Find Nearby Plumbers In Kingsport, Tennessee

Brooks Plumbing & Heating demonstrates strong technical capability and project follow-through across many reviews, with multiple customers praising Adam and his crew for completing complex jobs — including sewer line repairs, boiler work, and full laundry room relocations — to a high standard. Professionalism scores are pulled down meaningfully by one detailed 1-star review describing communication failures, price inconsistency between team members, and a contractor (Brian) who was repeatedly unresponsive and dishonest. Pricing is the most contested dimension: two reviews explicitly call out overpricing or lack of transparency, while one long-form review contextualizes pricing as competitive within the Newark metro market and notes the contractor avoids firm estimates due to job complexity. Project completion is generally strong but the unresolved follow-up work described in the 1-star 2023 review prevents a higher score. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with only two reviews from the past 12 months, which limits confidence in the current state of the business.

• Most reviews are older than 12 months — 11 of 13 reviews predate May 2023, with the most recent cluster from 2024 representing only 2 reviews. Current performance may differ from historical patterns.
• Pricing transparency is a recurring concern: two separate 1-star reviews (2017) explicitly cite overpricing and lack of upfront pricing disclosure. A third review (2023) describes a price discrepancy between two team members mid-job.
• The 2023 1-star review raises a serious reliability concern: a named team member (Brian) is described as repeatedly lying about availability and giving the runaround on follow-up work. This is a specific, detailed complaint — not a generic one — and warrants attention.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, specificity, rating, and date. Negative reviews include specific names and incidents, which supports authenticity across the review set.
• One team member (Brian) is specifically flagged as problematic in the most recent negative review. Customers should be aware that experience may vary depending on which crew member handles their job.

This WW Score is based on 13 reviews spanning 10 years, with sufficient dimension coverage to calculate a score, but the heavy skew toward older reviews and recurring pricing and communication complaints from multiple independent reviewers mean this score should be treated with moderate caution — particularly for customers prioritizing pricing transparency and reliable follow-up communication.

The reviews that contain usable content paint a generally positive picture of this contractor, with specific mentions of punctuality, responsiveness, and technical competence such as proper tool selection and thoroughness in clearing a clog. Project completion is supported by multiple reviews noting jobs were finished and follow-up work was honored, including a callback to install a pressure regulator. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, limiting confidence in that dimension. However, the majority of reviews are significantly outdated — most are from 2011 to 2016 — which substantially reduces the reliability of this score as a reflection of current performance.

• Two of the seven reviews contain no usable text ('unknown' and a single period), reducing the effective review pool to five.
• All reviews with usable content are dated between 2011 and 2016 — none are within the past several years. This score should not be treated as representative of current service quality.
• The one 2-star review contains no text, making it impossible to determine what went wrong or which dimensions were affected. It has been noted but could not be scored.
• Sample size is very small (7 total, 5 usable), which significantly limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to a very small and entirely outdated review set, two unusable reviews, and limited coverage of pricing — prospective customers should seek more recent references before making a hiring decision.

This contractor shows mixed performance across dimensions with very limited review data. Professionalism is supported by responsiveness and trustworthiness, but project completion is severely undermined by a major tile installation failure with poor workmanship and inadequate problem-solving. Pricing appears fair when scope changes occur, but the quality issues and customer dissatisfaction are significant concerns. The extremely small sample size (3 usable reviews) and age of most reviews (2014–2017) severely limit confidence in this score.

• Only 3 usable reviews with substantive data; one review marked 'unknown' with no text content
• All reviews are older than 7 years (2014–2017); no recent performance data available
• One severely negative review (2-star) explicitly criticizes workmanship quality and problem-solving; customer reports crooked tiles and failing caulk with contractor deflecting blame
• Positive reviews lack specific detail about work quality; one review is generic (5-star with minimal information)
• Insufficient recency to assess current contractor performance or whether issues have been corrected

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution due to very limited sample size, age of reviews, and conflicting quality signals; the score is not reliable for decision-making without additional recent reviews.

Carter's Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with multiple recent reviews (2023–2024) describing charges as exorbitant, hidden, or misrepresented — including a $500+ charge for a 15-minute repair and escalating fees tacked on throughout a job. Project completion is a significant concern, with documented cases of abandoned work, unresolved repairs, misdiagnosis, and a plumber who took payment and never finished the job. Professionalism scores are dragged down by poor responsiveness from management, a forged signature on an invoice, and a technician who dismissed a customer's questions — though several older reviews praise individual plumbers as friendly and professional. Experience scores are similarly split: some reviews highlight skilled, knowledgeable plumbers who solved problems efficiently, while others describe clear misdiagnosis and technicians spending more time on the phone with supervisors than working. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) skew heavily negative, which is weighted more heavily in this assessment.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2024 and 2023) are predominantly 1-star and describe serious issues including overcharging, misdiagnosis, invoice fraud, and poor management responsiveness. Older positive reviews (2012–2015) may not reflect current business practices.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several reviews contain no usable detail ('Micheal was awesome!', '......', 'unknown', 'Very helpful and professional guys that do a great job!'). These generic 5-star reviews with zero specifics inflate the raw star rating but provide no scoreable evidence and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• ONE REVIEW EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED: The review stating 'I did not hire Carter's Plumbing' (5-star, 2016) was excluded from all dimension scoring as it contains no relevant service data.
• INVOICE INTEGRITY CONCERN: One review (2023) alleges a customer's signature was placed on an invoice without consent and that the invoice contained inaccurate line items. This is a serious ethical flag beyond normal scoring.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: Multiple reviews cite inability to reach management, delayed callbacks, and unresolved complaints — a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK AND NON-REFUND: At least one review (2017) describes a plumber accepting payment via two checks, failing to complete the job, and refusing to return unused funds or return calls — a potential fraud indicator.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability: the dimension mention counts are sufficient for statistical confidence, but the sharp quality decline visible in recent reviews (2023–2024) versus older positive reviews (2012–2015) suggests the score may still be generous relative to the contractor's current operating standards.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only three reviews spanning 2008 to 2014. The two positive reviews praise punctuality, reasonable pricing, and satisfactory work, but both reviewers have only ever reviewed this one contractor, raising credibility concerns. The negative review is highly detailed and damaging: it describes a job that took over two weeks, resulted in substandard pipe installation depth requiring a redo by another contractor, and ended with a final bill more than double the original estimate with no legitimate justification given. The combination of a credible, specific negative review and two potentially fake positive reviews pulls all dimension scores well below average. Given the small sample size and age of all reviews, this score should be treated with significant caution.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: The reviewer of the 1-star review explicitly notes that both 5-star and 4-star reviewers have only ever reviewed this one contractor, which is a strong indicator of potentially fabricated or solicited reviews.
• VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. This is the minimum threshold for calculation and results should be treated as highly unreliable.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE OUTDATED: The most recent review is from 2014, over 10 years ago. No recent data exists to assess current performance.
• PRICE GOUGING ALLEGATION: The 1-star review describes a final bill more than double the original estimate with no valid justification, which is a serious red flag for pricing transparency and honesty.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURE: The 1-star review documents a failed installation that required a second contractor to redo the work within 18 months, indicating a significant quality-of-work concern.
• CREDIBILITY IMBALANCE: The one negative review is highly specific and detailed, while the two positive reviews are generic and brief, further supporting the suspicion that the positive reviews may not be authentic.

This WW Score is of very low reliability due to the minimal review count, the age of all reviews exceeding 10 years, and credible suspicion that two of the three reviews may be inauthentic, leaving effectively one trustworthy data point which is strongly negative.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across professionalism and project completion. Multiple recent reviews (2024) document no-shows, failure to communicate, and same-day payment demands despite customer dissatisfaction. Professionalism is critically undermined by poor punctuality, unresponsiveness, and communication failures mentioned in 7 reviews. Project completion suffers from incomplete work, unresolved issues, and lack of follow-through on callbacks. While technical skill is occasionally acknowledged, it is overshadowed by systemic operational failures. The WW Score of 32.8 reflects a contractor with fundamental business practice problems that create significant customer risk.

• CRITICAL: Multiple recent reviews (August 2024) describe identical complaint patterns: no-shows, failure to call before arrival, same-day payment demands, and dismissive customer service. This suggests systemic operational dysfunction rather than isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most damaging reviews are from 2024 (3 reviews in past 6 months), indicating problems are current and ongoing, not historical.
• PATTERN DETECTED: At least 4 reviews explicitly mention no-shows or failure to arrive at scheduled times—a core professionalism failure.
• PAYMENT PRACTICES: Multiple reviews cite aggressive same-day payment demands and unwillingness to accept alternative payment arrangements, raising fairness concerns.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: 2009 review documents repeated failure to return calls or provide promised documentation (toilet manual, model number) over 2-month period.
• INCONSISTENCY: One 5-star review from 2019 praises flexibility on payments and quick service, but recent 2024 reviews describe opposite behavior, suggesting either management change or selective service delivery.

This score is reliable and should be trusted. It is based on 9 reviews with consistent negative patterns across multiple dimensions, particularly strong evidence in professionalism (7 mentions) and project completion (6 mentions). Recent reviews from 2024 confirm problems are current, not historical. The contractor presents significant operational and customer service risk.