Find Nearby Plumbers In Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews mention professionalism (punctuality, pleasant demeanor) and project completion (job done, reliable), scoring around 85. Pricing is mentioned in both but presents mixed signals: one notes fair pricing, the other explicitly states they are not the least expensive. Experience/workmanship is mentioned once positively. All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to the minimal review count.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review dates are very old (2009 and 2020) — no recent data from past 12 months.
• Pricing dimension shows conflicting signals across the two reviews, making a unified score unreliable.
• Experience dimension mentioned in only 1 review — extremely limited basis for scoring.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews are strongly negative across all dimensions. Professionalism was explicitly criticized in both reviews — one reviewer described dirty boots, no name tag, and a dismissive attitude, while the other described cold and unhelpful customer service. Pricing concerns were raised in both reviews, with one customer paying $300 for a repair that failed within six months and another being quoted $3,200 for work the technician appeared unable to perform. Project completion was a clear failure in both cases — one job ended with no resolution and a shrug, and the other resulted in a recurring leak after a paid repair. The sole review touching on technical experience described a plumber who lacked basic knowledge of the plumbing system and had to be corrected by the homeowner.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated between 2012 and 2015, making them over 9 years old. These scores should not be used to assess current service quality without more recent data.
• No recent reviews are available to confirm whether service quality has improved or declined since these reviews were written.
• All available reviews are 1-star ratings — while this is consistent with the detailed negative content, the absence of any positive reviews means this analysis reflects only dissatisfied customers and may not represent the full picture.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 9 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of current contractor quality — significantly more recent reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

With only two reviews, reliable scoring is not possible, but the data that exists tells a mixed story. Pricing is consistently described as reasonable across both reviews, and the contractor demonstrated responsiveness by arriving within 15-20 minutes in an emergency. However, professionalism is severely undermined by a deeply concerning incident in which the contractor broke into a customer's private storage area without permission to retrieve a forgotten tool — a serious breach of trust and boundaries. Project completion scores are tempered by this same incident, which overshadows an otherwise functional job on the water heater. The single 5-star review is older (2019) and lacks specific detail, while the amended 1-star review contains a credible, specific, and alarming account.

• CRITICAL SAFETY/TRUST FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor broke into their private storage area without consent to retrieve a forgotten tool. This is a serious professionalism and safety concern that significantly drags down the professionalism score.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews are available. The WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews. All dimension scores should be treated as highly tentative.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The 5-star review dates to 2019 and the 1-star review dates to 2015. Neither review is within the past 12 months, meaning there is no recent data to assess current contractor behavior.
• AMENDED REVIEW NOTE: The 1-star review was originally positive but was later amended to include the break-in incident. This suggests the initial positive impression was genuine but the contractor's subsequent behavior was seriously problematic.
• The 5-star review uses vague, generic praise ('first rate job', 'reasonable price') with no specific details, reducing its evidentiary weight.

This score report has very low reliability due to only 2 available reviews, both of which are over 5 years old, and the presence of a serious misconduct allegation that cannot be corroborated or refuted with the current data set.

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The negative review from 2017 raises serious professionalism concerns, specifically difficulty obtaining a receipt, multiple broken promises, and a dismissive phone representative described as 'cocky.' The pricing dimension is flagged because $425 for a drain cleaning was noted with an implicit sense of dissatisfaction, though no direct price comparison was made. The positive review from 2016 notes fast, single-day installation, which contributes modestly to project completion, but provides no detail on quality, pricing, or professionalism. Experience cannot be scored at all as neither review addresses workmanship or technical skill explicitly.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score.
• Both reviews are older than 1 year (2016 and 2017) — no recent data available to assess current performance.
• The positive review is extremely brief and generic with no specific details, which may indicate a low-information or potentially unverified review.
• The negative review describes a pattern of poor follow-through on administrative tasks (receipt delivery) and unprofessional phone communication — a notable red flag for customer service standards.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — with only 2 reviews, both over 6 years old and one lacking any meaningful detail, there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about this contractor's current quality or reliability.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score. The reviews present a stark contradiction: one recent review (2024) praises prompt service, fair pricing, and quality work; the other older review (2012) documents severe communication failures, unprofessional conduct by management, and project abandonment. The 12-year gap between reviews and the extreme polarity make it impossible to establish a reliable current performance baseline.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• EXTREME RECENCY DISPARITY: One review is from 2024 (recent), the other from 2012 (12 years old). The 2012 review should be heavily discounted for current assessment
• CONTRADICTORY SIGNALS: Positive 2024 review vs. severely negative 2012 review suggest either significant company improvement over time OR inconsistent service quality. Cannot determine which without more recent data
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERN: 2012 review documents multiple communication failures (non-responsiveness over 3+ days, defensive tone, refusal to engage with customer concerns). However, this is a single incident from over a decade ago
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: 2012 review shows manager refused to complete contracted work, leaving customer without kitchen/laundry drains for 2+ weeks. This is a critical failure but is dated

This score cannot be calculated and should NOT be trusted. With only 2 reviews spanning 12 years, there is insufficient data to assess current contractor performance. The single recent positive review is encouraging but cannot offset the lack of volume. Obtain at least 3-5 additional recent reviews before making a decision.

Both available reviews are strongly negative, painting a consistent picture of poor professionalism. The first review explicitly cites a two-hour late arrival, overcharging for minimal work, and leaving the customer's kitchen in a worse state than found — all serious professionalism and project completion failures. The second review, while lacking specific detail, describes being treated poorly as a paying customer and a firm refusal to recommend or return. Pricing was flagged as a concern in one review, with a direct accusation of overcharging for 15 minutes of work. No positive signals exist across either review to offset these findings.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rule (fewer than 3 reviews).
• Both reviews are dated 2016–2017, making them over 7 years old. These scores may not reflect current business performance.
• The second review is vague and lacks specific detail, which limits its usable data beyond professionalism sentiment.
• No reviews mention technical skill or workmanship quality directly, so the Experience dimension has no data and cannot be scored.
• With only 2 reviews, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should be treated with caution.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are more than 7 years old, making it insufficient and potentially outdated as a reliable indicator of current contractor performance.