Find Nearby Plumbers In Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee

Maynard Select receives a critically low WW Score of 32.8, driven by severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Pricing emerges as the most damaging factor (22/100), with overwhelming evidence of overcharging, deceptive quotes, and inflated labor rates that far exceed industry standards—customers report being quoted $1,028 for work another company completed for $125, $775 for 15-20 minutes of welding, and $599 for 45 minutes of labor. Project completion is severely compromised (35/100), with multiple instances of incomplete repairs, failed fixes requiring multiple callbacks, improper installations, and unresolved follow-up issues. Professionalism scores poorly (48/100) due to unprofessional behavior, poor communication, missed appointments with conflicting time windows, unresponsive management, and inadequate appearance standards. While some technicians demonstrate competence (52/100 on experience), this is overshadowed by misdiagnosis, failure to use proper diagnostic equipment, and poor problem-solving that costs customers thousands in unnecessary work.

• PATTERN OF OVERCHARGING: 18 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns, with systematic evidence of quotes 4-10x higher than competitor pricing for identical work. This suggests either deliberate deception or gross incompetence in cost estimation.
• DIAGNOSTIC DISHONESTY: Multiple reviews (plumbing camera not available, capacitor misdiagnosis, sewer line false alarm) indicate technicians either lack proper equipment or deliberately overstate problems to inflate bills. One customer saved $10,100 by getting a second opinion.
• FAILED REPAIRS & CALLBACKS: At least 6 reviews document repairs that failed within days, requiring multiple service calls. One AC unit failed 3 times in 3 days; another freezer issue cost a restaurant $1,000+ in lost product after two failed repairs.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple instances of missed appointments, conflicting time windows (quoted 8-12am, then 3:30pm, arrived 1:30pm), and complete non-responsiveness to follow-up calls (24+ hours with no return call on safety issue involving children).
• SAFETY CONCERN: One review documents carbon monoxide duct improperly installed and left on crawlspace floor near children's play area, with no response to urgent callback request.
• DECEPTIVE SALES TACTICS: Reviews document bait-and-switch quoting (initial $500 quote reduced to $100, then upsold on expensive replacements), hidden fees, and double-charging.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between 5-star reviews praising specific technicians (Josh, Patrick, Travis, Madison, Xavier) and 1-star reviews of other technicians, suggesting severe quality control issues and inconsistent training.
• RECENCY: Most damaging reviews are from 2019-2024 (recent), indicating problems are ongoing, not historical. Only 4 reviews predate 2015.
• UNPROFESSIONAL APPEARANCE: One review documents technician arriving in dirty, wrinkled clothes with unlaced boots and uncombed hair.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence) based on 28 detailed reviews with consistent patterns of overcharging, failed repairs, poor communication, and misdiagnosis. The score is conservative and may even be generous given the severity and frequency of complaints, particularly regarding pricing deception and safety issues. This company presents significant financial and service risk to consumers.

Don Wood Plumbing scores critically low across all dimensions, driven by overwhelming evidence of unprofessional conduct, poor workmanship, and incomplete project delivery. Ten reviews explicitly document severe professionalism failures including verbal abuse, disrespect, rudeness, and dismissive behavior from owner Don Wood and staff. Nine reviews detail project completion failures: recurring issues after initial fixes, incomplete work, abandoned repairs, and shoddy installations requiring multiple callbacks. Five reviews highlight pricing concerns including excessive markups (500% above retail), nickel-and-diming customers for issues caused by poor initial work, and lack of transparency. Eight reviews mention experience/workmanship problems such as incorrect installations, debris left in equipment, poor soldering, and failure to identify basic site conditions. The company demonstrates a pattern of blaming customers, refusing accountability, and prioritizing service fees over quality.

• SEVERE PATTERN OF UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: Multiple independent reviews (2020, 2022, 2023) document verbal abuse, aggression, and disrespect from owner and crew. One review explicitly quotes a plumber telling customer to 'shove our home up our asses.'
• SYSTEMIC QUALITY FAILURES: Large new-build project ($20,000+) resulted in continuous failures (no hot water, running toilets, leaky faucets, water pressure issues) within first year. Same issues reoccurred after 'fixes,' indicating root cause not addressed.
• UNETHICAL PRICING PRACTICES: Documented 500% markup on parts ($225 vs $40 retail). Pattern of charging service fees for problems caused by their own poor initial installation.
• LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY: Owner Don Wood explicitly refused responsibility for missing septic tank discovery despite three site visits. Dismissive responses to legitimate customer concerns.
• TRUST AND SAFETY CONCERNS: One review documents suspected theft of personal items from customer's home with evasive responses from crew and owner dismissal of concerns.
• RECENCY PATTERN: Most damaging reviews are from 2018-2023 (past 5 years), suggesting ongoing systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. Only 3 positive reviews, all generic and from 2014-2021.
• INCONSISTENT SERVICE QUALITY: Positive reviews mention individual crew members (Keith, Alberto) performing well, but owner and management consistently fail to support quality or customer service.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 13 reviews with consistent, detailed, and specific evidence across all four dimensions. The overwhelming majority of reviews (10 of 13) are negative with explicit documentation of failures, and the few positive reviews lack detail and predate the pattern of serious complaints. The score reflects a company with severe systemic problems in professionalism, project completion, and customer treatment.

This contractor has a very small and mixed review pool making any conclusions highly tentative. Professionalism is significantly dragged down by a serious complaint about aggressive, threatening behavior on a phone call that frightened family members present at the job site — a major red flag that heavily outweighs the single positive mention of customer service. Pricing received a poor score due to an explicit complaint about a $500 quote for a leaking faucet repair, which the reviewer found grossly excessive and non-transparent. Project completion and experience score modestly positive, as one reviewer praised expert craftsmanship and noted the contractor identified an additional problem and followed through, though the sample is far too small to draw reliable conclusions. Overall, the negative reviews carry serious concerns that cannot be offset by a single enthusiastic positive review.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with extreme caution.
• Serious behavioral concern flagged: one reviewer explicitly described the contractor as 'scary' and 'violent' due to aggressive yelling and profanity on a phone call in the presence of family members. This is a significant safety and professionalism red flag.
• Pricing transparency concern: one reviewer reported a $500 quote for a minor faucet repair with no upfront quote provided, suggesting possible lack of pricing transparency.
• Review spread spans from 2021 to 2023 — the most recent reviews are now over 1 year old, limiting recency relevance.
• The single 5-star review is enthusiastic but contains no specifics about pricing or professionalism, limiting its ability to offset the negative reviews in those dimensions.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning multiple years and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall quality — significantly more reviews are needed before any confident assessment can be made.

Myers Plumbing receives strongly mixed but predominantly negative feedback across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is a major concern, with multiple reviews citing technicians arriving without masks during a pandemic, failing to follow up on promised callbacks, ignoring customer complaints, and leaving job sites in poor condition. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with several reviewers explicitly describing opaque flat-fee switching, significant markups on parts, and charges that far exceeded what the quoted rate structure implied. Project completion is also problematic, with documented cases of incomplete work (a leaking vent installation, a mud/sludge mess left behind, and a drip that was never resolved), as well as a failure to honor a callback commitment. Experience scores slightly higher due to two positive reviews praising quick diagnosis and successful repairs, but is undercut by reviews describing technicians who were 'dumbfounded' and unable to diagnose a visible leak. The two positive reviews are older and lack specific detail, limiting their weight.

• Only 2 of 7 reviews are positive (ratings of 5.0), and both are vague and lack specific detail about the work performed, raising mild concern about their reliability as evidence of quality.
• The two positive reviews (2017 and 2023) are separated by years and do not share suspicious phrasing, so outright fake review patterns are not confirmed — but their lack of specificity limits their evidentiary value.
• Three of the seven reviews are older than 3 years (2014, 2017, 2020), and one is from 2021. Only two reviews are from the past 12 months (2023). Recency weighting reduces confidence that current performance matches historical patterns.
• Multiple reviews describe a pattern of pricing bait-and-switch: initial quote given, then significantly higher flat fee applied upon arrival — this is a recurring and specific complaint across independent reviewers, lending it high credibility.
• One review explicitly documents a failure to return a promised callback, and another documents a known mess being left behind with no resolution — both suggest systemic customer service failures, not isolated incidents.

With only 7 reviews and a strong skew toward negative, detailed complaints versus vague positive praise, this WW Score of 42.1 should be treated as a cautionary signal rather than a definitive rating — the negative reviews are specific, credible, and consistent enough to warrant serious concern.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically weak, with consistent failures in responsiveness, communication, and punctuality across multiple reviews. Project completion is severely compromised, with multiple instances of no-shows, abandoned work, and unresolved issues requiring customer to hire alternative contractors. One positive review from 2024 praising quality work and attention to detail stands in stark contrast to five negative reviews spanning 2007–2018, suggesting either significant recent improvement or inconsistent service delivery. The single mention of pricing reflects a customer who spent $1,000 on repairs that ultimately failed to resolve the problem.

• CRITICAL: Two reviews (dated 2018-01-20) appear to be near-identical duplicates with identical complaint language, dates, and phone number. This suggests possible review manipulation or data entry error.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Five of six reviews are from 2007–2018 (6–17 years old). Only one recent review (2024) exists, which is highly positive and contradicts the historical pattern. Insufficient recent data to assess whether company has genuinely improved.
• PATTERN ALERT: Multiple reviews describe identical failure modes (no-shows, non-responsiveness to calls, work not completed, customer forced to hire alternative contractor). This consistency suggests systemic operational problems rather than isolated incidents.
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: The 2024 review describes exceptional professionalism and quality work, directly contradicting the historical pattern. This could indicate genuine improvement, but with only one recent data point, confidence in current performance is limited.

This score should be treated with caution due to severe data recency issues—five of six reviews are 6–17 years old, and only one recent review exists. The historical pattern is overwhelmingly negative, but the single 2024 review suggests possible improvement. The score reflects historical performance; current reliability cannot be confidently assessed without more recent data.

Greenway Home Services receives a critically low WW Score of 28.4, reflecting severe and consistent deficiencies across all four dimensions. Professionalism is severely compromised by widespread reports of missed appointments, no-shows, poor communication, rudeness, and unresponsiveness—mentioned in 58 reviews. Project completion is the weakest area, with 68 reviews documenting incomplete repairs, abandoned work, repeated service calls for the same issue, and failure to honor callbacks. Pricing practices are highly problematic, with 22 reviews detailing overcharges, unnecessary upsells, hidden fees, and fraudulent billing. Technical experience is undermined by reports of misdiagnosis, poor workmanship, and technicians requiring guidance from competitors. The company's partnership with American Home Shield warranty appears to enable poor service, as customers report being forced to use Greenway despite repeated failures.

• CRITICAL: Overwhelming pattern of negative reviews (72 out of 80 reviews are 1-star ratings). Only 4 positive reviews (5-star) and 4 neutral/mixed reviews exist in the dataset.
• CRITICAL: Systematic failure in project completion—multiple reviews document 4-7+ service visits for single issues that remain unresolved, with some lasting 6+ weeks without resolution.
• CRITICAL: Pervasive communication failures—no-shows, missed callbacks, failure to return calls, and broken promises documented in 40+ reviews.
• CRITICAL: Pricing fraud allegations in multiple reviews—customers report being charged 4-10x market rates, unnecessary modifications, overcharges on freon/parts, and unauthorized credit card charges months later.
• CRITICAL: Safety hazard documented—one detailed review (2017-07-28) describes a technician leaving a gas line union loose, creating a life-threatening gas leak that required emergency response from Piedmont Natural Gas.
• CRITICAL: Potential insurance fraud pattern—multiple reviews allege Greenway misrepresents warranty coverage to customers and AHS, charges unauthorized fees, and lies about work performed.
• CRITICAL: Discriminatory service patterns—one review (2023-12-18) explicitly reports poor service to predominantly African-American neighborhood (Northwest Nashville), suggesting possible systemic bias.
• CRITICAL: Fake review detection—Two nearly identical reviews (2022-09-16, both at 5-star) use identical phrasing ('I read several of these reviews after our homw warranty assigned our call to Greenway...') suggesting potential review manipulation. Additionally, one 2019 review mentions Greenway offering incentives for 5-star reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews span 2014-2024, with heavy concentration in 2017-2022. Recent reviews (2024) show continued problems, indicating no improvement over 10-year period.
• PATTERN: Customers consistently report being forced to use Greenway through American Home Shield warranty, with many stating they would never choose this company independently.
• PATTERN: Multiple reviews document technicians arriving without proper tools, parts, or knowledge, requiring follow-up visits or external contractors to complete work.
• PATTERN: Consistent reports of technicians being rude, argumentative, dismissive, and unwilling to take responsibility for errors or damage caused.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 80 reviews with extensive, specific, and corroborated evidence across all four dimensions. The overwhelming consistency of negative feedback (90% of reviews are 1-star), combined with detailed documentation of failures, safety hazards, fraud allegations, and discriminatory practices, creates an exceptionally strong and trustworthy assessment. The score reflects a company with systemic operational and ethical failures that pose genuine risks to customers.