Find Nearby Plumbers In Memphis, Tennessee

K&D Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship, with multiple reviews praising skill level and problem-solving ability. Pricing is consistently described as fair and competitive. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by serious communication failures and follow-through issues documented in multiple reviews, including non-responsiveness to customer calls, failure to return messages, and one case of disputed billing and refusal to honor a refund commitment. Project completion is generally solid for completed jobs, though one major project experienced significant delays due to poor communication and permit coordination failures. The company shows inconsistency: excellent execution on straightforward jobs versus poor management on complex projects requiring coordination.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews (2023 and 2011) document severe communication failures and customer service issues. The 2011 review details alleged refusal to refund $95 in overcharges, representing potential ethical concerns.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2011-2016 (8-13 years old). The most recent negative review is from 2023, suggesting ongoing communication problems despite historical positive feedback.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between detailed positive reviews (praising communication, follow-up, professionalism) and detailed negative reviews (documenting communication failures, non-responsiveness, broken promises). This suggests performance varies significantly by project or customer.
• SUSPICIOUS REVIEWS: Review dated 2016-03-03 contains only a period (.) and review dated 2014-10-23 contains only 'unknown' — these appear to be placeholder or incomplete entries and reduce data reliability.
• COMMUNICATION RED FLAG: Three separate reviews explicitly mention communication issues (2023 review: 4 unanswered calls; 2011 review: 'horrible and virtually nonexistent' communication; contrasted against positive reviews praising responsiveness). This is a material inconsistency.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While technical competence appears genuinely strong (HIGH confidence), the professionalism dimension is severely compromised by documented communication failures and customer service issues, particularly in the most recent review (2023) and a detailed 2011 complaint. The age of most positive reviews (8-13 years) raises questions about whether historical strengths still apply. Potential customers should prioritize direct communication testing and reference checks before hiring.

Bluff City Plumbing has a generally positive track record across most dimensions, with many reviewers praising punctuality, courtesy, and reliable follow-through on jobs. However, scores are meaningfully pulled down by several negative reviews — including one describing a failed inspection after pool heater installation, one citing rude and unprofessional behavior with a refusal to return and fix issues, and a 2021 review describing a full renovation where everything leaked. Pricing feedback is mixed: most found rates reasonable, but at least one customer was surprised by the bill. The volume of older reviews (the majority are from 2006–2015) significantly limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• 2 reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring.
• A large cluster of reviews (10 reviews) share the exact same date of 2007-02-14, which is highly unusual and may suggest batch-submitted or solicited reviews. These were included but treated with reduced individual weight.
• The most recent substantive negative review (2021) describes a serious workmanship failure — new fixtures, pipes, and valves all leaking after installation — which is a significant red flag given it is the most recent data point.
• The majority of reviews are more than 8 years old. Only 1 review is from the past 5 years. This severely limits the reliability of the score as a reflection of current service quality.
• One review explicitly states the contractor failed inspection and describes dishonest and unprofessional behavior, and another describes refusal to return to fix problems — both are serious project completion and professionalism failures.

This WW Score should be treated with caution: while the volume of reviews is adequate, the overwhelming majority are over 8 years old, a suspicious cluster shares an identical date suggesting possible solicited submissions, and the most recent review is a serious negative — together these factors significantly reduce confidence that this score reflects the contractor's current quality.

A&K Plumbing earns generally positive marks for professionalism, with multiple reviewers praising friendliness, politeness, responsiveness, and same-day or early arrivals across many years of reviews. However, pricing is a notable weak point — two reviews explicitly call out high service fees ($170 service call charge) and expensive labor ($135/hour), and one reviewer paid $350 for work that was never completed, dragging the pricing score down significantly. Project completion is mixed: most jobs were finished successfully and on time, but the 2022 sewer line incident — where three technicians failed to clear a blockage, could not provide photos as promised, and still charged full price — is a serious completion failure that cannot be ignored. Experience scores moderately well, with reviewers noting quality workmanship, code inspection passes, and knowledgeable explanations, though the failed sewer job raises questions about technical consistency.

• The majority of reviews (9 of 13) are from 2019 or earlier, with only 3 reviews from the past 12 months (2022–2024). Recent performance data is limited and should be weighted more heavily — the two most negative reviews are both from 2022.
• The 2022 sewer line review (1-star) describes a serious failure: inability to complete the job, non-functional camera equipment, no deliverables provided, and full payment still demanded. This is a significant project completion and professionalism concern.
• The 2022 2-star review flags a $170 service fee charged even when no work is performed, which is a pricing transparency concern.
• No strong fake review patterns detected, though several older 5-star reviews are brief and lack specific detail. These were scored conservatively but not flagged as fabricated.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the volume of reviews is low, most data is over 4 years old, and two recent negative reviews reveal meaningful concerns about pricing transparency and project completion that meaningfully offset the otherwise positive historical record.

ABC's strongest signals come from long-term customers who praise owner Jason's honesty, thoroughness, and willingness to educate clients — qualities that lift the professionalism and experience scores meaningfully. However, a detailed 1-star review describes serious failures in communication, no-shows, and an attempt to charge well above the agreed insurance deductible, which materially drags down professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is a genuine mixed signal: two reviewers explicitly praised fair or money-saving pricing, while two others cited overcharging — one for a pipe repair where three workers were billed but only one worked, and one for the fraudulent overcharge complaint. Experience scores moderately well based on reviewers who noted Jason caught problems prior contractors had missed and completed thorough system checks, but the sample is small. Overall, the score reflects a contractor with a loyal base and real strengths, offset by documented reliability and pricing concerns that cannot be ignored.

• One review (2018-10-03) describes a pattern of broken promises, no-shows, and an alleged attempt to charge $300 when the insurance deductible was $125 — this is a serious integrity flag and was weighted heavily in pricing and project completion scoring.
• Three of the five reviews are from 2018 or earlier, and one is from 2012. Only one review is from within the past 3 years (2021). Recency is low; the score may not reflect current business performance.
• The two most positive reviews (2018 and 2021) contain warm but somewhat generic praise ('goes above and beyond,' 'impeccable service,' 'kindness and integrity') with limited operational specifics. These were treated as lower-confidence positive signals.
• Sample size is only 5 reviews, which limits statistical reliability across all dimensions. All confidence levels are capped at MODERATE as a result.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability at best — the small review pool (5 reviews), wide date range spanning nearly a decade, and directly contradictory evidence on pricing and reliability mean the score should be treated as a directional indicator only, not a definitive assessment.

Mike Whiteley receives consistently strong praise across all four dimensions from the reviews available. Professionalism is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting punctuality, attentiveness, and respectful communication. Experience is the standout dimension, with reviewers explicitly calling him a 'plumbing genius,' highlighting his technical knowledge and problem-solving ability in older homes. Project completion is positively noted, with jobs described as finished correctly and to a high standard, though limited detail is provided on timelines or callbacks. Pricing receives a slightly more cautious score, as one reviewer explicitly noted he is 'not inexpensive,' which tempers an otherwise positive value assessment.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Two of the four reviews are more than 5 years old (2015 and 2018), and only one review is from the past 12 months (2024). Recency is limited.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings. While the review content is specific and varied enough to suggest authenticity, the absence of any critical feedback warrants mild caution.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and distinct scenarios, suggesting genuine submissions.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews, two of which are over 5 years old, so it should be considered a preliminary indicator rather than a fully reliable assessment — more recent and numerous reviews would significantly improve confidence.

All three reviews speak positively to professionalism, highlighting courteous staff, same-day responsiveness, and clear communication — including one emergency call where the team rearranged their schedule. Project completion is consistently praised, with problems resolved promptly and completely across all reviews. Pricing is only mentioned once, described as 'reasonable,' which limits confidence in that dimension. Technical experience is referenced in two reviews, noting knowledgeable technicians who diagnosed issues accurately and went beyond the basic job scope. However, all reviews are older than one year — the most recent being from 2019 — which meaningfully reduces the reliability of this score for current service quality.

• All three reviews are dated between 2013 and 2019 — none are within the past 12 months. Scores may not reflect current service quality.
• Only 3 reviews total — this is the minimum threshold for a WW Score calculation. Results should be treated as preliminary and low-confidence.
• No negative feedback present across any review, but the small sample size makes this unremarkable rather than a strong positive signal.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and different rating levels (one 4-star), suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all of which are more than 5 years old, making it a low-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a strong indicator of current contractor performance.