Find Nearby Plumbers In Memphis, Tennessee

This is a franchise brand with hundreds of locations, and the review pool reflects wildly inconsistent quality across different operators and technicians. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a large volume of reviews describing rude, condescending, or outright hostile technicians and office staff, though many positive reviews praise specific named technicians as courteous and professional. Pricing is the most damaging dimension: an enormous number of reviews describe a bait-and-switch pattern where a low advertised rate (often $49) is used to gain entry, followed by aggressive upselling to hydro-jetting, camera inspections, and pipe replacement at prices reviewers consistently describe as two to ten times market rate. Project completion is mixed — many jobs are completed satisfactorily and quickly, but a significant minority of reviews describe incomplete work, warranty refusals, no-shows, and jobs that required a second company to actually fix the problem. Experience scores reflect genuine skill from certain technicians but are undermined by repeated accounts of misdiagnosis, fabricated damage, and work that failed within days or weeks.

• STRONG BAIT-AND-SWITCH PATTERN DETECTED: Dozens of independent reviews across multiple years and locations describe an identical pattern — low advertised price ($49 drain special) used to gain entry, followed by claims the snake cannot work and escalating upsells to hydro-jetting ($500-$1200), camera inspection, and full pipe replacement ($3,000-$15,000+). This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A notable cluster of short, generic 5-star reviews with no detail (e.g., 'Good experience', 'Great service!', 'You guys great!', blank text with 5 stars) appear throughout the dataset, many dated in close proximity. These lack specificity and are consistent with review padding. Confidence in the positive score pool is reduced accordingly.
• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Multiple reviews appear to be exact duplicates submitted on the same or adjacent dates (e.g., identical text for 'Many other contractors proposed to snake the sewer line', 'Very Pleased with results', 'Did a great job excellent work', 'Prompt, polite, professional', etc.). This inflates the apparent review count and may indicate manipulation.
• MULTI-LOCATION FRANCHISE ISSUE: Reviews clearly reference dozens of different geographic locations (Sacramento, Orange County, Reno, Framingham MA, Spartanburg SC, Baton Rouge, etc.) and different named technicians. This is not a single contractor — it is a franchise brand. Scores reflect the aggregate brand, not any single operator. Individual location quality varies enormously.
• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews allege criminal-level conduct including: charging for work not performed, fabricating damage on camera footage, partnering with restoration companies (Bolmer Restoration named repeatedly) to generate fraudulent insurance claims, opening credit cards in customers' names, placing mechanics liens on homes, and targeting elderly and vulnerable customers. One review references a revoked NV business license and cancelled contractor license.
• WARRANTY REFUSAL PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe the company refusing to honor stated warranties when problems recurred within the warranty period, often citing new reasons to charge again.
• NO-SHOW AND SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: A significant number of reviews describe confirmed appointments where technicians never arrived and calls were not returned, sometimes leaving customers without water or sewage service for days.
• RECENCY NOTE: The review dataset spans from approximately 2010 to June 2025. Reviews from the past 12 months (mid-2024 to mid-2025) show a continued mix of strong positives for specific named technicians and serious negatives for pricing and scam-like upselling, suggesting the pattern has not materially changed. More recent reviews were weighted slightly higher in scoring.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be treated with MODERATE-TO-LOW trust as a hiring signal: while it accurately reflects the deeply polarized nature of this franchise brand, the score is based on a mixed pool that includes suspected fake positive reviews, duplicate submissions, and reviews from dozens of geographically distinct franchise locations — meaning the score does not reliably predict the quality of any single local operator, and the systemic pricing and upselling complaints documented across hundreds of independent reviews represent a material risk that any prospective customer should investigate carefully before engaging this company.

The reviews present a deeply mixed picture of Multi Task Repair. While several customers praised Jonathan's responsiveness, punctuality, and technical knowledge, two significant negative reviews describe serious failures in professionalism — including a no-show with no communication and a case where a refrigerator went unrepaired for nearly two months after warranty approval. Pricing is a notable concern, with one reviewer reporting a $200+ overcharge beyond the quoted price, which directly undermines trust in transparent billing. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, as two out of five relevant reviews describe work that was either never started or abandoned without follow-through. The positive reviews do demonstrate genuine skill and responsiveness when Jonathan does show up, but the pattern of unreliability significantly drags down the overall score.

• Two reviews describe serious project abandonment: one no-show with no call, and one refrigerator left unrepaired for nearly two months after warranty approval — these are critical red flags for project completion reliability.
• One reviewer reported being charged $200+ over the original quote with no apparent explanation, indicating a potential hidden charges or transparency issue.
• The negative reviews are highly specific and detailed, lending them strong credibility. The positive reviews, while also specific, should be weighed against the documented failures.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.
• Review dates span from January 2023 to July 2024. The two most recent reviews (July 2024) are split — one strongly positive and one strongly negative — indicating inconsistency persists into the most recent period.

This WW Score is based on only 6 reviews, which limits statistical reliability, but the reviews contain sufficient specific detail across all four dimensions to produce a meaningful and conservative assessment; the score should be treated as a cautionary signal rather than a definitive verdict.

Tacker Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews. Professionalism is severely compromised by multiple reports of poor communication, no-shows, and failure to return calls within promised timeframes, though some customers praised politeness. Project completion is mixed—some jobs were completed successfully and on time, but at least one customer paid for a service that failed to resolve the problem. Pricing appears unfavorable compared to competitors. Workmanship quality is praised in successful jobs but undermined by the failed drain service. The company's retaliatory behavior toward negative reviews raises additional concerns about professionalism.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2021–2023; oldest positive reviews are from 2012–2013, suggesting potential quality decline over time or survivorship bias in older reviews.
• RETALIATION ALLEGATION: Review from 2023-03-03 explicitly states the company refused service because customer left a 1-star review, indicating unprofessional conduct and potential vindictiveness.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2023-03-03, 2021-07-26) cite poor communication and failure to honor callback promises, suggesting systemic issue rather than isolated incident.
• SERVICE FAILURE: Review from 2020-07-11 documents paid service that failed to resolve the problem; customer had to resolve it themselves.
• COMPETITOR COMPARISON: Review from 2019-08-25 explicitly compares Tacker unfavorably to Foster Plumbing on both price and reliability.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (9 reviews) and significant temporal spread (2012–2024), but the pattern of communication failures and service issues in recent years (2020–2023) is consistent enough across independent reviews to suggest genuine operational problems rather than isolated complaints.

Traditional Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews. While some customers praise quality workmanship and professional service, multiple reviews document serious professionalism failures including appointment cancellations without proper communication, broken commitments, and disorganized internal operations. Pricing is a major weakness, with customers reporting quotes 80% above market rates and accusations of price gouging. Project completion issues are evident in one detailed account of a cancelled callback appointment. The company demonstrates technical competence in execution but is undermined by poor business practices, communication breakdowns, and aggressive pricing strategies.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple independent reviews (2019, 2020, 2022) consistently report severe overpricing—one customer documented a quote of $2,200 that another licensed plumber completed for $417 (80% markup). This is not isolated complaint.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: Detailed 2022 review documents pattern of unprofessional behavior: employee departure mid-project, missed final receipt delivery, appointment cancellation without proper notice or apology, and apparent location-based discrimination (38118 zip code).
• INTERNAL OPERATIONS CONCERN: Multiple reviews reference disorganized internal structure, unclear management hierarchy, and poor communication between office and field staff.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are from 2019-2022 (3-4 years old). Only 2 positive reviews from 2022 lack specific detail and use generic praise language ('white glove service,' 'goes above and beyond') without concrete examples, raising minor authenticity concerns.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark divide between 5-star reviews (generic, vague) and 1-2 star reviews (highly detailed, specific incidents). This suggests either highly variable service quality or potential selection bias in review submission.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (6 reviews) and significant recency gaps, but the consistency of pricing complaints across multiple independent reviews and the detailed documentation of professionalism failures suggest real operational issues. The WW Score of 52.8 reflects a company with technical capability but serious business practice and pricing integrity problems.

Hughes Brothers Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2015–2019. While early positive reviews praise competitive pricing, timeliness, and efficiency, three recent negative reviews (2015–2019) reveal serious concerns: incomplete work (unplugged sump pump leading to basement flooding), poor follow-through on warranty replacements (wrong parts ordered twice over six weeks), rude communication, and refusal to provide insurance information. Project completion and professionalism scores are heavily dragged down by documented failures to finish work properly and hostile customer interactions. Pricing remains a relative strength based on explicit mentions of reasonable rates.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 5–9 years old (2015–2019). Only one review from 2019; no recent data from past 12 months limits reliability of current performance assessment.
• PATTERN OF INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews document unfinished or improperly completed projects (sump pump not plugged in, wrong parts ordered twice, cracked trim not replaced for 6+ weeks). This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• PROFESSIONALISM RED FLAG: One review explicitly documents rude behavior and refusal to provide insurance information when requested, followed by hanging up on customer. This is a serious liability and communication failure.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE: Ordering wrong parts twice without verification suggests lack of attention to detail and poor project management.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data (no reviews in past 5+ years) and small sample size (n=5), but the pattern of serious project completion failures and professionalism issues in multiple reviews suggests genuine operational problems that warrant skepticism about current service quality.

Patton Plumbing presents a deeply divided review profile. Older positive reviews (2018–2020) describe punctual, skilled, and personable service with good technical knowledge, while more recent reviews (2021–2023) reveal serious concerns about predatory pricing, abandoned work, and failure to follow through on commitments. Pricing is the most consistently criticized dimension, with multiple reviewers — including elderly and disabled customers — alleging gross overcharging, with quotes coming in at roughly double competitor estimates. Project completion is significantly dragged down by a 2021 incident where a plumber left a customer's bathroom with an active water leak for three days without returning to fix it. Professionalism scores are mixed: the owner is praised in older reviews for personal engagement but criticized in recent reviews for defending poor employee behavior and contacting customers after being explicitly asked not to.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2021–2023) are predominantly negative (4 out of 5), suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Older positive reviews (2018–2020) should be weighted less heavily.
• PREDATORY PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers explicitly allege targeting of elderly and disabled customers with inflated quotes. One reviewer documented a $15,000 vs $35,000 quote discrepancy for the same boiler replacement job. Another documented an $80 part sold for $750.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: One review explicitly describes a plumber leaving an active water leak unrepaired for 3 days with no callback, which is a serious project completion failure.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERN: The owner is described in a 2023 review as continuing to contact an elderly customer directly after being explicitly asked to deal only with the customer's adult child, and in a 2021 review as defending poor employee behavior without apology.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Positive and negative reviews contain specific details, named individuals, and varied language. No strong indicators of fabricated reviews were found, though the stark positive/negative split across time periods is noted.

This WW Score is based on 10 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries MODERATE overall reliability; while mention counts are sufficient for HIGH confidence per dimension, the sharp quality decline visible in post-2021 reviews means the score likely overstates current service quality, and prospective customers should weight the 2021–2023 reviews most heavily.