Find Nearby Plumbers In Murfreesboro, Tennessee

All three reviews are severely negative, dating from 2014–2017. Professionalism failures include no-shows without notice, dishonesty about warranty coverage, rude behavior, poor communication, and lack of follow-up. Project completion is critically compromised: wrong bathroom worked on, incomplete work requiring multiple visits, forgotten parts, and unresolved billing disputes. Pricing concerns center on alleged misrepresentation of warranty coverage and unexpected labor charges. Technical competence is questioned due to misdiagnosis and failure to complete work correctly on first visit. The contractor demonstrates systematic failures across all dimensions.

• All three reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive mentions—extreme uniformity suggests genuine pattern of poor service rather than fake reviews
• Reviews span 2014–2017 (6–9 years old); no recent reviews available to assess whether service has improved
• Multiple reviews allege dishonesty and deception regarding warranty claims and billing—suggests potential systemic integrity issues
• Insufficient review volume (n=3) limits statistical reliability; however, consistency of complaints across independent reviews strengthens confidence in the negative pattern

This score should be treated with caution due to very small sample size (n=3), but the consistency and severity of complaints across all three independent reviews, combined with specific details and corroborating failures across multiple dimensions, suggests a genuine pattern of poor service quality. However, the age of all reviews (6–9 years old) means current service quality is unknown.

With only two reviews, the data is extremely limited, but the content of those reviews is deeply concerning. The most recent review (2024) describes what appears to be outright fraud: a fabricated diagnosis, a $1,750 charge for a repair that a second plumber found no evidence of, a foreign object left in the drain pipe, and a complete refusal to communicate or refund. The older positive review (2020) describes a straightforward, fairly priced same-day repair with good customer service, but it is over four years old and cannot offset the severity of the recent allegation. The pattern of refusing to provide promised video evidence and abandoning communication after payment is a serious red flag for all four dimensions.

• SERIOUS FRAUD ALLEGATION: The 2024 review describes a potentially fraudulent repair — contractor allegedly fabricated a crack diagnosis, charged $1,750 for an epoxy coating that a second licensed plumber found no evidence of, and left a foreign object (garden hose segment) inside the drain pipe.
• REFUSAL TO COMMUNICATE: Contractor reportedly will not respond to the customer or issue a refund after the disputed work, which is a major professionalism and integrity red flag.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The only positive review is from November 2020 — over 4 years old. The most recent review is the severe negative one from June 2024. Recent performance appears to have deteriorated significantly.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews total. A reliable WW Score cannot be calculated. All dimension scores should be treated as highly provisional.
• SECOND OPINION EVIDENCE: The fraud allegation is supported by a third-party video inspection from a separate plumbing company, which adds credibility to the negative review and warrants serious weight.

This score is not statistically reliable due to the critically low review count of 2, but the qualitative content — particularly the detailed, evidence-backed fraud allegation from 2024 — strongly warrants extreme caution before hiring this contractor.

Both reviews speak positively about Real Deal Plumbing's honesty, responsiveness, and fair pricing, including senior and veteran discounts. Professionalism is supported by on-time arrival and proactive communication about a scheduling delay, which is a good sign but also a minor mark against perfect execution. Project completion is noted as successful in both cases, though one job was described as a simple fix, limiting insight into complex work. Experience is only directly referenced in one review, keeping that dimension at low confidence. Overall, the picture is positive but the extremely small sample size prevents a reliable WW Score from being calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Both reviews are 5-star with generally positive but somewhat generic language; insufficient volume to detect fake review patterns, but caution is warranted.
• One review is from 2022 and one from 2023; neither is within the past 12 months relative to a 2024 evaluation date, so recency weighting is reduced.
• The scheduling delay noted in Review 1 (technicians unable to arrive same day as promised) is a minor professionalism flag and was factored into the professionalism score conservatively.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, which is below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score; all dimension scores should be treated as preliminary indicators only and not as a definitive assessment of contractor quality.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. While both reviews are positive and mention job completion and affordability, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. Review 1 (2024) lacks specificity and shows unusual spacing patterns. Review 2 (2019) is over 5 years old. No explicit mentions of professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, attitude). A minimum of 3 reviews is required for score calculation.

• Insufficient review count (n=2) — cannot reliably calculate WW Score
• Review 1 (2024-06-12) contains unusual spacing and repetitive phrasing ('Great guys an Great job') suggesting possible quality issues or automated input
• Review 2 (2019-02-04) is over 5 years old and does not reflect current service quality
• No explicit professionalism data (punctuality, communication, responsiveness) mentioned in either review
• Generic praise without specific technical details limits confidence in experience assessment

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum 3 required) and recency concerns (one review is 5+ years old). Do not rely on any scoring until additional recent reviews are collected.

Both reviews speak positively about Brian and Brandy's responsiveness, courtesy, and trustworthiness, driving a strong professionalism score. Project completion is well-supported — both reviewers describe jobs being finished fully and correctly, including an urgent same-day repair and a faucet/drain replacement. Experience is backed by specific mentions of technical knowledge, quality workmanship, and problem-solving. Pricing is entirely absent from both reviews, so no score can be assigned for that dimension. All scores are treated conservatively due to the very small sample size of only two reviews.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are from 2016, making them over 8 years old. Recency is a significant concern — these reviews may not reflect current service quality.
• Both reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language and mention the same individuals (Brian and Brandy) by name. While this could be genuine, the small sample and uniformly positive tone warrant caution.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the Price Friendly dimension cannot be scored.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both from 2016, making it insufficient for a reliable WW Score — findings should be treated as anecdotal and not representative of current or consistent service quality.

The single review provided does not relate to contractor or plumbing services in any way. The reviewer describes a fraudulent job recruitment scheme involving a fake check, which is entirely unrelated to the four scored dimensions. No usable data exists for professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience. A WW Score cannot be calculated from this review.

• CRITICAL: The sole review describes a scam/fraud operation involving fake employment checks — this is not a contractor or plumbing service review and contains zero usable data for any WW dimension.
• CRITICAL: The business described may be operating fraudulently, using a contractor or service business identity as a front for financial scams.
• Insufficient data: Only 1 review was provided, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score.
• WW Score has been set to null — 'Insufficient Data' condition applies.

This score report cannot be trusted or used in any capacity — the only review present describes criminal fraud activity unrelated to trade services, and no WW Score can be responsibly calculated.