Find Nearby Plumbers In Hendersonville, Tennessee

The review set is small, mostly outdated, and contains very little usable detail. Professionalism received one strong positive mention from 2013 praising punctuality and communication, but is offset by a 2016 review noting inefficiency (two workers for a simple job, an unnecessary trip to Lowe's on the customer's time) and a vague 1-star review from 2024. Project completion is a notable concern — one reviewer explicitly stated the problem recurred and the contractor refused to return for follow-up service, which is a serious red flag. Experience scores conservatively given the inefficiency noted and the unresolved recurring issue. Pricing was not mentioned in any review and cannot be scored.

• Two reviews contain no usable content ('unknown' and '.') and were excluded from scoring — these may be placeholder or bot-generated entries.
• The only recent review (2024) is a 1-star rating with no explanation ('Not great.') — this provides a negative signal but no scorable detail.
• Four of six reviews are more than 8 years old (2013–2016); only one review is within the past 12 months. Scores should be treated as largely historical and not reflective of current performance.
• The single positive detailed review (2013) uses generic praise language with no job-specific details, which slightly reduces its reliability.
• Callback refusal noted in a 2016 review is a significant project completion concern and was weighted negatively.

This WW Score has very low reliability due to an extremely small usable review pool, predominantly stale data (most reviews 8–11 years old), two content-free reviews, and only one recent data point — this score should not be used to make a confident hiring decision.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across professionalism and project completion. Five of six reviews explicitly cite failure to return calls, no-shows, abandonment of work, and unprofessional business practices spanning from 2010 to 2021. One positive 2016 review praises pricing and service quality, but is heavily outweighed by the pattern of non-responsiveness and incomplete follow-through documented across multiple years. The contractor's inability to maintain basic communication and honor commitments is the dominant theme.

• CRITICAL: Severe pattern of non-responsiveness and abandoned work across 5 of 6 reviews spanning 11 years (2010–2021). This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• One positive review (2016) exists but is contradicted by negative reviews both before and after it, suggesting inconsistent service delivery.
• Multiple reviews reference warranty company involvement and failure to follow up after initial contact, indicating business process failures.
• Reviews are not fake—they contain specific details (water heater, sink installation, pressure valve, garage door openers, hot water damage) and consistent complaint themes across different time periods.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months; however, the most recent review (2021) repeats the same core complaint (non-responsiveness), indicating the problem persists.

This WW Score of 28.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted. The score is based on consistent, specific evidence of failure across multiple dimensions over an 11-year period, with the most recent review confirming the pattern continues. The single positive review does not offset the overwhelming evidence of systemic operational failure.

The review set is heavily dominated by severe negative experiences. Four of six reviews describe serious failures including work that did not meet code, disconnected phone numbers, unmet warranty obligations, billing fraud, and abandoned or incomplete repairs. The two positive reviews (both from 2022) praise responsiveness and professionalism, but they are older and significantly outweighed by the more recent 2023 complaints. Pricing is a particular concern, with one reviewer documenting what appears to be deliberate overbilling and misrepresentation of work scope to vulnerable senior citizens. Project completion is the lowest-confidence dimension alongside pricing, as multiple reviewers explicitly describe jobs that were left unfinished, failed inspections, or were never corrected despite promises.

• RECENCY WARNING: All four negative reviews are from 2023; both positive reviews are from 2022. The trend is strongly negative and worsening over time. More recent reviews should be weighted more heavily.
• WARRANTY/CONTACT FRAUD FLAG: Two separate reviewers report that phone numbers listed on contracts and online are disconnected, suggesting the business may be operating evasively or has ceased legitimate operations.
• BILLING INTEGRITY FLAG: One detailed review documents significant discrepancies between quoted scope, actual work performed, and invoiced amounts — including invoicing for 150 ft of pipe in a home under 80 ft total. This is a serious red flag for fraudulent billing practices.
• CODE COMPLIANCE FLAG: At least one job explicitly failed a city inspection and was not corrected by the contractor, raising questions about licensing and competency.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The two 5-star reviews are generic in structure and lack the specificity of the negative reviews. While not conclusively fake, they should be treated with caution given the volume and detail of the negative accounts.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 total reviews were available. Scores are based on a small sample and should be treated as preliminary.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the small review sample (6 reviews), a clear negative trend in the most recent 12–18 months, and serious red flags including potential billing fraud, code violations, and apparent contractor unavailability — all of which suggest significant risk in hiring this contractor.

With only 2 reviews, reliable scoring is not possible. Review 1 (March 2019) describes incomplete project work—fence never reinstalled, grading never completed despite written commitment on invoice, and customer paid in full upfront. Review 2 (May 2019) praises responsiveness and friendliness but provides no detail on actual work quality or completion. The stark contradiction between these reviews, combined with extremely limited sample size and age (both from 2019), prevents calculation of a trustworthy WW Score.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from 2019 (4+ years old). No recent performance data available.
• CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: Review 1 documents clear project non-completion and broken commitment; Review 2 is generic praise with no specifics about actual work performed.
• REVIEW 2 CONCERN: Suspiciously generic positive language ('5 star', 'super friendly', 'dog person') with no concrete details about plumbing work quality or completion.
• CRITICAL ISSUE IN REVIEW 1: Documented failure to complete committed work (fence reinstallation, grading, seeding) despite full payment received and written commitment on invoice. This is a serious red flag for project completion reliability.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2), extreme age of data (2019), and contradictory signals. The documented project non-completion in Review 1 is a serious concern that cannot be offset by generic praise in Review 2. Do not rely on this analysis for contractor selection decisions.

Both available reviews are strongly negative, rating the contractor 1 star each. Professionalism is explicitly criticized across both reviews, with one reviewer calling the contractor 'very unprofessional' and the other noting he 'lies to cover up his mistakes.' Project completion is a serious concern, as both reviewers indicate the contractor does not follow through and produces errors. Experience is called into question by references to 'many errors,' lack of detail orientation, and failure to deliver on promises. Pricing received a marginally higher score only because one reviewer acknowledged the prices were cheap, though they explicitly stated the value was poor.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• Both reviews are older than 1 year (dated 2017 and 2019) — no recent data available to assess current performance.
• Strong negative signals across all dimensions: dishonesty, poor workmanship, lack of follow-through, and unprofessionalism are all explicitly cited.
• Small sample size means these scores carry very low statistical weight and should be interpreted with caution.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 5 years old, making it insufficient to reliably assess this contractor — treat all dimension scores as highly tentative indicators only.

Both reviews explicitly praise punctuality, communication, and technical competence. The plumber diagnosed issues correctly, provided options, and completed work successfully. However, with only 2 reviews total, all scores carry LIMITED confidence and cannot reliably establish a WW Score. No pricing information was mentioned in either review. The most recent review is from 2024, but the second is from 2021, indicating a 3-year gap in feedback.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• Significant recency gap: one review from 2024, one from 2021 (3-year interval)
• No pricing data available in any review — Price Friendly dimension cannot be scored
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with positive language; however, with only 2 reviews, this does not trigger fake review suspicion

This analysis is unreliable for decision-making. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a WW Score; only 2 reviews were provided. Collect additional recent feedback before relying on this contractor's performance metrics.