Find Nearby Plumbers In Knoxville, Tennessee

This aggregated review set spans multiple businesses and individual operators all operating under or associated with the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different regions and time periods, making direct comparison difficult but revealing a deeply polarized reputation. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of explicit complaints about rudeness, no-shows, broken appointments, and dismissive customer service — including multiple accounts of technicians yelling at customers, slamming doors, and hanging up on home warranty representatives. Pricing is the single most-criticized dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing charges 2x to 5x higher than competitors for identical work, non-itemized invoices, and aggressive upselling tactics; a minority of reviewers — particularly those dealing with individual operators like Oscar, Jeff, and Rick — praised fair and transparent pricing. Project completion suffers from a notable pattern of abandoned jobs, failed callbacks, work left incomplete for weeks or months, and instances where problems were made worse rather than fixed. Experience scores are moderate-positive, as many positive reviews do cite skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship from specific named technicians, but are offset by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, incorrect parts installation, and damage caused during service.

• MULTI-ENTITY CONCERN: These reviews appear to aggregate multiple distinct businesses and sole operators all using the 'Mr. Plumber' name across different U.S. regions (Georgia, New Jersey, Oklahoma, California, New York, Indiana, Tennessee, etc.). Scores reflect a blended profile and should not be applied to any single operator without filtering by location.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews — particularly those dated 2025-05-07, 2025-05-10, and 2025-05-19 with no review text — are blank ratings only and provide zero usable data. Several other 5-star reviews are near-identical in phrasing (e.g., two reviews from 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10 are word-for-word duplicates for 'Michael'). These have been excluded from scoring but inflate the raw star average.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: At least two pairs of reviews are near-verbatim duplicates submitted on consecutive or same dates (the 'Michael' gas line reviews dated 2025-05-07 and 2025-05-10; the rude technician reviews dated 2023-08-09 and 2023-08-10). These were counted as single mentions.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2025) are predominantly 5-star with minimal text, while the most detailed and substantive negative reviews span 2018–2024. The oldest reviews (2005–2013) skew positive but reflect a different era of the business. Recency weighting was applied conservatively.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 30+ reviews contained no text and only a star rating. These were excluded from all dimension scoring as they provide no evidence per Rule 1.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: One review (dated 2021-06-07, 5 stars) references a healthcare provider ('very helpful with my daughter and son... ADHD and learning disabilities') and is clearly posted to the wrong business. It was excluded entirely.
• PRICING PATTERN: A recurring pattern of non-itemized invoices, refusal to provide cost breakdowns, and prices dropping significantly when customers push back strongly suggests systematic price gouging practices at certain franchise or affiliate locations, particularly those associated with Coolray/Mr. Plumber in the Atlanta, GA market.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews describe technicians starting jobs, leaving for parts, and never returning — sometimes for months. This pattern appears across different named technicians and locations, suggesting a systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but its practical reliability is MODERATE at best because the dataset aggregates multiple distinct businesses operating under the same trade name across different regions and time periods — consumers should filter reviews by their specific geographic location and verify the operator before relying on this blended score.

Pioneer's individual technicians frequently receive strong praise for professionalism, knowledge, and courtesy — names like Jason, Sutton Elliot, Kenny, Lake Evans, and others are called out positively across many recent reviews. However, a substantial and persistent pattern of serious negative reviews significantly drags down every dimension: repeated no-shows and scheduling failures, pricing complaints describing charges as grossly inflated or non-transparent, and multiple accounts of incomplete or botched work (including a unit left with disconnected wiring, holes in walls never repaired, and a unit still malfunctioning after multiple visits). Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviewers citing specific dollar amounts they found egregious and one review alleging a fraudulent carbon monoxide scare tactic to push a new unit sale. Project completion is also heavily penalized by recurring no-show complaints, warranty non-response, and work left unfinished after payment. The overall picture is a company with capable individual technicians but systemic operational and ethical failures in scheduling, pricing transparency, and follow-through.

• SCHEDULING/NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 8 distinct reviews across multiple years (2018–2025) describe technicians failing to show up for scheduled appointments with no call or explanation. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• PRICING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews cite specific pricing they found excessive or non-transparent — $1,700 for a GFI plug and wall box, $8,100 for an electrical panel, $350 for a part available on Amazon for under $50, and $380 for a furnace igniter repair. One reviewer alleges Pioneer refused to itemize parts vs. labor costs as 'company policy.'
• ALLEGED FRAUDULENT SALES TACTIC: One detailed 2019 review (1-star) alleges a technician falsely claimed a unit was leaking dangerous levels of carbon monoxide to pressure a new unit sale. Three other companies found no such issue. This is a serious allegation that could not be verified but is specific and credible in detail.
• INCOMPLETE WORK / POOR FOLLOW-THROUGH: Multiple reviews describe work left unfinished after payment (holes in walls, unconnected wiring, roof vent not properly repaired), warranty service refused or delayed, and management unresponsive to complaints.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of positive reviews are from 2025 and mid-2024, while the majority of detailed negative reviews span 2018–2024. This may indicate improvement in technician quality but does not resolve the pricing and scheduling concerns, which appear in both older and recent reviews (June 2025 includes both a 1-star pricing complaint and a 1-star scheduling/HVAC cancellation complaint).
• THIN/GENERIC REVIEWS: Approximately 8–10 reviews contain no substantive text (blank, 'Awesome', 'Really nice!', 'Great professional service') and were counted for rating context only but contributed minimally to dimension scoring. These reviews, while not definitively fake, provide no usable data.
• MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS: Multiple negative reviewers describe being unable to reach management, being promised callbacks that never came, and one describes the company president as condescending when pricing was disputed. This pattern across multiple years suggests a structural customer service issue at the management level.

This WW Score is based on 72 reviews spanning 2015–2025 with a high volume of substantive data across all four dimensions, making the score statistically reliable; however, the significant split between glowing individual-technician praise and serious systemic complaints about pricing, scheduling, and follow-through means the score reflects genuine mixed performance rather than a simple average, and prospective customers should weigh the specific negative patterns carefully.

Hers and His Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While professionalism scores moderately at 68.5, driven by many positive mentions of courteous technicians, this is heavily offset by numerous complaints about rude staff, poor communication, and unprofessional behavior. Pricing is a major weakness at 54.0, with extensive evidence of overcharging, upselling unnecessary services, and inflated quotes compared to competitors. Project completion is critically weak at 59.5, with pervasive patterns of no-shows, multiple failed visits to fix the same issue, incomplete work, and poor follow-through. Experience scores 66.0, reflecting mixed technical competence—some technicians are praised as knowledgeable, while others are described as incompetent or dishonest. The company's performance is heavily influenced by warranty company relationships, which appear to incentivize denying claims rather than solving problems.

• CRITICAL: Extremely high volume of no-show and cancellation complaints spanning 10+ years, suggesting systemic operational failure
• CRITICAL: Pervasive pattern of warranty claim denials and misdiagnosis to avoid coverage, indicating potential fraud or systematic abuse of warranty relationships
• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews document technicians making false diagnoses, lying to warranty companies, and refusing to perform covered work
• HIGH: Consistent overpricing pattern—customers report quotes 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work
• HIGH: Numerous complaints of incomplete repairs requiring 3-6 follow-up visits for single issues
• HIGH: Call center model (based in Tennessee/Florida, serving multiple states) correlates with poor local communication and accountability
• MODERATE: Some reviews suggest fake or planted positive reviews (generic praise, no specifics, clustered dates in June 2025), though majority of negative reviews are detailed and credible
• MODERATE: Significant recency bias—most recent reviews (2025) are overwhelmingly positive 5-star ratings, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews from 2020-2024
• MODERATE: Company appears to have rebranded or changed names (references to '1st Call Plumbing' as successor entity), suggesting possible reputation management
• LOW: A few reviews mention property damage caused by technicians with refusal to take responsibility

This WW Score of 62.3 should be treated with HIGH confidence due to the large sample size (500 reviews) and consistent patterns across all dimensions, but the score masks severe operational and ethical issues that make this company high-risk; the abundance of detailed, credible negative reviews spanning over a decade, combined with systematic patterns of no-shows, incomplete work, and warranty fraud, suggests the company's actual reliability is significantly lower than the score indicates, particularly for warranty-covered work.

Olshan Foundation Repair presents a deeply polarized review profile spanning nearly two decades. Recent reviews from 2024–2025 are overwhelmingly positive, praising punctual crews, courteous inspectors, thorough explanations, and clean job sites — driving professionalism scores upward for the recent period. However, a substantial body of older and some recent negative reviews reveals serious recurring issues: warranty non-honoring, poor communication and no-shows, substandard workmanship requiring re-repair, property damage left unaddressed, and aggressive or misleading sales tactics. Pricing is a significant concern, with multiple reviewers citing quotes far above competitors, hidden fees, and charges for work not delivered as promised. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with numerous accounts of abandoned work, failed drainage systems, recurring foundation movement post-repair, and crews leaving sites in disarray. The experience dimension is mixed — inspectors are frequently praised for honesty and knowledge, but installation crews draw repeated criticism for lack of supervision, poor technique, and causing collateral damage to plumbing, HVAC, and landscaping.

• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The most recent reviews (2025 and late 2024) are almost uniformly 5-star with specific crew name callouts and very similar structure (crew name lists, praise for punctuality and cleanup). This pattern — while not definitively fake — is consistent with coordinated or incentivized review campaigns and should be treated with caution.
• SUSPECTED REVIEW PADDING: Multiple 2025 reviews mention nearly identical crew rosters (e.g., Hernandez, Rogelio, Misael, Noe, Nelson, Eduardo appearing across at least 3 separate reviews), suggesting possible duplicate or coached reviews from the same job or crew.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS with 5-star ratings (June 2025) provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring.
• WARRANTY FRAUD PATTERN: At least 10 reviews across multiple years explicitly state Olshan refused to honor its advertised lifetime warranty, citing ownership changes, franchise closures, or policy loopholes. This is a systemic and serious concern.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years describe unrepaired damage to plumbing, HVAC systems, landscaping, irrigation, flooring, and structural elements caused during Olshan's work, with the company refusing accountability.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: Numerous reviews spanning 2006–2025 describe no-shows, unreturned calls, missed appointments, and months-long delays in warranty service — indicating a persistent systemic issue not limited to any one location or era.
• SUBCONTRACTING CONCERN: Multiple reviews note Olshan subcontracts work to third parties without disclosure, and at least one reviewer identified the subcontractor directly and advised hiring them independently at lower cost.
• OVERBIDDING PATTERN: Several reviews describe Olshan quoting significantly more piers or work than independent structural engineers determined was necessary, raising concerns about sales integrity.
• OLDER REVIEWS (pre-2022) carry reduced weight per recency rules but are numerous enough to establish long-standing systemic patterns that cannot be dismissed.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the strong recent positive reviews appear potentially inflated or coached, while the extensive negative review history reveals serious and recurring systemic failures in warranty honoring, communication, workmanship quality, and customer accountability that prospective customers must weigh carefully before engaging this contractor.

Feezell Total Maintenance shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is the strongest area with 5 mentions, but scores are dragged down by significant communication failures (unresponsiveness to warranty company assignments, delayed callbacks) and one highly detailed negative experience. Project completion shows moderate performance with some jobs completed successfully but one major incident where work required callbacks and the company made unsubstantiated claims to the warranty company. Pricing concerns emerge in two reviews with complaints of excessive charges ($375 for basic PVC installation, $470-$1000 quotes for diagnostic work). Experience/workmanship is limited in data but shows competent basic work alongside poor problem-solving (no camera equipment, inability to diagnose root cause).

• RECENCY ISSUE: 4 of 6 reviews are from 2013-2019 (5+ years old). Only 2 reviews from 2019 or later. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• ONE REVIEW FLAGGED: Review dated 2016-03-11 contains only 'unknown' as text with 5-star rating. This appears to be a placeholder or incomplete entry and carries minimal evidentiary value.
• CRITICAL INCIDENT: 2013 review documents serious professional lapses including unsubstantiated claims made to warranty company, poor diagnostic practices, and extended service failures. This significantly impacts professionalism and project completion scores.
• COMMUNICATION PATTERN: 2016 review documents systematic unresponsiveness to warranty company and customer contact attempts over 10 days. This is a major professionalism red flag.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY: Two reviews cite high pricing without clear justification, suggesting potential value-for-money concerns, though sample size is small.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to limited recency (most reviews 5+ years old) and small sample size (6 reviews, one incomplete). The score reflects significant documented professionalism and communication failures, but current performance may differ. Recommend requesting recent references before engaging this contractor.

Grigg Industries shows significant inconsistency in service delivery. While customers consistently praise product availability, pricing, and technical expertise (85/100), professionalism is severely hampered by chronic communication failures—multiple reviews cite unresponsive phone lines, ignored emails, and poor customer service responses. Project completion is compromised by shipping/delivery issues and lack of follow-through on complaints. The company excels at sourcing hard-to-find parts but fails dramatically in customer support and accountability. Recent reviews (2024) show some improvement in responsiveness, but older patterns of non-communication persist.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2010-2011, 2019) document systematic failure to respond to customer inquiries via phone and email. This is a recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• BBB F-rating explicitly mentioned in 2 reviews with corroboration of complaint non-responsiveness.
• Recency concern: Most negative reviews are 10+ years old (2010-2011), but 2019 and 2024 reviews show the problem persists intermittently. Recent 2024 review shows improved communication, suggesting possible operational changes.
• Product quality issues: 2024 review reports defective faucet stem that leaked within 1 month with dismissive customer service response.
• Shipping damage: 2011 review documents inadequate packaging causing product destruction with no customer support response.
• Positive reviews cluster heavily in 2012-2017 period with glowing praise; 2019-2024 reviews show return of service problems, suggesting cyclical management or staffing issues.
• No fake review pattern detected; reviews contain specific details and vary in tone authentically.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While data is sufficient (14 reviews), the company exhibits extreme volatility in service quality across time periods, making prediction of future experience unreliable. Customers seeking hard-to-find parts may succeed, but should expect potential communication difficulties and should document all interactions carefully.