Find Nearby Plumbers In Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee

Olshan Foundation Repair presents a deeply polarized review profile spanning nearly two decades. Recent reviews from 2024–2025 are overwhelmingly positive, praising punctual crews, courteous inspectors, thorough explanations, and clean job sites — driving professionalism scores upward for the recent period. However, a substantial body of older and some recent negative reviews reveals serious recurring issues: warranty non-honoring, poor communication and no-shows, substandard workmanship requiring re-repair, property damage left unaddressed, and aggressive or misleading sales tactics. Pricing is a significant concern, with multiple reviewers citing quotes far above competitors, hidden fees, and charges for work not delivered as promised. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with numerous accounts of abandoned work, failed drainage systems, recurring foundation movement post-repair, and crews leaving sites in disarray. The experience dimension is mixed — inspectors are frequently praised for honesty and knowledge, but installation crews draw repeated criticism for lack of supervision, poor technique, and causing collateral damage to plumbing, HVAC, and landscaping.

• RECENCY BIAS RISK: The most recent reviews (2025 and late 2024) are almost uniformly 5-star with specific crew name callouts and very similar structure (crew name lists, praise for punctuality and cleanup). This pattern — while not definitively fake — is consistent with coordinated or incentivized review campaigns and should be treated with caution.
• SUSPECTED REVIEW PADDING: Multiple 2025 reviews mention nearly identical crew rosters (e.g., Hernandez, Rogelio, Misael, Noe, Nelson, Eduardo appearing across at least 3 separate reviews), suggesting possible duplicate or coached reviews from the same job or crew.
• TWO BLANK REVIEWS with 5-star ratings (June 2025) provide no usable data and were excluded from scoring.
• WARRANTY FRAUD PATTERN: At least 10 reviews across multiple years explicitly state Olshan refused to honor its advertised lifetime warranty, citing ownership changes, franchise closures, or policy loopholes. This is a systemic and serious concern.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE PATTERN: Multiple reviews across different years describe unrepaired damage to plumbing, HVAC systems, landscaping, irrigation, flooring, and structural elements caused during Olshan's work, with the company refusing accountability.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE PATTERN: Numerous reviews spanning 2006–2025 describe no-shows, unreturned calls, missed appointments, and months-long delays in warranty service — indicating a persistent systemic issue not limited to any one location or era.
• SUBCONTRACTING CONCERN: Multiple reviews note Olshan subcontracts work to third parties without disclosure, and at least one reviewer identified the subcontractor directly and advised hiring them independently at lower cost.
• OVERBIDDING PATTERN: Several reviews describe Olshan quoting significantly more piers or work than independent structural engineers determined was necessary, raising concerns about sales integrity.
• OLDER REVIEWS (pre-2022) carry reduced weight per recency rules but are numerous enough to establish long-standing systemic patterns that cannot be dismissed.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the large review volume, but the score itself should be interpreted cautiously — the strong recent positive reviews appear potentially inflated or coached, while the extensive negative review history reveals serious and recurring systemic failures in warranty honoring, communication, workmanship quality, and customer accountability that prospective customers must weigh carefully before engaging this contractor.

Clark's Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews, with strong technical expertise and reasonable pricing offset by serious professionalism and project completion concerns. While many customers praise the owner's knowledge and fair rates, a substantial number of detailed negative reviews document unprofessional behavior, no-shows, incomplete work, and aggressive follow-up tactics. The company demonstrates capability to solve complex problems quickly, but reliability and follow-through appear inconsistent. The presence of multiple detailed fraud allegations and unfinished work complaints suggests systemic issues beyond isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: Multiple detailed allegations of fraud, incomplete work, and no-shows across different time periods (2013-2023). At least 8 reviews document abandoned jobs, failure to return for callbacks, or work left incomplete.
• CRITICAL: Pattern of unprofessional behavior documented in multiple reviews including inappropriate jokes, harassment via repeated calls/texts, threatening voicemails, and incoherent phone behavior.
• CRITICAL: Significant pricing inconsistency—some reviews praise fair pricing while others document overcharges of $1,600-$3,000+ for work that other plumbers completed for 50-60% less or identified as incomplete/incorrect.
• RED FLAG: Multiple reviews mention the owner (Brandon/Enosh Clark) making excuses about previous jobs running long, double-booking, and repeatedly no-showing appointments despite explicit requests not to double-book.
• RED FLAG: Several reviews describe work quality issues discovered later (leaking valves, incorrect installations, water damage, incomplete repairs) that required hiring another plumber to fix.
• RED FLAG: One detailed review (2021-06-22) explicitly alleges fake positive reviews and provides specific evidence of the owner's deceptive practices. This review is highly detailed and credible.
• CONCERN: Approximately 10 reviews from 2021-06-10 appear to be low-effort or empty submissions (blank text, single words like 'Return my call', 'Communication concerns') which may indicate review manipulation or platform issues.
• CONCERN: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews and detailed 1-star reviews suggests potential review authenticity issues. Some positive reviews lack specificity while negative reviews are extensively documented.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2021-2023, with concerning patterns continuing into 2023. Recent reviews (2023) still document overcharging and unprofessional behavior.
• LICENSING CONCERN: One review (2022-08-26) explicitly states 'You aren't even a licensed plumber!' suggesting potential licensing/certification issues.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 75 reviews, the data shows extreme polarization with credible, detailed negative reviews documenting fraud, incomplete work, and unprofessional conduct that contradict many positive reviews. The score of 68.2 reflects this conflict but may understate risk—customers considering this contractor should carefully review the detailed negative accounts and verify licensing/credentials independently before engaging services.

Steakley Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with consistent mentions of punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across recent reviews. However, significant pricing concerns emerge across multiple reviews citing charges substantially above estimates, minimum service fees perceived as excessive, and lack of transparency in billing. Project completion shows mixed results with several reports of incomplete work, delayed callbacks, and customer dissatisfaction requiring additional plumbers to finish jobs. Technical experience is generally praised when work is completed, but inconsistency in diagnostic accuracy and follow-through undermines confidence. The company's performance appears to have declined over time, with older reviews (2006-2013) more positive than recent ones (2021-2025).

• PRICING PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (2025-05-19, 2024-11-11, 2022-05-25, 2022-03-30, 2017-12-05, 2011-04-26, 2011-01-09, 2010-10-17) report charges significantly exceeding quotes or minimum fees perceived as unjustified. This is a systemic concern, not isolated complaints.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: At least 4 reviews detail incomplete work, abandoned jobs, or requiring second plumbers to finish (2024-11-11, 2010-10-17, 2006-11-17, 2016-05-06). One review explicitly states job remains unfinished after payment disputes.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews cite poor callback responsiveness, refusal to provide itemized bills, argumentative office staff, and one report of being told a technician 'doesn't want to speak to you' (2022-10-04).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (2025) show polarized ratings (5-star or 1-star) with limited middle ground. Older reviews (2006-2013) were predominantly positive, suggesting service quality degradation or business model changes.
• BILLING DISPUTES: Two reviews (2024-11-11, 2010-10-17) describe aggressive collection practices, refusal to provide itemized bills without additional payment, and threats of collections action.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Reviews describe errors requiring rework (2012-10-23 custom bathroom with misaligned valve cuts), crossed hot/cold lines (2011-01-09), and improper installations (2010-10-17 dishwasher vent issue).
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEWS: Several 5-star reviews from 2016, 2015, 2014 contain only 'unknown' text, suggesting placeholder or unverified entries. These should be weighted with caution.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence due to significant polarization in reviews and documented systemic issues with pricing transparency and project completion. The company demonstrates genuine professionalism in customer interaction but is undermined by billing practices and follow-through failures that create substantial financial and service risk for customers. Recent reviews (past 12 months) are more negative than historical data, suggesting declining reliability. Customers should obtain detailed written quotes, itemized billing agreements, and completion guarantees before engaging this contractor.

Martin's Plumbing shows mixed performance across dimensions. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by one severely negative experience involving aggressive and rude behavior from the owner, Christian, which directly contradicts positive feedback about field employees. Project completion is hampered by a major installation failure (tankless water heater freezing, improper installation, no callback) and damaged HVAC unit delivery, though other jobs were completed satisfactorily. Pricing appears fair based on limited mentions, with one customer noting competitive quotes. Experience is supported by skilled field technicians (Cody, Mike) who demonstrate technical competence, though the owner's poor problem-solving and accountability undermine overall credibility.

• CRITICAL: One 5-star review from 2017 (over 6 years old) uses generic praise language ('as good as it gets', 'nothing but incredible things') with minimal specific detail—potential fake or heavily biased review. This review should be weighted less heavily.
• MAJOR PATTERN: Two 1-star reviews (2023 and 2022) describe serious failures: tankless water heater improperly installed and freezing, with no callback response; HVAC unit delivered damaged with owner displaying aggressive, unprofessional behavior and dismissing customer concerns.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent negative review is from May 2022 (nearly 2 years old), but the January 2023 tankless water heater complaint is recent and unresolved.
• OWNER CONDUCT: Owner Christian's behavior in the HVAC incident (aggressive tone, dismissive attitude, intimidating demeanor) represents a critical professionalism failure that would deter future customers with problems.
• INCONSISTENCY: Field employees (Cody, Mike) consistently praised as professional and skilled, but owner and office staff show poor communication and accountability.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited review volume (5 reviews), significant recency gaps, and one potentially unreliable older review. The two detailed 1-star reviews provide credible evidence of serious service failures and owner misconduct, while positive reviews lack specificity. The MODERATE overall confidence reflects conflicting signals: skilled technicians versus poor management and accountability.

Mattena Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and project completion capability, with all three reviews confirming work was finished and problems were solved. Professionalism is generally positive, with two reviews praising service quality and communication. However, a severe pricing concern emerges from one detailed 2020 review alleging a $677 charge for approximately 1.5 hours of work at a quoted $95/hour rate—a 4.7x markup that directly contradicts the contractor's stated pricing. The two positive reviews lack specific pricing details, making it difficult to assess whether this was an isolated incident or a pattern. The recency gap (one 2024 review, one 2021, one 2020) and small sample size limit confidence in the overall assessment.

• CRITICAL PRICING DISCREPANCY: One detailed 2020 review alleges severe overbilling ($677 vs. ~$142.50 expected), claiming lack of transparency about final costs. This directly contradicts the 2021 review's praise for 'accurate estimates.' This is a material red flag requiring clarification.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent positive review is from November 2024, but the most serious complaint is from May 2020 (nearly 4.5 years old). Unclear if pricing practices have changed.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews limits statistical reliability. Pricing score is based on only 2 mentions (one highly negative, one positive with no specifics).
• LACK OF DETAIL IN POSITIVE REVIEWS: The two 5-star reviews lack specificity about pricing transparency and itemization, making it difficult to verify whether the 2020 incident represents a systemic issue.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and a serious unresolved pricing allegation that contradicts positive claims about fair pricing. The WW Score of 64.8 reflects strong technical capability but is significantly depressed by pricing concerns. Additional recent reviews are needed to determine whether the 2020 overbilling incident was isolated or indicative of ongoing practice.

NEI Building Systems has a mixed but telling track record across 10 reviews spanning 2014–2023. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by two detailed negative reviews describing the owner hanging up on a customer, ignoring follow-up calls and texts, and failing to show up without notice — serious conduct failures that offset the genuine praise found in other reviews. Project completion is similarly split: several reviewers report successful, timely repairs, but at least two reviews describe abandoned follow-through after payment, including a furnace issue left unresolved and a no-show that cost a customer a full day and spoiled food. Pricing and experience receive moderately positive marks, with multiple reviewers calling the work knowledgeable, skilled, and fairly priced, though one reviewer paid $300 to a prior company for a failed repair before NEI succeeded. The most recent reviews (2023, 2021) include both a strong positive and a serious negative, suggesting inconsistency persists into recent years rather than being a resolved historical issue.

• Two detailed negative reviews (2021, 2015) describe a pattern of non-responsiveness after payment — this is a significant and recurring red flag for project completion and professionalism.
• The 2021 negative review describes the owner explicitly hanging up on a customer and refusing all further contact after being paid, which is a severe professionalism failure.
• The 2015 no-show review describes a customer being strung along for an entire day with no callback or cancellation notice — another serious reliability failure.
• Several older positive reviews (2014–2016) lack specific detail and read as generic praise; these are given reduced weight due to age (7–10 years old) and low specificity.
• Recency concern: The majority of reviews are older than 1 year, with only 2 reviews from the past 12 months (2023). The most recent negative review is from 2021. Score reliability is limited by the small and aging review set.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the review volume is low (10 total), which limits statistical confidence across all dimensions.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability overall — the review count is low at 10, the dataset spans nearly a decade with most reviews being outdated, and the two detailed negative reviews reveal a documented pattern of post-payment abandonment that meaningfully depresses confidence in this contractor's consistency.