Find Nearby Plumbers In Hendersonville, Tennessee

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient for a reliable WW Score, but the picture painted is deeply divided. The positive review from 2024 describes years of satisfactory service, good workmanship, and collaborative communication. However, the highly detailed 2023 negative review alleges serious misconduct including inappropriate behavior toward a client, repeated scheduling failures, incomplete work, a screwed-shut crawl space door that blocked emergency access, and refusal to return to finish the job after full payment of $11,500. The negative review is specific, credible, and describes multiple dimension failures simultaneously, which significantly drags down scores across all categories. The stark contrast between the two reviews prevents any confident assessment of this contractor's typical performance.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The 1-star review contains highly specific, detailed allegations of incomplete work, dishonesty, and inappropriate conduct toward a client. This level of specificity increases its credibility and warrants serious weight.
• Alleged misconduct: reviewer claims contractor asked her on a date after receiving a deposit, which if true represents a significant ethical and professional violation.
• Alleged financial harm: reviewer claims $11,500 paid for work that was never fully completed, with contractor refusing to return.
• Safety concern flagged: crawl space door was screwed shut with stripped screws, preventing emergency access during a plumbing leak.
• The two reviews are from different years (2023 and 2024) and represent completely opposite experiences, making it impossible to determine a reliable pattern from this dataset alone.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews appear authentic based on specificity and detail.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall performance; prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references and exercise caution given the serious allegations in the negative review.

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. Professionalism is severely dragged down by the 1-star review from 2024, which describes a technician escalating to yelling, making accusations, and behaving in a threatening manner toward a customer — a serious and explicit professionalism failure. The 5-star review from 2020 describes a friendly, efficient, and knowledgeable technician, creating a stark contrast. Project completion is mixed: one job was completed successfully, while the other appears to have ended without any work being performed due to the confrontation. Pricing received one brief mention of a 'not that bad' estimate, yielding only a conservative mid-range score.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The two reviews are nearly 4 years apart (2020 vs 2024), and the more recent review (2024) is significantly more negative — recency weighting favors the negative review.
• The 1-star review describes a potentially different technician than the 5-star review (Michael is named in the positive review; no name given in the negative review), meaning scores may reflect two different individuals rather than one consistent contractor.
• The 5-star review is older than 1 year (dated 2020) and should be treated with reduced recency weight.
• The 1-star review raises a serious conduct concern: alleged verbal aggression, yelling, and a minor child being present during the incident — this warrants elevated scrutiny of professionalism.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews spanning 4 years and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall quality — significantly more review data is needed before any confident assessment can be made.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly conservative and low-confidence. The reviewer speaks positively about Brian's customer care, trustworthiness over a 10-year relationship, and his advice on saving money, which supports modest scores in professionalism, pricing, and experience. However, no specific details are provided about project completion, timeliness, or technical workmanship, so that dimension cannot be scored. All scores are deliberately conservative given the single data point and the review's age of over eight years.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2016-03-26, making it over 8 years old. Per recency rules, this data carries significantly reduced weight and may not reflect current service quality.
• Review is positive but lacks specific detail — praise is general in nature (e.g., 'excellent work', 'takes good care'), which limits scoring precision.

This score report is based on a single, dated review from 2016 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of current or consistent service quality.

This single review contains severe criticisms across all dimensions: the contractor took payment but failed to complete a room addition project that extended from 4 months to over a year, with poor workmanship requiring rework by another contractor. Professionalism is questioned due to late arrivals (10am or later), early departures (3pm or earlier), and minimal on-site supervision. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as this represents an insufficient data sample to establish meaningful patterns or confidence in the scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews to be statistically meaningful.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: This is a 1-star review with serious allegations (non-completion, payment taken, poor quality work). Without corroborating reviews, cannot determine if this is an isolated incident or systemic pattern.
• NO RECENCY CONTEXT FOR PATTERN: Single recent review (Sept 2024) does not establish whether issues have been resolved or are ongoing.

This score is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a trustworthy WW Score; only 1 review is available.

This single review from 2011 provides limited evidence across three dimensions. The reviewer explicitly mentions work completion and cleanup (project completion), satisfaction with workmanship (experience), and trustworthiness when unsupervised (professionalism). However, with only one review and no pricing information mentioned, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated. The review is over 12 years old, which significantly limits its relevance to current service quality.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from September 2011 (13+ years old). Does not reflect current service standards or pricing.
• PRICING DATA ABSENT: No information provided about pricing fairness or value for money.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Review contains general satisfaction statements without specific technical details about the work performed.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A single review from 2011 is inadequate to establish current contractor performance metrics.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions fair pricing positively but provides no substantive information about professionalism, project completion, or technical experience.

• Only 1 review available — far below minimum threshold of 3 reviews
• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old) — recency is a concern
• Review is generic and lacks specific details about work performed, timeline, or outcomes
• No data on professionalism, project completion, or experience dimensions

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume and age of the single available review.