Find Nearby Plumbers In Clarksville, Tennessee

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. The reviews are sharply divided: one is a detailed 1-star account describing an incomplete job, a partner (John) who repeatedly requested money before work was finished, ignored calls, and never completed paid work — a serious project completion and professionalism failure. The other is a 5-star review praising the owner David's technical skill and reasonable pricing, though it also notes communication lapses and schedule changes. The sub-contractor and part-time helper Lowell received specific praise for competence in the 1-star review, which partially supports the experience dimension. Overall, the picture is mixed and dominated by a significant unresolved complaint about non-completion and financial misconduct.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• The 1-star review describes potential financial misconduct by a partner named John, including requesting payment before job completion and asking the customer to conceal this from the owner. This is a serious red flag beyond typical service complaints.
• Work began in November 2010 and was still incomplete as of October 2012 per the 1-star review — a multi-year non-completion on a paid job is a critical project completion failure.
• Both reviews are from 2012, making them over 12 years old. Recency rule applies — these scores carry very low temporal relevance to current business performance.
• The 5-star review, while detailed and credible, also contains mild negative signals (communication gaps, date changes) that were downplayed by the reviewer, suggesting the score may be slightly generous.

This WW Score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality — only 2 reviews were available, both are over 12 years old, and they present contradictory experiences with significant unresolved concerns about project completion and financial conduct.

This single review from February 2014 describes severe failures across all dimensions: the contractor failed to complete contracted work, did not honor callbacks, changed their phone number to avoid contact, charged $800 for grass that died within a month, and allegedly misrepresented work by posting others' photos as their own. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review. The review is nearly 10 years old and lacks corroborating data from other customers.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review is from February 2014 — nearly 10 years old. Does not reflect current business practices.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot determine if this represents systemic issues or isolated incident without additional reviews.
• UNVERIFIED CLAIMS: Allegations of photo theft and BBB complaint are serious but unverified in this dataset.

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A single review from 2014, regardless of severity, cannot establish a trustworthy WW Score. At least 3 recent reviews are required to produce a meaningful assessment.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions timely project completion and affordable pricing positively, but provides no explicit information on professionalism (punctuality, communication, attitude) or experience/workmanship quality. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review contains generic praise language ('amazing job', 'great people') with limited specific details about workmanship or professional conduct
• No explicit mention of professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, responsiveness, appearance, politeness)
• No explicit mention of experience/skill level or technical problem-solving
• Cannot assess recency patterns or detect fake reviews with only 1 data point

This score cannot be calculated reliably. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score; only 1 review is available.

This single review describes severe deficiencies across all dimensions. The contractor allegedly failed to complete work as estimated, engaged in dishonest billing practices (double-charging for materials, denying cash payments), and delivered non-functional electrical installations. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as one customer's experience—even if detailed—does not provide sufficient evidence of consistent performance patterns. This review should be treated as a serious warning flag requiring verification, but additional reviews are essential before drawing conclusions about overall contractor quality.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Review contains accusations of dishonesty (cash payment denial), incomplete work, and non-functional installations. These are critical red flags that warrant investigation and verification.
• SINGLE PERSPECTIVE: Cannot determine if this represents systemic issues or an isolated dispute without corroborating reviews.
• NO POSITIVE CONTEXT: Absence of any positive reviews makes it impossible to assess whether this contractor has any satisfied customers or consistent quality baseline.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data (1 review minimum threshold is 3). The single review contains serious allegations that should be investigated independently, but no reliable overall score can be calculated from one customer's account.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review is highly positive, explicitly praising professionalism (prompt communication, professional conduct), pricing integrity (no sales BS or made-up costs), and technical experience (service technician was on point with diagnosis). However, project completion is not addressed in this review. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2022 (over 2 years old) — recency is a concern
• No explicit mention of project completion or timeliness
• Cannot assess for fake review patterns with single review

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable score. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 review was provided. Collect additional recent reviews before drawing conclusions about this contractor's performance.

This single review paints an extremely negative picture across all four dimensions. The contractor failed to complete the work after accepting payment, never returned despite repeated contact, and became verbally abusive when followed up with — driving professionalism and project completion scores to near zero. Pricing was flagged as deceptive, with the customer charged for hours spent correcting the contractor's own mistakes and left with over $150 in unusable materials. Workmanship was described as severely lacking, with seven trips to a hardware store in a single day and an inability to correctly install a pressure boost pump despite claimed 38 years of experience. The reviewer also raised serious safety concerns about the contractor's assistants allegedly stealing from customers, which further compounds the overall assessment.

• Only 1 review is present — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Reviewer alleges contractor abandoned paid work and never returned to complete the job.
• Reviewer alleges contractor charged for hours spent correcting his own mistakes.
• Reviewer alleges contractor's assistants have stolen from customers, including high-value items.
• Reviewer alleges contractor used manipulative personal sympathy tactics to gain trust before performing substandard work.
• Contractor is noted to have operated under the business name 'Mild to Extreme Plumbing' formerly of Clarksville, TN, now reportedly operating in Johnson City/Elizabethton, TN — possible business relocation after complaints.
• No fake review concerns detected — review is highly specific, detailed, and consistent with a genuine negative experience.

This score is based on a single 1-star review and should be treated as directionally informative only — additional reviews are required before any reliable conclusions can be drawn about this contractor's overall performance.