Find Nearby Plumbers In Clarksville, Tennessee

Pro N Stall presents a deeply polarized review profile, with a significant volume of serious complaints across all four scored dimensions that substantially drag down every score. Professionalism is heavily damaged by repeated accounts of technicians arriving late or not at all, staff lying to customers, workers leaving jobs mid-task without notice, and a technician allegedly smelling of marijuana — offset only partially by genuine praise for specific staff members like Misty, Dawn, and Will. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers describing abandoned jobs, deposits taken with no work performed, failed septic installations that disconnected twice, incomplete restorations, and no callbacks after promises were made — a pattern that spans years and continues into 2025. Pricing concerns are significant, with allegations of inflated quotes, no itemized billing, subcontracting markups, a $6,000 unnecessary replacement attempt, and a $1,500 overquote on a water heater — though a handful of reviewers did praise competitive pricing. Experience scores reflect a mixed but concerning picture: several reviewers report technicians arriving without proper tools, lacking knowledge of basic systems, performing work that failed within months, and one owner allegedly misdiagnosing a simple clogged condensate line as a full unit replacement. Positive reviews do exist and describe genuinely skilled, caring service, but they are insufficient to overcome the volume and severity of the negative evidence.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Five reviews dated exactly 2022-06-10 contain no text whatsoever — only a 5-star rating. These blank 5-star reviews are highly suspicious and have been excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable data.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Two reviews dated exactly 2023-06-10 also contain no text and only a 5-star rating — same pattern as above, also excluded from dimension scoring.
• CLUSTERING PATTERN: Multiple 1-star reviews dated 2024-09-12 appear to describe the same deposit-theft incident with very similar language, possibly from related parties or the same individual using multiple accounts.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews are present across the full date range from 2011 through May 2025, indicating this is not an isolated period of poor performance but a persistent pattern over 14+ years.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) include both a serious 1-star complaint about no communication with an insurance company and a strong 5-star review — the pattern of polarization continues into the present.
• LICENSE CONCERN: One reviewer (2024-09-12, 1-star) explicitly states they could not locate the company's license with the state. This is a serious flag that warrants independent verification before hiring.
• DEPOSIT FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods (2015, 2024) report paying deposits and receiving no work or no follow-through. This is a recurring and serious pattern.
• SEPTIC INSTALLATION FAILURE: At least two separate reviewers report septic systems installed by Pro N Stall failing within months, with one system disconnecting twice and sewage flowing into the yard. This suggests a systemic workmanship issue in this service area.
• OWNER CONDUCT: One detailed 2024 review credibly alleges the owner (Matt) deliberately misdiagnosed a functioning AC unit to sell a $6,000+ replacement — a serious ethical and professional concern.

This WW Score of 42.1 is based on a large review set (55 total, 50 with usable data) spanning 14 years with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be treated as a reliable signal of significant and persistent service quality problems at this company.

This contractor's reviews are dominated by severe and repeated pricing complaints, with numerous customers reporting charges they describe as grossly excessive, hidden, or predatory — including charging elderly customers hundreds of dollars for simple repairs and providing estimates many times higher than competitors. Professionalism is mixed: individual plumbers are sometimes praised for courtesy and punctuality, but the company-level behavior (defensive owner responses, unresponsive management, a road-rage incident by an employee) drags the score down significantly. Project completion is a serious concern, with multiple reviews describing incomplete diagnoses, improperly performed repairs, abandoned follow-through, and work that failed to resolve the original problem. Technical experience is similarly split — a handful of reviewers praise knowledgeable plumbers, while several others describe misdiagnoses, unnecessary upselling, and repairs that had to be redone by other contractors. The overall picture is of a company with some capable individual technicians undermined by systemic pricing and quality control failures.

• Two reviews (dated 2015-03-06 and 2015-02-24) are near-identical in text and content, suggesting a duplicate submission or copied review. These were counted as one unique data point for scoring purposes.
• One review (dated 2016-06-13) contains only the word 'unknown' with a 5-star rating and provides no usable data — excluded from scoring.
• A significant portion of positive reviews are vague or generic (e.g., 'Yes job got done.', 'Quick and courteous, nice job!') with little specific detail, which limits their evidentiary weight.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months; only 4 reviews are from the past 12 months (2024). Recent reviews continue to reflect the same pricing and completion concerns seen historically.
• Multiple reviews explicitly describe the company targeting elderly or vulnerable customers with inflated estimates, which is a serious ethical flag beyond normal pricing complaints.
• Owner/management responses to negative reviews were described by multiple reviewers as defensive and dismissive, suggesting a systemic customer service issue at the company level.

This WW Score is based on 37 usable reviews spanning approximately 10 years, with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions due to strong mention counts; however, the preponderance of older reviews and the small number of recent data points mean current performance may differ, and the score should be treated as a reliable historical signal rather than a guaranteed reflection of present-day service quality.

This contractor demonstrates significant and consistent problems across multiple dimensions. Two of three reviews (67%) report severe failures in professionalism, including missed appointments, unresponsive communication, and disrespectful customer interactions. Project completion is compromised by poor workmanship (laminate boards coming up, installation mistakes) and incomplete follow-through on repairs. Pricing integrity is questioned in two reviews, with one reporting mid-job price increases and another noting fair pricing only in isolation. The single positive review from 2016 is substantially outweighed by two damaging 1-star reviews documenting systemic operational failures.

• Two of three reviews are 1-star with detailed, specific complaints; one is 5-star with generic praise — suggests polarized customer experience rather than fake reviews
• Most recent review is from April 2018 (6+ years old); oldest is from December 2015 (8+ years old) — limited recency data
• Pattern of communication failures and accountability avoidance noted in multiple reviews
• Quality control issues appear systemic rather than isolated incidents

This WW Score of 38.2 should be treated as reliable given the consistency of negative findings across multiple reviews and dimensions, though the small sample size (n=3) and age of reviews (all pre-2019) limit generalizability to current operations.

This contractor's review profile is deeply split between a cluster of positive reviews from 2019–2020 and a pattern of severe, detailed negative reviews spanning 2020–2023. The negative reviews are highly specific and credible, describing abandoned jobs, no-call no-shows, money taken without work completed, recurring plumbing failures after paid repairs, and in one extensively detailed review, serious ethical and personal misconduct. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating work was never finished, problems recurred, and refunds were refused. Professionalism scores are dragged sharply downward by documented no-shows, non-responsiveness, and the detailed misconduct complaint. The positive reviews, while present, are mostly brief, generic, and concentrated in a narrow earlier time window, reducing their counterbalancing weight. The trajectory of reviews over time shows a clear and worsening decline in service quality.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN — MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Great we're thankful', 'Leaky Faucets', 'It went great! I would definitely recommend them.', 'Extremely Friendly, Ultra Fast, Superb Workmanship!'). These lack any specific detail about the work performed, pricing, or outcome, and follow a suspiciously similar pattern of unverifiable praise. Confidence in these reviews is reduced.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2022–2023) are all 1-star with detailed, credible complaints. All 5-star reviews are from 2019–2020. The positive review cluster is now 3–5 years old and should be weighted significantly less than the more recent negative experiences.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One detailed 1-star review (2020-07-19) alleges personal misconduct by the owner including inappropriate behavior toward a customer's spouse, alcohol brought to job sites, and formal complaints filed with the Tennessee Division of Consumer Affairs and the BBB. The reviewer states these are public record. This is a significant non-workmanship red flag.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: At least 3 separate reviews explicitly describe the contractor accepting payment and then failing to complete or return to finish the job — a consistent and serious pattern of non-delivery.
• NO REFUND PATTERN: Multiple reviewers state they were unable to obtain refunds after work was not completed or was done incorrectly, suggesting a systemic business practice concern.
• UNLICENSED/UNPERMITTED WORK CONCERN: One detailed review states no permits were filed with the city for a master bathroom remodel, which may constitute a legal and safety violation.
• RECURRENCE OF FAILURES: At least 2 reviews describe plumbing problems recurring shortly after paid repairs, suggesting substandard workmanship that did not resolve the underlying issues.

This WW Score is based on 16 reviews with a HIGH volume of usable dimension data, but the score should be treated with serious caution given the stark quality decline visible in post-2021 reviews, the presence of suspected generic fake 5-star reviews, and multiple credible, detailed accounts of abandoned work, financial harm, and personal misconduct.

This contractor has a deeply mixed and largely outdated review record. Two positive reviews from 2008 describe responsive communication, professional conduct, and completed work — but these are over 15 years old and carry very limited weight. Against these, there are three negative reviews: one reporting a disconnected phone number suggesting the business may be closed, one citing evasive or unclear communication, and one with no detail beyond a 1-star rating. The most recent reviews (2010–2013) are all negative, which is a significant red flag. No pricing information was mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• BUSINESS MAY BE CLOSED: A 2011 review explicitly states the phone number is disconnected and email went unanswered, strongly suggesting this business is no longer operating.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are more than 10 years old. The most recent reviews (2010–2013) are all 1-star. The only positive reviews date from 2008 and should be given minimal weight.
• INSUFFICIENT RECENT DATA: There are no reviews from the past 12 years. This score cannot be considered a reliable indicator of current service quality.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews total, with only 2 positive reviews, both from 2008. Score reliability is very low.

This WW Score should not be trusted as a guide to current service quality — the business appears likely closed based on a 2011 report of a disconnected phone number, all recent reviews are negative, and the only positive data is from 2008.

The overwhelming majority of reviews paint a deeply negative picture of All Access Plumbing across nearly every dimension. Three of four reviews are 1-star, citing unprofessional behavior, rudeness, misdiagnosis, and failure to complete or even properly attempt work. The single positive review is from 2014 and is over a decade old, making it of very limited relevance to current performance. The most detailed negative review describes a technician who failed to use proper diagnostic tools, provided a false diagnosis that caused an insurance claim denial, and unnecessarily alarmed a family with talk of jackhammering a foundation — all for a problem another plumber resolved in under 20 minutes. One review also explicitly accuses the company of dishonesty with home warranty providers, which is a serious integrity concern.

• RECENCY WARNING: The only positive review is from August 2014 — over 10 years old. It should be given minimal weight in any current assessment.
• INTEGRITY FLAG: One reviewer explicitly accuses the company of lying to home warranty companies and retaining copayments without completing work. This is a serious allegation of fraud.
• MISDIAGNOSIS FLAG: A detailed review describes a clear misdiagnosis that resulted in a denied insurance claim and unnecessary distress. A competing plumber resolved the same issue in under 20 minutes using basic tools.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 4 reviews total. The WW Score is based on limited data and should not be treated as statistically reliable.
• NO FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Reviews appear genuine — they are varied in detail, tone, and date. No patterns of fabricated praise detected.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning a decade, with 3 being strongly negative and the sole positive review being over 10 years old, making the score directionally meaningful but statistically unreliable — treat with caution.