Find Nearby Plumbers In Murfreesboro, Tennessee

The review set is extremely small (3 reviews) and spans nearly 5 years, making any score highly unreliable. The most recent review (September 2024) is a detailed, credible 1-star account describing serious failures: incomplete work, property damage, dishonesty, and zero accountability — this heavily drags down all dimensions. The two positive reviews are older (2019 and 2021) and while they mention punctuality, communication, expertise, and competitive pricing, they lack the specificity and recency needed to offset the severe negative account. Professionalism and project completion scores are particularly low due to the explicit misconduct described in the 2024 review. Pricing receives a limited-confidence moderate score based on a single older mention.

• VERY SMALL SAMPLE: Only 3 reviews total — WW Score cannot be considered reliable. Treat all scores as directional only.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The two positive reviews are from 2019 and 2021, both older than 1 year. The only recent review (2024) is a severe 1-star complaint. Recent performance appears to have declined significantly.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The 1-star reviewer explicitly states they believe positive reviews are from friends or acquaintances. While this cannot be confirmed, the two positive reviews are generic in praise and lack granular job-specific detail, which warrants caution.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAGGED: The 2024 review describes property damage (flooded floor requiring replacement), dishonesty to a tenant, abandoned work (toilet left outside), and failure to complete the core job (line re-clogged within 24 hours). These are not minor complaints.
• SCORE RELIABILITY: With only 3 reviews and a stark positive/negative split across different time periods, this WW Score should be treated with very low confidence.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 5 years and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality — the single recent review describes serious failures, and the positive reviews are outdated and lack specificity.

This contractor's profile is dominated by serious, detailed negative reviews describing a consistent pattern of taking deposits and failing to complete or even begin work, blocking clients, and refusing refunds. Four of six reviews describe abandoned jobs, unresponsive communication, and financial disputes — including a PayPal claim and a threatened small claims lawsuit. The two positive reviews mention good workmanship and fair pricing but are both from 2020 and are outweighed heavily by the volume and severity of the negative accounts. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating work was never finished despite deposits being cashed. Professionalism scores are similarly devastated by reports of blocked phone numbers, deceptive behavior, and a taken-down business page.

• SERIOUS PATTERN WARNING: Four reviews describe the same core behavior — accepting deposits or payment and failing to complete work. This is a consistent, credible pattern of misconduct, not isolated incidents.
• FINANCIAL DISPUTE FLAG: At least two reviewers report unresolved financial disputes (PayPal claim filed, small claims court threatened), indicating potential fraudulent business practices.
• COMMUNICATION EVASION FLAG: Multiple reviewers report being blocked, unable to reach the contractor, or finding his Facebook business page taken down — suggesting deliberate avoidance of accountability.
• RECENCY NOTE: All four negative reviews are from 2020–2021. The two positive reviews are from early 2020, predating the negative reviews. The trajectory of this contractor's reputation appears to have declined significantly over time.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 6 total reviews exist. While the pattern is clear, the small sample size limits statistical confidence in the exact numeric scores.
• NO FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The positive reviews are brief but contain specific details (garage outlets, oil stain on wall) and do not appear fabricated. The negative reviews are highly detailed and credible.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small review count (6), but the directional finding — that this contractor poses a significant risk of non-completion and financial loss — is supported by a consistent, detailed, and credible pattern across four independent negative reviews.

This contractor has a deeply mixed and concerning review profile across only 3 reviews. The single positive review (2017) describes a responsive, skilled technician who diagnosed and resolved a furnace issue effectively. However, the two negative reviews raise serious red flags: one reviewer alleges the company lacks valid licensing or credentials, and another describes unprofessional phone staff, frequent part failures on newly installed units, and overcharging for low-quality equipment. The negative reviews collectively undermine confidence in professionalism, pricing fairness, workmanship quality, and job completion reliability. With only 3 reviews spanning multiple years, no reliable trend can be established.

• LICENSING CONCERN: One reviewer explicitly states they could find no active license or credentials on record for this company in Murfreesboro, TN. This is a serious red flag and should be independently verified before hiring.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: One reviewer reports the company advertises 24/7 service but failed to return calls or emails, suggesting misleading marketing.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERN: A reviewer reports that two brand-new units installed by this company required frequent part replacements, suggesting poor equipment quality or improper installation.
• PRICING CONCERN: The company is described as charging high prices for cheap-brand equipment, raising transparency and value-for-money concerns.
• RECENCY WARNING: All three reviews are from 2015–2017, making them more than 7 years old. No recent reviews are available, so current performance cannot be assessed.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 3 reviews exist. This is the minimum threshold for calculating a WW Score, and results should be treated with significant caution.
• STAFF CONDUCT: One reviewer describes the phone representative as unprofessional, indicating potential systemic issues beyond individual technician performance.

This WW Score carries very low reliability due to only 3 reviews, all of which are over 7 years old, combined with serious unresolved allegations about licensing, workmanship quality, and deceptive service advertising.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe serious, recurring failures across every dimension. Project completion is the most critically damaged dimension: multiple reviewers explicitly describe paid work left incomplete, work that failed official inspections, installations done incorrectly (gas lines, electrical outlets, HVAC, hot water heater), and a contractor who repeatedly stopped responding after being paid. Professionalism scores are near-zero due to consistent patterns of no-shows, blocked phone numbers, unanswered calls and texts, and one allegation of theft. Experience scores are severely penalized by documented substandard workmanship including code violations confirmed by a Tennessee State Electrical Inspector, improperly tightened wiring, incorrect gas pressure regulator installation, and a gas water heater that exploded. The three positive reviews provide minimal counterweight given the volume, severity, and specificity of the negative accounts, and those positive reviews raise authenticity concerns given their vague, generic language compared to the highly detailed negative reviews.

• SAFETY ALERT: Multiple reviews describe dangerous outcomes including a gas water heater explosion and a pipeline not up to code. This contractor may pose a direct safety risk to customers.
• SUSPECTED FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: The three 5-star reviews are extremely brief, generic, and lack specific detail. Phrases like 'gets the job done' and 'great job' with no elaboration stand in stark contrast to the highly detailed negative reviews. These positive reviews may not be authentic.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: At least 5 independent reviewers describe the contractor blocking calls, ignoring texts, or going completely silent after receiving payment. This is a strong and consistent pattern of post-payment abandonment.
• CODE VIOLATIONS CONFIRMED: One review explicitly states a Tennessee State Electrical Inspector failed the work David Bryant claimed was complete and up to code, confirming substandard and potentially illegal workmanship.
• FINANCIAL HARM TO CUSTOMERS: Multiple customers report paying in full (one paid $3,200 cash) and then being forced to hire a second contractor to redo or complete the work, resulting in double payment for the same job.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One reviewer, a disabled veteran, explicitly alleges that David Bryant stole $100 cash from their home during the job.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most recent reviews (October 2024) are both 1-star and describe dangerous outcomes, indicating the problematic behavior has continued into the most recent period and has not improved.

This WW Score is based on 9 reviews with strong usable data across all four dimensions and HIGH confidence on three of four dimensions; the score of approximately 22 should be treated as a reliable and conservative reflection of documented contractor performance, and the volume, specificity, and consistency of serious negative experiences make this one of the least trustworthy contractor profiles this engine can produce.

The review set is small (4 reviews) and heavily skewed negative, with three 1-star reviews raising serious concerns about pricing practices, customer loyalty, and responsiveness. Two reviewers explicitly allege predatory or deceptive pricing targeting vulnerable customers, which severely depresses the pricing and professionalism scores. One review describes a complete failure of project completion in an emergency scenario despite a long-term customer relationship. The single positive review (from 2020) praises professionalism and workmanship from specific technicians, but it is the oldest review in the set and is outweighed by the more recent negative feedback.

• PRICING CONCERN: Two independent reviewers allege predatory or deceptive pricing practices, including one claim of targeting elderly customers with unnecessary services. This is a serious red flag.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: One long-term customer reported being unable to get emergency service for a burst pipe for 2-3 days, suggesting poor prioritization of existing customers in urgent situations.
• RECENCY BIAS: The only positive review is dated October 2020, making it over 3 years old relative to the most recent reviews. All three negative reviews are from 2022, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 4 reviews total. Scores are based on very limited data and should be treated with caution. The WW Score is directionally informative but not statistically reliable.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews appear genuine — they contain specific details, named technicians, dates, and distinct writing styles. No artificial inflation suspected.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with a strong recency skew toward negative feedback, making it directionally concerning but statistically unreliable — interpret with caution and seek additional data points before drawing firm conclusions.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe a pattern of serious misconduct including no-call no-shows, taking upfront payments and abandoning jobs, blocking customers after receiving money, and verbal abuse. Professionalism scores near zero due to repeated documented instances of rudeness, cursing at customers, and complete failure to communicate. Project completion is catastrophically low, with numerous reviewers explicitly stating work was never finished or never started after payment was collected. Pricing scores reflect a predatory pattern of demanding upfront deposits and then disappearing, which goes beyond mere unfair pricing into alleged fraud. The only positive reviews are sparse, very old (2011, 2013, and one from 2020), and lack the specificity of the overwhelmingly negative reviews, raising authenticity concerns.

• FRAUD PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple independent reviewers across several years describe an identical scheme — Tim Fannon collects upfront deposits or full payment, then abandons the job, blocks phone numbers, and refuses refunds. This is a documented recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers reference court records, BBB complaints, Ohio Attorney General filings, and police involvement. One reviewer mentions searching Franklin County Municipal Court records and finding an 'extensive career in theft.'
• POSSIBLE FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: The three positive reviews (5-star from 2011, 5-star from 2013, and 4-star from 2020) are extremely sparse in detail compared to the highly specific negative reviews. The 2011 review ('They were very good.') contains no usable information. The 2020 positive review references 'Right Way Plumbing' rather than 'Riteway Plumbing' and may refer to a different company entirely.
• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review is from March 2025 and is a blank 1-star rating. The bulk of negative reviews span 2020–2022. All positive reviews are from 2020 or earlier, with two being over 10 years old.
• UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly states Tim Fannon claimed to be licensed but could not be found in the state license database, and failed to have a water heater installation inspected as required.
• BLANK REVIEW: One review dated 2025-03-11 contains no text, only a 1-star rating. It was counted in total reviews but excluded from dimension scoring due to no usable data.

This WW Score is based on 16 reviews with usable data and carries HIGH confidence in its low result — the volume, specificity, consistency, and multi-year span of negative reviews paint a clear and credible picture of a contractor with serious integrity and reliability problems.