Find Nearby Plumbers In Athens-Clarke County, Georgia

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.

Garner Plumbing demonstrates solid professionalism with responsive communication and friendly technicians (particularly Pedro), earning a 72 score across 26 mentions. However, pricing is a significant weakness, with 15 mentions documenting overcharges, price-gouging, and lack of transparency—scoring only 52. Project completion shows mixed results (71 across 18 mentions): many jobs are completed well, but several reviews report incomplete work, unresolved callbacks, and follow-up failures. Technical experience is the strongest dimension (78 across 20 mentions), with consistent praise for knowledgeable technicians and quality workmanship. The company's overall WW Score of 68.2 reflects strong execution undermined by serious pricing concerns and occasional project follow-through failures.

• PRICING CONCERNS: 15 reviews explicitly mention overcharging, price-gouging, or unfair pricing. Multiple customers report being charged 2-5x market rates for simple jobs ($600 toilet unclog, $410 garbage disposal, $1800 water line break later fixed for $150 by competitor). This is the most consistent negative pattern.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURES: Several reviews document incomplete work, unresolved callbacks, and lack of follow-up. One customer reported calling twice in evening and morning with no return calls after a failed repair. Another had a pipe installed that didn't need replacing and yard left torn up.
• RECKLESS DRIVING ALLEGATIONS: Three separate reviews (2023, 2020, 2020) report dangerous driving by company vehicles—speeding, cutting off other drivers, driving 15+ mph over limit while on cell phone. No evidence of company response to these safety complaints.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Wide variance in outcomes. Some reviews praise specific technicians (Pedro, Timothy, Lee, Rick) while others report amateurish work, poor cleanup, and unprofessional behavior (leaving doors open in cold weather, tracking dirt, spilling water).
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple 5-star reviews from 2024-06-09 and 2022-06-10 with generic praise and minimal detail ('Great work', empty reviews with 5-star ratings). However, negative reviews are detailed and specific, suggesting fake reviews are less likely to be the primary issue.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most recent reviews (2024) are overwhelmingly positive, while older reviews (2015-2021) contain more serious complaints about pricing and project failures. This may reflect business improvement or review platform changes.
• OFFICE MANAGEMENT ISSUES: Multiple complaints about disorganized office, failure to return emergency calls, and poor communication (no-show appointments, forgotten bookings).

This WW Score of 68.2 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the company demonstrates genuine technical competence and professionalism in customer interactions, the consistent and detailed pricing complaints across 15 reviews represent a material business practice concern that significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. The score is reliable as a reflection of mixed performance, but customers should specifically investigate current pricing practices and obtain multiple quotes before engaging.

This contractor has a mixed but mostly positive track record across the reviews analyzed. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by two separate no-show incidents with no follow-up communication, which are serious red flags despite multiple reviews praising promptness and courtesy. Project completion is similarly penalized by those no-show events, as failing to appear constitutes a fundamental failure to complete or even begin a job. Pricing and experience dimensions are more consistently positive, with multiple reviewers citing fair, reasonable, and even surprisingly low pricing, and several noting quality workmanship. However, the vast majority of reviews are more than 5 years old, with only one review from the past 5 years, which substantially limits confidence in how well these scores reflect current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 1 review (2020) falls within the past 5 years. The remaining 12 reviews date from 2012 to 2018. This score may not reflect the contractor's current quality or reliability.
• NO-SHOW PATTERN: Two separate reviews (2017-12-07 and 2018-05-09) explicitly report the contractor never showed up and provided no call or follow-up. This is a serious reliability concern and has been weighted heavily against professionalism and project completion scores.
• VAGUE REVIEWS: Several reviews (e.g., 'the service went great', 'I would rate this company an F') provide no actionable detail and were treated as low-information data points. The F-rating review was counted as a negative signal but could not be scored dimensionally.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: With only 13 total reviews spanning over a decade, the sample size is small and the WW Score should be interpreted with caution.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to the small and heavily dated review pool, two documented no-show incidents, and only one review from the past five years — prospective customers should seek more recent references before hiring.

D & J Plumbing receives broadly positive marks for professionalism across multiple reviews, with customers noting punctuality, friendliness, and clean work habits. Pricing feedback is limited but generally favorable, with one reviewer pleasantly surprised by a bill coming in well under estimate. However, the single most recent review (2020) is a serious negative outlier, describing poor workmanship, failure to follow manufacturer instructions, leakage issues, and a complete lack of accountability — this materially drags down project completion and experience scores. The bulk of positive reviews are dated between 2009 and 2018, meaning the most current data point available is the damaging 2020 complaint, which raises legitimate concerns about current service quality. Scores have been conservatively adjusted to reflect this recency imbalance.

• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent review (July 2020) is a 1-star complaint describing serious workmanship failures, leakage, and no accountability. All other reviews are from 2009–2018, making the 2020 review the most current signal of service quality.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are more than 5 years old, with several exceeding 10 years. The WW Score may not reflect current business performance.
• NEGATIVE OUTLIER: The 2020 review explicitly describes a contractor knowingly installing a tub without a proper trim kit, ignoring manufacturer instructions, and refusing to stand behind their work — this is a significant project completion and experience failure.
• DATA VOLUME: Only 8 reviews total. Score reliability is limited by small sample size and wide date range spanning over a decade.

This WW Score carries MODERATE reliability due to a small review sample, a wide date range spanning 11 years, and a critical recent negative review that stands in sharp contrast to older positive feedback — prospective customers should seek more current references before hiring.

Armour Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all dimensions. Three positive reviews highlight strong responsiveness, same-day emergency service, and courteous technicians, which pushes professionalism and project completion scores upward. However, a detailed 1-star review from 2020 documents serious failures: work not completed as agreed, post-job drain clogging charged back to the customer, unresolved billing discrepancies, poor workmanship leaving unsealed holes, and no management callback — all of which significantly drag down scores across every dimension. A fifth review citing complete non-response to a service inquiry further undermines professionalism. The three positive reviews are all recent (2023–2024), while the two negative reviews are older (2020), which provides some optimism about improvement but cannot be ignored given the severity of the complaints.

• Small sample size of only 5 reviews — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• The three positive reviews (2023–2024) use somewhat generic praise with limited specific detail, though they do reference named technicians and specific jobs, reducing but not eliminating fake review concern.
• The 2020 negative reviews are older than 3 years; recency weighting favors the positive reviews, but the severity of the 1-star complaint warrants continued caution.
• No management callback was reported in the detailed 1-star review, indicating a potential systemic issue with customer service escalation.
• Billing irregularities explicitly documented: failure to credit a $55 evaluation fee and charging $135 to fix their own defective work — both are serious red flags for pricing transparency.
• Unsealed holes left in customer's home after installation represents a workmanship and professionalism failure that was never remediated.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews and should be considered LOW reliability — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references and obtain detailed written contracts before hiring.

The review corpus for MidWid Maintenance/Repair is deeply divided, with a cluster of positive reviews from 2015–2020 offset by a substantial and detailed body of negative reviews spanning 2017–2023. The negative reviews are highly specific and credible, describing repeated patterns of misdiagnosis, overcharging for parts (one reviewer documented a 7,857% markup on a bracket), incomplete repairs, refusal to issue refunds, and aggressive or profane responses from the owner when challenged. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly stating that repairs were left unfinished, appliances were destroyed, or the contractor stopped responding entirely. Professionalism scores are dragged down severely by multiple accounts of the owner yelling at customers, using profanities, missing appointments without notice, and sending hostile text messages. Pricing is flagged as a serious concern due to documented extreme part markups and charges for mistakes the contractor himself made. Experience scores reflect a consistent pattern across negative reviews of misdiagnosis, use of wrong or cheap third-party parts, and work that had to be corrected by other technicians — often within minutes of arrival.

• PATTERN OF FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED POSITIVE REVIEWS SUSPECTED: Several 5-star reviews are brief, generic, and lack specific detail (e.g., 'Great service, super friendly and fast fix!'). Multiple 5-star reviews cluster around the same dates (August 2019, 2015–2016) and use similar praise language without specifics. Confidence in positive reviews is reduced accordingly.
• SEVERE RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2021–2023) are predominantly 1-star with highly detailed, credible complaints. The positive reviews are largely from 2015–2020. The contractor's performance appears to have deteriorated significantly over time, and recent data should be weighted more heavily.
• REPEATED PATTERN OF APPLIANCE DESTRUCTION: At least 4 independent reviewers explicitly state that the contractor destroyed their appliance (refrigerator x2, dishwasher, HVAC units x2) and refused to take responsibility or issue refunds. This is a critical safety and competency flag.
• DOCUMENTED EXTREME PARTS MARKUP: One reviewer verified via the manufacturer that a bracket priced at $189.38 by the contractor cost $2.38 retail — a markup of over 7,800%. A cheap third-party fan motor was also substituted for the OEM part the customer was told would be used.
• DOCUMENTED HOSTILE OWNER BEHAVIOR: Multiple independent reviewers describe the owner yelling, using profanities, and sending aggressive messages when confronted about poor work. One reviewer considered contacting police. This is a consistent behavioral pattern, not an isolated incident.
• LEGAL AND REGULATORY ACTIONS NOTED: At least two reviewers state they took or are pursuing legal action against the company, and one reports filing a complaint with the BBB.
• INCOMPLETE JOB ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Multiple reviewers describe the contractor taking payment and then going silent, failing to return calls or texts, and never completing the repair.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to the volume of reviews (25) and the high mention rate across all four dimensions, but the score itself should be treated as a serious warning signal — the detailed, specific, and independently corroborated negative reviews from multiple customers across several years paint a consistent picture of a contractor with significant competency, honesty, and professionalism deficiencies.