Find Nearby Plumbers In Memphis, Tennessee

Choate's receives a critically low WW Score of 42.3, driven primarily by severe and consistent complaints about pricing practices and project completion failures. While technicians demonstrate technical competence and professionalism when present (scoring 72 on experience and 58 on professionalism), the company is heavily penalized for aggressive upselling, hidden charges, quotes 40-50% above competitors, and multiple instances of incomplete work, missed follow-ups, and failure to honor service commitments. Nine reviews explicitly cite pricing deception and unfair charges, while ten reviews document incomplete projects, missed callbacks, and broken promises. The few positive reviews (4 of 18) praise individual technician quality but do not offset the systemic business practice failures documented across the majority of feedback.

• SEVERE PRICING PATTERN: 9 of 18 reviews explicitly cite overcharging, hidden fees, high-pressure upselling, or quotes significantly above market rate. This is the dominant complaint theme.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: 10 reviews document incomplete work, missed follow-ups, broken promises to contact code enforcement, non-functional repairs, and failure to honor warranty/service plan commitments.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 8 of 18 reviews are from 2024 or early 2024 (within past 12 months), indicating problems are ongoing and not historical. Most recent reviews (Sept 2024, May 2024, Jan 2024) are among the most damaging.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews (praising individual technicians) and 1-star reviews (condemning company practices). This suggests technician quality varies significantly or positive reviews may not reflect full customer experience.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: The 5-star reviews (particularly from 2022-2021) use generic praise language ('10/10', 'awesome service', 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail, while negative reviews are highly detailed and specific. However, given the volume and consistency of detailed negative feedback, fake positive reviews are suspected rather than fake negative reviews.
• SERVICE PLAN SCAM ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviews (VIP plan, Family Plan) describe service plans as worthless or scams, with customers unable to access promised emergency service or discounts.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning indicator. It is based on 18 reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific complaints across all four dimensions, particularly pricing and project completion. The HIGH confidence across all dimensions reflects substantial mention counts (8-11 per dimension), and the pattern of complaints is too consistent and detailed to be dismissed. Recent reviews confirm ongoing problems.

The reviews for this contractor span nearly two decades, with the most recent usable review from 2016, making all data significantly outdated. Pricing is the most frequently mentioned dimension and is a clear weak point — multiple reviewers across different time periods independently noted prices as high or exorbitant, and one reviewer alleged unnecessary repairs were recommended, which is a serious concern. Professionalism and project completion received mixed but generally adequate feedback, with one reviewer noting punctuality can be an issue. Experience scores were modest, with some positive remarks about competence and workmanship but nothing exceptional, and the dishonest repair recommendation allegation in 2007 weighs negatively on this dimension as well.

• Two reviews contain only the word 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from scoring.
• One review contains only 'Very well.' with no substantive detail — extremely low information value.
• All reviews are older than 8 years; the most recent substantive review is from 2016. This data is severely outdated and may not reflect current business practices.
• One review (2007) alleges the company recommended unnecessary repairs and described pricing as exorbitant — this is a significant integrity flag that warrants caution.
• The reviewer from 2007 also notes the company may have changed hands or merged, and the 2011 reviewer references a name change — it is unclear whether all reviews refer to the same business entity under consistent ownership.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present. The WW Score cannot be considered a reliable indicator of current performance.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to severely outdated reviews (none within the past 8 years), two uninformative placeholder reviews, a potential business ownership change mid-review history, and a serious allegation of dishonest repair recommendations — this score should not be used to make a hiring decision without seeking current references or recent reviews.

The review set presents a sharply divided picture of this contractor. Positive reviews highlight polite communication, fair pricing, and skilled resolution of complex plumbing problems including root-damaged pipes and slab leaks. However, two negative reviews raise serious concerns: one documents property damage from careless handling, a persistent leak after completed work, and attitude issues among staff, while another describes a three-week delay on an urgent job with no follow-through. Project completion is the most-mentioned dimension and carries the most weight, but the mix of abandoned or failed jobs alongside successful ones pulls the score down significantly. Overall confidence is limited due to the small review pool and the age of most reviews, with the most recent being from early 2021.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years; the most recent review is from February 2021. No reviews from the past 12 months were provided, so current service quality cannot be assessed.
• One review explicitly documents post-job property damage (scratched tile) and an active leak caused by incomplete or faulty work — a serious project completion and workmanship flag.
• One review documents a job that was never completed after 3 weeks, requiring the customer to find another plumber — a direct project abandonment flag.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic responses.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews, most of which are over 3 years old, making it a LOW-reliability snapshot that should not be used as a definitive assessment of current service quality.

The WW Score of 56.7 reflects significant quality inconsistency across reviews. Two older reviews (2020–2021) praise Simpson's professionalism, pricing, and technical skill with high marks. However, a recent October 2023 review documents a critical failure: incomplete work on a service call that created a leak, followed by poor warranty handling and dismissive communication from ownership. The contractor's refusal to stand behind work that required P-Trap removal during the original job, combined with rushed decision-making pressure, represents a serious project completion and professionalism failure. The small sample size and recency disparity limit confidence, but the recent negative experience carries substantial weight.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two positive reviews are 2–3 years old (2020–2021); one critical negative review is recent (October 2023). Recent performance appears significantly degraded.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing older reviews and detailed failure account in recent review suggests possible service decline or inconsistent quality control.
• WARRANTY DISPUTE: Contractor's refusal to warranty P-Trap work despite having removed it during original service call raises fairness and accountability concerns.
• OWNERSHIP COMMUNICATION: Owner's dismissive response and pressure tactics during callback suggest poor customer service recovery practices.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews limits statistical reliability; one recent negative review heavily influences overall score.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and significant recency gap between older positive reviews and a recent critical failure. The October 2023 negative experience is detailed and specific, suggesting genuine quality or accountability issues that may reflect current service standards better than older reviews.

Ray Baker's reviews paint a deeply inconsistent picture that has trended sharply negative over time. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is heavily dragged down by repeated failures: no-shows without notice, unanswered voicemails, a hung-up call, non-chalant callbacks, and outright dishonesty reported by a long-term customer. Project completion is similarly troubled, with multiple reviews describing abandoned or incomplete jobs, missed inspection appointments, and work left unfinished for weeks. Pricing data is sparse — one reviewer cited inflated freon pricing while another praised fair pricing — yielding a middling score with limited confidence. Experience scores modestly higher, as a handful of reviews do acknowledge knowledgeable and skilled technicians, but this is undermined by at least one tech refusing a job as 'too hard.' The overall trajectory of reviews from 2017 onward is strongly negative, suggesting a meaningful decline in service quality.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2018–2022) are predominantly 1-star and describe systemic failures in communication, reliability, and follow-through. Positive reviews are concentrated in 2012–2017 and may not reflect current business operations.
• LONG-TERM CUSTOMER PATTERN: Multiple reviewers explicitly state they were loyal customers for 20+ years before leaving negative reviews, suggesting a genuine and significant decline in service quality rather than isolated incidents.
• DISHONESTY FLAG: One reviewer (2017) explicitly states the company lied about code inspection scheduling, and another (2022) implies deception via ignored service agreements. This is a serious credibility concern.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least three separate reviews describe technicians or the company failing to show up for scheduled appointments without prior notice, indicating a systemic reliability problem.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE OLDER THAN 12 MONTHS: The most recent review is from May 2022, meaning no data exists from the past 12 months. Current business performance is unknown and this score may not reflect present conditions.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall confidence due to a sufficient number of reviews across most dimensions, but users should treat it with caution given that all reviews are over two years old, the business shows a clear negative trend in its most recent reviews, and multiple credible accounts of dishonesty and systemic no-shows significantly undermine trust in this contractor.

The three reviews present a sharply divided picture of this contractor. One positive review praises punctuality, professionalism, and effective problem resolution, while two negative reviews raise serious concerns. One reviewer reported that a technician failed to complete the assigned repair — specifically neglecting to glue a fitting or replace a required part — which is a significant project completion failure. Another reviewer never hired the company due to high prices and a customer service representative described as unfriendly, and also noted the technician was unfamiliar with a hydro jetter, raising skill-level concerns. The mixed signals across only three reviews make it impossible to draw reliable conclusions about consistent quality.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated with very low confidence.
• One review explicitly documents an incomplete repair (fitting not glued, part not replaced), which is a serious project completion failure.
• One review raises a technical competency concern — the technician reportedly did not know what a hydro jetter is, suggesting possible skill gaps.
• Pricing was flagged as too high in one review, and the customer service tone was described as unfriendly — both negative signals for professionalism and value.
• All reviews are from 2020–2021 and are more than 3 years old. No recent reviews are available, so current performance cannot be assessed.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 2020–2021, with no recent data available, making it a low-reliability indicator of current contractor performance.