Find Nearby Plumbers In Athens-Clarke County, Georgia

All three reviews are positive and touch on multiple dimensions, providing a reasonably consistent picture of a reliable plumber. Professionalism is supported by mentions of same-day responsiveness, arriving on time, and a friendly attitude across multiple reviews. Project completion is affirmed by jobs being finished promptly and follow-through on additional work. Experience is backed by specific technical details in two reviews, including water main line replacement, valve swaps, and copper pipe repair, lending credibility to the skill claims. Pricing is mentioned in two reviews with positive but brief language, warranting a conservative score. The overall score is tempered significantly by the very small review pool of only three reviews, two of which are over two years old.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and unreliable until more reviews are available.
• Two of three reviews are dated 2021, making them over 3 years old. Recency weighting reduces confidence in current performance.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback — while not conclusively fake, the absence of any criticism across all reviews warrants caution.
• One review references 'Dave' while the business appears to involve 'Jimmy' — this may indicate multiple technicians or a data inconsistency worth noting.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are more than 3 years old, making it LOW reliability — treat as a preliminary signal only and seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Four of the five reviews are strongly positive, praising Dave and Samantha for punctuality, clear communication, honest pricing, and quality workmanship across a range of plumbing jobs including water heaters, toilets, and leak repairs. However, one detailed 1-star review describes a serious professionalism failure: a missed appointment, unreturned calls, and a manager who was dismissive and rude — this meaningfully drags down the professionalism and project completion scores. The positive reviews are older (2015–2020), and the negative review dates to 2011, so recency context is limited across the board. Pricing and experience dimensions are supported by multiple positive mentions but are tempered by the small overall sample size. The WW Score reflects a generally capable and well-regarded small operation with at least one documented serious service failure on record.

• Small sample size of only 5 reviews — scores should be treated with caution and are not statistically robust.
• All positive reviews are between 2015 and 2020; no reviews from the past 12 months are present, reducing recency confidence.
• The 1-star review (2011) describes a significant professionalism failure including a missed appointment, screened calls, and a rude manager — this is a serious flag even if it is older.
• The positive reviews, while detailed and specific, share a somewhat similar tone and structure (mentioning both Dave and Samantha, praising honesty and fairness). This is not conclusive evidence of manipulation but warrants mild caution.
• One review references an A/C service failure, suggesting this company may operate outside plumbing — scope of work inconsistency noted.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to a very small review pool of only 5 reviews spanning nearly a decade, with no recent reviews to confirm current service quality.

Mills Plumbing receives notably positive feedback on pricing, with multiple reviewers across different jobs praising fair and competitive quotes — most strikingly, the detailed 2019 sewer repair review highlights a $1,750 final cost against competitor quotes of $3,300–$5,800. However, professionalism and project completion are meaningfully dragged down by a 1-star review describing a no-show appointment with no communication and an unfinished job (an uncovered ditch left after a $550 water connection). Experience scores moderately well based on the detailed sewer repair account, which describes skilled diagnosis and quality workmanship, though only two reviews speak to technical ability. The mixed record — strong pricing and capable work on some jobs, but a documented failure of follow-through and communication on another — produces a middling overall score.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• The most recent review is from September 2022; no reviews from the past 12 months are present. Business performance may have changed.
• The 1-star review (2020) describes both a no-show appointment and an incomplete job (uncovered ditch), which are serious professionalism and project completion failures that meaningfully lower those dimension scores.
• The highly detailed 5-star review from 2019 is the most substantive review but is also the oldest. Its weight is reduced due to recency rules.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in detail, tone, rating, and specificity, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 2019–2022, none within the past 12 months, and should be considered LOW reliability — seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

2 Brothers Septic has a strong base of positive reviews praising professionalism, honesty, and communication, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out named technicians like Charles, Troy, and Jimmy for their transparency and knowledge. However, the score is significantly pulled down by serious, credible negative reviews: one customer was charged more than twice the estimate with yard damage left behind, another documented a case of work not completed as charged (solid waste tank never pumped despite being billed), inadequate equipment installed, and no follow-up callback — a severe project completion failure. A third negative review describes a poor customer experience where Troy declined to dig up the tank and was unavailable same-day, leaving a chemo patient without water. Pricing confidence is also undermined by the cost-doubling complaint and the general pattern of estimates not matching final charges. The score reflects a contractor with genuine strengths but documented, serious failures that cannot be dismissed.

• SERIOUS COMPLETION FAILURE: One reviewer (2020-01-28) documented that the solid waste tank was never pumped despite being charged for it, an inadequate pump was installed, electrical work corroded due to poor workmanship, and the company never returned a promised callback — this is a high-severity finding.
• PRICING CONCERN: One reviewer (2021-12-17) reported final cost was more than twice the estimate with no explanation provided in the review. This directly contradicts the transparency praised in other reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent review is from December 2021. The majority of reviews are from 2016–2020, meaning all reviews are more than 2 years old. Current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset.
• POTENTIAL RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: The 2020-01-28 reviewer explicitly states the company promised a callback and never followed through after being confronted about their own prior work — this is a direct professionalism and accountability failure.
• YARD DAMAGE: The 2021-12-17 reviewer noted the yard was torn up and left in poor condition, contrasting with a 2019 reviewer who praised surgical precision in digging — inconsistency in workmanship quality is noted.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS: Language across reviews is sufficiently varied and specific (named technicians, specific dollar amounts, detailed scenarios) to suggest authentic reviews. No fake review pattern detected.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to 13 reviews with usable content across all four dimensions, but the score's trustworthiness is tempered by the age of the reviews (all older than 2 years) and the presence of multiple serious, detailed negative accounts that describe billing fraud, incomplete work, and poor follow-through — issues that materially affect how much weight a prospective customer should place on the positive reviews.

High Priority Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across service quality and customer outcomes. While professionalism scores reasonably well (72.5) with many technicians praised for courtesy and punctuality, the company is severely hampered by poor pricing practices (58.0), with numerous complaints of overcharging, inflated quotes, and aggressive upselling. Project completion is particularly weak (65.0), with recurring issues of incomplete repairs, misdiagnosis, and failure to honor warranties or callbacks. Technical experience is moderate (71.0), with skilled technicians offset by frequent diagnostic errors and poor follow-through. The company's reliance on warranty company referrals appears to correlate with lower accountability and higher customer dissatisfaction.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple reviews (15+) describe systematic misdiagnosis to warranty companies to deny coverage, suggesting possible intentional fraud or negligent diagnostic practices.
• PRICING ABUSE: At least 12 reviews document severe overcharging (quotes 2-4x market rate) and aggressive upselling of unnecessary services, particularly water damage mitigation and pipe replacement.
• WARRANTY EXPLOITATION: Recurring pattern of technicians providing false information to AHS/warranty companies to deny legitimate claims, then offering expensive repairs to customers.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: 18+ reviews report unfinished repairs, failed callbacks, and refusal to honor warranty commitments or return for corrections.
• REFERRAL COMPANY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews mention High Priority referring customers to 'Serclean' water mitigation company with BBB complaints and lien threats, suggesting kickback arrangement.
• STAFF INCONSISTENCY: Wide variance in technician quality; some highly praised (Dakota, Evan, Dylan, CJ) while others documented as rude, dismissive, or incompetent.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2018-2024 (recent), while some positive reviews are older (2015-2016), suggesting possible service decline over time.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Several 5-star reviews with minimal detail and generic praise (e.g., empty review bodies, single-sentence endorsements) appear potentially fabricated, though not conclusively so.

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with caution despite HIGH overall confidence; the company exhibits a troubling pattern of systematic issues (misdiagnosis, overcharging, incomplete work) that disproportionately affect warranty customers, suggesting the score may underrepresent true service quality problems. The company appears to operate with two tiers of service: better treatment for direct-pay customers and exploitative practices for warranty-referred customers. Consumers should avoid this company, particularly if using home warranty coverage.

Shumate demonstrates significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While the company shows strong technical expertise and occasional excellent professionalism (particularly in installations and select technicians like Troy, Tim, and Derek), it is severely hampered by chronic pricing complaints, poor scheduling/communication practices, and documented instances of misdiagnosis and overselling. The company's advertised same-day and emergency services are frequently not delivered. Multiple reviews detail aggressive upselling tactics, failure to follow through on promises, and unresponsive management. However, loyal long-term customers and successful installations indicate capability when execution aligns with promises.

• PATTERN OF MISDIAGNOSIS: Multiple independent reviews (freon leak not disclosed, capacitor overpricing, mini-split compressor misdiagnosis, ductwork overestimation) suggest systemic diagnostic issues or deliberate overselling to drive equipment replacement sales.
• ADVERTISING MISMATCH: Repeated complaints about '24/7 same-day service' and 'emergency service' promises not being honored. Company advertises services it does not reliably deliver.
• SCHEDULING DYSFUNCTION: At least 8 reviews document no-shows, missed appointments, unscheduled arrivals, or failure to call back for scheduling despite confirmation calls.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews report unanswered calls, unreturned voicemails, and unresponsive management (Michael, Matt, Dennis) to customer concerns and follow-up requests.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Quotes range from 30-50% below competitors to 2-3x market rates for identical parts (capacitors, filters). Service fees ($95 diagnostic per unit) not applied to repairs. Saturday premium charges appear excessive.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Installation defects documented (improper thermostat installation, humidifier wiring hazards, flex ductwork, improper gas line connection causing gas leak with child in home, circuit board damage from technician error).
• SELECTIVE TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Named technicians receive both 5-star and 1-star reviews (Tino/Tito specifically called out as problematic in multiple reviews; Troy, Tim, Derek praised). Suggests inconsistent training or accountability.
• WARRANTY HANDLING: Multiple complaints about warranty denial or non-registration of units, shifting responsibility to customers for service agreement proof.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2012-2022 period. Recent reviews (2024) show continued issues with emergency service false advertising and misdiagnosis.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with caution despite HIGH confidence in the data: the company exhibits a Jekyll-and-Hyde pattern where quality depends heavily on which technician arrives and whether the customer is a long-term loyalist versus new customer. The score reflects genuine high-quality work capability undermined by systemic business practice failures (scheduling, communication, pricing transparency, diagnostic integrity). Prospective customers should obtain multiple independent diagnoses before authorizing work and verify all promises in writing.