Find Nearby Plumbers In Kingsport, Tennessee

The review set is small (3 reviews) and spans a wide time range from 2009 to 2023, making trend analysis difficult. The single positive review from 2021 describes a prompt, courteous, and professional experience from a specific technician named Todd, which partially offsets two strongly negative reviews. However, the 2023 review raises a serious project completion concern — a paid job was left unfinished with no follow-through after repeated contact attempts. The 2009 review independently flags rude behavior, high prices, and poor material quality, suggesting these issues are not isolated. Overall, the pattern across two of three reviews points to meaningful deficiencies in professionalism, pricing fairness, and job completion.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable for definitive conclusions.
• The positive review (2021) references a specific technician (Todd), while the negative reviews reference a different technician (Rodney) and an unnamed crew. Scores may reflect inconsistency between individual workers rather than a uniform company standard.
• The most recent review (2023) describes an abandoned paid job — a serious project completion failure that warrants strong caution for prospective customers.
• The oldest review (2009) is over 14 years old and carries significantly reduced weight under recency rules; however, its complaints about rudeness and pricing echo themes in the more recent negative review.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific names, dates, and situational details consistent with genuine customer experiences.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 14 years and should be considered LOW RELIABILITY — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references before hiring.

Only two reviews contained usable content, making any scoring highly unreliable. Professionalism received mixed signals — one reviewer praised the technician as on time and professional, while another noted the tech was friendly but the company's pricing practices were deeply problematic. Pricing is the most clearly negative dimension, with one reviewer describing the quotes as deceptive and outrageously high, citing $895–$1795 just to remove and replace a toilet. Project completion and experience each received a single positive mention from the 2017 review, but these are over six years old and carry very little weight.

• One review consists of only a period ('.') with a 5-star rating — this is a blank/useless review and was excluded from scoring.
• Total usable reviews is only 2, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 for a reliable WW Score.
• Both usable reviews are dated 2017–2019, making them over 4–6 years old. Recency is a significant concern — current performance may differ substantially.
• The 1-star review explicitly questions the authenticity of the company's positive reviews, which warrants caution when interpreting any favorable signals.
• Pricing concern is severe: one reviewer cited quotes of $895–$1795 to remove a toilet, plus an additional $895–$1795 for flange work, totaling a potential $3,590 for a basic toilet replacement.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to fewer than 3 usable reviews, all of which are over 4 years old — treat any dimension scores as illustrative only and not representative of current contractor performance.

Analysis is severely limited by only 2 reviews with contradictory narratives. Review 1 (2020) alleges misdiagnosis, overcharging, and non-responsiveness to complaints, resulting in low scores across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. Review 2 (2019) praises quick problem-solving and fair pricing (no charge), resulting in higher experience and pricing scores. The extreme polarity and small sample size make any aggregate score unreliable. Both reviews are over 3 years old, limiting recency relevance.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews recommended)
• EXTREME POLARITY: Reviews are diametrically opposed (1-star vs 5-star) with no middle ground, suggesting either highly inconsistent service quality or potential credibility issues with one reviewer
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are 3+ years old (2019-2020); no recent data available to assess current service standards
• UNVERIFIABLE CLAIMS: Review 1 contains serious allegations (fraud, theft, non-responsiveness) but lacks corroborating evidence; Review 2 is anecdotal praise without specifics on workmanship quality
• SAMPLE SIZE RISK: With only 2 reviews, a single fake or malicious review could skew results by 50%; confidence in any dimension is inherently limited

This score cannot be calculated reliably and should NOT be used for decision-making. A minimum of 3–5 recent reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score; current data is insufficient, contradictory, and outdated.

Both reviews are severely negative with explicit complaints across all dimensions. Review 1 (2024) describes incomplete plumbing work, structural failures (rotting shower board, persistent leaks), missing pipe installation, and egregious overcharging ($1700 for a $485 water heater). Review 2 (2017) documents failure to fix a toilet leak on first attempt, double billing for a single service call, unauthorized credit card retention, and lack of warranty on work. However, with only 2 reviews total, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per protocol. The extreme recency gap (7 years between reviews) and limited sample size prevent confident generalization.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews provided. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review 2 is from October 2017 (7+ years old). Review 1 is recent (November 2024). Temporal gap makes trend assessment impossible.
• SEVERE ALLEGATIONS: Both reviews contain serious accusations including structural defects, financial exploitation, billing fraud, and breach of customer agreements. These are not minor complaints.
• LIMITED MENTION COUNT: All dimensions scored on only 2 mentions each, resulting in LIMITED confidence across the board. Scores should be treated as preliminary indicators only.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required). The two reviews available are overwhelmingly negative and document serious professional and ethical failures, but a single recent review cannot establish current contractor performance. Any decision should await additional recent reviews.

Both reviews are severely negative and date from 2019, making them over 4 years old. Review 1 criticizes unprofessional work, poor communication, overcharging, and lack of customer care, requiring a second plumber to fix the job. Review 2 details a specific pricing dispute where the contractor quoted $275 but charged $1,500, with poor pump placement and lack of written agreement. All four dimensions show critical failures, but the sample size is extremely small (n=2) and both reviews are significantly dated, limiting confidence in any score.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Step 4 guidelines
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from 2019 (4+ years old) — no recent performance data available
• Both reviews are 1-star with severe complaints — no positive data to balance assessment
• Pricing dimension shows explicit fraud allegation (quoted $275, charged $1,500) — major red flag
• Project completion shows incomplete/poor work requiring customer to hire another contractor
• No reviews from past 12 months — cannot assess current business practices or improvements

This assessment is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Only 2 reviews exist, both from 2019, both 1-star, with no recent data. A minimum of 3-5 recent reviews is required to calculate a trustworthy WW Score.

With only two reviews, the picture of Beasley-Carter's is sharply divided. The 2021 review is highly positive, praising professional behavior, strong technical knowledge, effective use of specialized equipment, and fair pricing on a complex septic job. The 2020 review, however, describes a serious failure in professionalism and follow-through — a missed appointment, apparent evasion of contact, and a job that was never started. These two opposing data points produce middling scores across all dimensions, but the extremely small sample size means none of these scores can be considered reliable. The minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a WW Score has not been met.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — far below the minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score. All dimension scores should be treated as highly provisional.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict: one is a detailed 5-star review, the other is a detailed 1-star review. No consensus can be established.
• The 1-star review (2020) describes a no-show appointment and deliberate avoidance of the customer — a significant professionalism and project completion red flag.
• The most recent review is from 2021, meaning all available data is more than 3 years old. Business quality may have changed significantly since then.
• Recency note: Neither review falls within the past 12 months. Scores should be weighted with caution given the age of the data.

This score report is not reliable — only 2 reviews were available, the data is over 3 years old, and the reviews directly contradict each other, making any aggregate score statistically meaningless.