hidden fees, and a 4% card surcharge. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviews describing jobs that were never properly finished or actively made worse by the company's work.

• 9 reviews contained no text — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several positive reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'Moe was great. Highly recommend.', 'Nice work', 'Efficient Experienced Friendly') with no specific details. While not conclusively fake, these inflate the apparent positive sentiment without substantive evidence.
• Multiple technician names appear repeatedly across positive reviews (Lamar, Tony, Moe, Jeremy), which is consistent with genuine named-technician reviews but also a pattern sometimes seen in coordinated review campaigns. Treat with moderate caution.
• The most severe negative reviews describe systemic company-level failures — not just individual technician errors — including management refusing callbacks, a $15,000 incomplete sewer job with raw sewage still in the yard, fraudulent billing confirmed by a second plumber, and exploitation of a resident with an intellectual disability. These are serious red flags about company integrity beyond individual performance.
• Review dates span from 2013 to 2025. Older negative reviews (2013–2019) were given reduced weight per recency rules, but the pattern of serious complaints persists into 2025, suggesting systemic issues have not been resolved.
• One review (2025-04-10, 1 star) describes a $15,000 sewer field line replacement that resulted in raw sewage in the yard after 10 months and 5 repair attempts, with management refusing further action. This is an extreme project completion failure and heavily weighted in that dimension's score.
• One review (2021) describes a plumber charging $300+ for work not performed and patching a pierced drain with tape — characterized by the reviewer as fraud. This significantly impacts both project completion and experience scores.

This WW Score is based on 46 reviews with usable content across a wide date range and carries HIGH statistical confidence due to mention volume, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the extreme variance between glowing individual-technician reviews and severe systemic failure reports — the company appears to deliver inconsistent results depending heavily on which technician is assigned.

Pay Less Plumbing has a generally positive reputation for professionalism and responsiveness, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, courteous technicians, and same-day or next-day service. Pricing is a notable strength in many reviews, with several customers citing costs significantly below competitor quotes, though one review flags hidden charges and another complains about a higher fee in Gaston County. Project completion is mostly positive but is undermined by a recurring problem that was not resolved (1999 review) and a missed appointment with no-show (1999 review), which meaningfully drag the score down. Experience and workmanship are generally praised across multiple reviews, with technicians described as knowledgeable and thorough. However, the vast majority of reviews are extremely old — most predate 2005, with only one review from the past 12 months — severely limiting the reliability of this score as a reflection of current service quality.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2024). The majority of reviews date from 1999–2005, making them 20–25 years old. These reviews may not reflect current business practices, staff, or quality.
• 3 reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from dimension scoring.
• One review explicitly mentions hidden costs (1999), and another complains about being charged for drive time to retrieve a part that was promised to be on the truck — both indicate pricing transparency issues.
• One review (1999) describes a recurring problem that was not resolved after a return visit, indicating a project completion failure.
• One review (1999) describes a missed morning appointment with no arrival by afternoon, indicating a punctuality/reliability failure.
• One review (1999) notes a poor attitude from the receptionist, indicating a communication/professionalism concern.
• One review (1998) recommends the company for small jobs only, implying possible limitations on larger or more complex projects.
• All 5-star reviews from 2018 onward are broadly positive but lack granular detail in some cases, which slightly reduces confidence in those entries — however, they do not appear to be fake as they include specific names, job types, and contextual details.

This WW Score should be treated with LOW-TO-MODERATE trust: while the volume of reviews is adequate, the overwhelming majority are 20+ years old, and only a single review from the past 12 months exists, making it impossible to reliably assess the contractor's current performance.