Find Nearby Plumbers In Knoxville, Tennessee

Tip Top Plumbing exhibits severe and consistent professionalism failures, with multiple customers reporting no-shows, ignored callbacks, and unresponsiveness spanning from 2014 to 2023. Project completion is similarly compromised, with customers unable to reach the company for warranty work and follow-up service. While older reviews (2015) praise the owner's knowledge and affordability, recent reviews (2017–2023) paint a dramatically different picture of a business that has become unreliable and unresponsive. The stark contrast between glowing older reviews and damning recent ones suggests a significant deterioration in service quality over time.

• CRITICAL: Extreme recency bias detected. Reviews from 2015–2016 are uniformly positive (5-star), while reviews from 2017–2023 are uniformly negative (1–2 star). This suggests a major operational breakdown or change in business practices around 2017.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The single 5-star review dated 2014-11-13 contains only a period (.) as text and appears to be a placeholder or spam entry. This should be disregarded.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: Five separate reviews explicitly mention no-shows, failure to return calls, or complete unresponsiveness. This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• UNRESOLVED WARRANTY ISSUES: Multiple customers report inability to reach the company for callback work on jobs completed years earlier, suggesting a pattern of post-sale abandonment.
• OWNER CONDUCT: One review documents the owner hanging up on a customer's mother when confronted about a no-show. This indicates poor conflict resolution and unprofessional behavior.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and extreme temporal polarization, but the consistency of recent negative reports (2017–2023) and the severity of the complaints (no-shows, unresponsiveness, warranty abandonment) suggest the low score accurately reflects current business performance. The company appears to have experienced a significant decline in reliability and professionalism over the past 6+ years.

BK Plumbing's review record is heavily mixed, with a clear pattern of serious failures across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is undermined by multiple documented no-shows, failure to return calls, and an owner who avoided accountability after causing property damage. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: multiple reviews describe work left incomplete, incorrectly installed parts requiring a second plumber, a dishwasher installation that caused flooding with no follow-through on promised compensation, and a drain snaking job that caused collateral damage with refusal to return. Experience scores are dragged down significantly by the incorrectly installed hot water parts, the dishwasher flood, and the drain-pushing incident — all pointing to genuine technical failures. The few positive reviews (notably the Memorial Day emergency repair and the kitchen sink installation) do show the company is capable of quality work, but they are outnumbered by detailed, credible negative accounts.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 2 of 11 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023–2024). The majority of reviews are from 2015–2021, meaning current service quality is difficult to assess with confidence.
• PATTERN OF NON-COMMUNICATION: At least 4 separate reviews (2017, 2018 x2, 2021) independently describe the same failure mode — no callbacks, full voicemail, broken promises to follow up. This is a systemic operational issue, not isolated incidents.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE AND ACCOUNTABILITY FAILURE: One review (2018) documents a flood caused by improper dishwasher installation, a verbal settlement agreement of $400 that was never honored, and the owner going silent. This is a serious red flag.
• INCOMPLETE AND INCORRECT WORK: Two separate reviews (2015, 2023) describe work that was either abandoned after causing damage or completed incorrectly, requiring a second contractor to fix. The 2023 review is recent and detailed.
• POSSIBLE SCOPE CREEP: The review set includes complaints about appliance sales (washer/dryer, refrigerator, dishwasher) in addition to plumbing services. Some negative reviews may relate to a secondary business line, but the communication and follow-through failures are consistent across both.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Positive reviews contain specific names, job details, and varied language. Negative reviews are highly detailed with specific incidents, dates, and outcomes. The review set appears authentic overall.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: With only 11 total reviews spanning nearly a decade, the sample size is small and each review carries significant weight on the final score.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the review volume is low and most reviews are older than 12 months, but the negative reviews are detailed, specific, and independently corroborate recurring failure patterns that meaningfully reduce confidence in this contractor's consistency.

The review set is very small and spans nearly 5 years, making reliable conclusions difficult. The most recent review (July 2024) is a detailed 1-star account describing faulty installation of both a commode and shower fixtures, unprofessional upselling of unnecessary work, and overcharging — significantly dragging down all dimensions. The two positive reviews offer limited specifics: one notes consistent follow-through but acknowledges higher pricing, and the oldest review (2019) praises problem-solving ability. The negative review carries the most weight due to its recency, specificity, and seriousness of the complaints described.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score reliability is very low and should be treated as indicative only.
• Review dates span from 2019 to 2024; the two positive reviews are 2 and 5 years old respectively, while the sole negative review is the most recent (within past 12 months) and is given the most weight per recency rules.
• The 2019 and 2022 positive reviews are relatively generic with limited specific detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary value.
• The 1-star review alleges predatory upselling targeting a vulnerable customer — this is a serious conduct flag that warrants caution beyond what the numeric score alone conveys.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 5 years and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional sources before making a hiring decision.

Dean Plumbing, Heating & Air demonstrates severe and consistent performance failures across all dimensions. The company exhibits chronic professionalism issues including rude staff, poor communication, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and refusal to provide basic information. Pricing practices are predatory, with multiple instances of massive overbilling, pressure sales tactics, unnecessary equipment recommendations, and refusal to honor refunds or warranties. Project completion is severely compromised by abandoned work, missed appointments, incomplete diagnostics, and failure to deliver promised services. While some technicians demonstrate technical competence, systemic business failures and dishonest practices overwhelm any individual skill. The business appears to have ceased operations in Knoxville as of October 2021.

• CRITICAL: Business closure detected - Owner abandoned Knoxville operation in October 2021, releasing all employees and voiding all warranties
• PATTERN OF FRAUD: Multiple reviews document double-charging, pressure sales, false diagnostic claims, and refusal to honor warranties
• POLICE INVOLVEMENT: Review from 2020-11-30 references KPD officer recommendation to warn public and call 911 if company returns; aggressive behavior and refusal to identify staff
• FAKE REVIEW DETECTED: Two 5-star reviews (2018-05-14 and 2017-06-23) use suspiciously generic praise with no specific details and appear inconsistent with overwhelming negative evidence; 2018-05-14 review uses identical language patterns ('Great family owned company,' 'fairest prices,' 'number one priority') typical of fake reviews
• RECENCY BIAS MITIGATED: Most reviews are 2016-2021; company appears defunct as of Oct 2021, making current reliability assessment moot
• PATTERN OF DECEPTION: Multiple instances of technicians providing false diagnoses, misrepresenting warranty coverage, and refusing refunds for failed service calls

This WW Score should be treated as a historical record only—the company ceased operations in October 2021. The HIGH confidence reflects substantial and consistent negative evidence across 16 of 18 reviews, but the score is not actionable for future customer decisions as the business no longer operates.

The most detailed and recent usable review (2017) describes a deeply negative experience involving failed diagnostics, an inflated repair estimate, aggressive debt collection behavior, and an unannounced home visit — all of which severely drag down professionalism and project completion scores. Two older reviews (2011) are notably positive, citing competitive pricing and satisfactory workmanship, which provide some upward balance on pricing and experience. However, the 2012 review about a plumber using the customer's own tools and lacking change, and the separate complaint about a disrespectful owner attitude, further reinforce professionalism concerns. The overall picture is one of inconsistent quality and serious professionalism red flags, particularly in more recent years.

• Two reviews ('unknown' and '.') contain no usable text and were excluded from scoring.
• The 2012 Valentine's Day review is ambiguous — it may refer to a different plumber sourced via Angie's List rather than Borders Plumbing directly; scored conservatively.
• Most positive reviews are from 2011, which are over 10 years old and carry significantly reduced weight under recency rules.
• The sole review from within the past 5 years (2017) is strongly negative, suggesting possible quality decline over time.
• Review volume is very low (5 usable reviews), making all scores low-confidence by nature despite some dimensions reaching the HIGH confidence threshold by mention count.

This WW Score should be treated with caution — it is based on only 5 usable reviews spanning a wide date range, with the most recent substantive review being strongly negative and the positive reviews being a decade or more old.

The review set is very small (3 reviews) and spans nearly a decade, making reliable conclusions difficult. Two of the three reviews are strongly negative, citing unexplained charges, poor communication, and overpriced estimates that a customer resolved themselves for $30. The single positive review praises punctuality and speed but lacks specific detail, which limits its weight. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with two reviewers explicitly calling out excessive or unexplained costs. The one positive review prevents a complete collapse of the professionalism and project completion scores, but the overall picture is concerning.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with significant caution.
• Reviews span from 2013 to 2020 — the most recent review is over 4 years old; no data exists for recent performance.
• The single 5-star review (2018) is generic in nature with no specific details about pricing, technician names, or job scope — possible padding review, confidence reduced.
• Two of three reviews are 1-star with specific, credible complaints about pricing transparency and professionalism, which significantly outweighs the single vague positive review.
• Unexplained $8.00 material charge and a $312.00 bill for basic fixture installs flagged as a potential transparency issue.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are negative and all of which are more than 4 years old, making it a LOW-reliability signal that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.