Find Nearby Plumbers In Atlanta, Georgia

Matt the Plumber demonstrates strong professionalism, fair pricing, and technical expertise across most dimensions, supported by numerous positive reviews spanning 2015–2023. However, the WW Score is significantly depressed by critical project completion failures documented in two recent reviews (October 2024) involving deposit non-refunds and abandoned jobs totaling $3,000+. These recent incidents represent a severe departure from the contractor's historical pattern and suggest either a recent operational breakdown or a fundamental change in business conduct. The score reflects the weighted impact of these serious completion failures despite otherwise strong performance in communication, punctuality, and workmanship quality.

• CRITICAL: Two recent reviews (October 2024) allege serious misconduct—non-refunded deposits ($1,000 and $1,000) and complete abandonment of jobs after payment. Both reviews are detailed, specific, and credible with dates and amounts. This represents a severe red flag for project completion reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2015–2023 (older than 12 months). The two most recent reviews (October 2024) are highly negative and describe unethical behavior. This suggests a recent deterioration in business conduct.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple reviews from 2015–2020 use nearly identical phrasing ('friendly, courteous, professional,' 'reasonable price,' 'highly recommend,' 'on time'). While not conclusive, the repetitive language and uniformly glowing tone across many older reviews warrants caution. One review contains only a period (.) with a 5-star rating, indicating data quality issues.
• MEDICAL CONDITION MENTIONED: One October 2024 review mentions the contractor disclosed pancreatic cancer, which may explain recent operational failures but does not excuse non-refunded deposits or lack of communication.
• GEOGRAPHIC INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference locations in Massachusetts (Marshfield, Plymouth), Washington (Tacoma), and other areas, suggesting either multi-location operation or data aggregation from multiple contractors with similar names. This should be verified.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While historical data (2015–2023) strongly supports a rating of 85+, two credible and detailed recent complaints (October 2024) describing deposit theft and job abandonment fundamentally undermine confidence in current business reliability. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects this critical recent deterioration. Potential customers should contact the contractor directly to clarify current operational status and request references from jobs completed in the past 6 months before engaging.

Head's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and workmanship, with multiple reviews praising skilled technicians like Torian, Byron, and Odari for quality work and problem-solving. However, the company is significantly hampered by serious professionalism and reliability issues, including multiple no-shows, missed appointment windows, poor communication, scheduling failures, and inconsistent staff training. Pricing is generally competitive and fair when work is completed, but project completion is inconsistent—some jobs are finished excellently while others are abandoned or require multiple callbacks without resolution. The stark contrast between 5-star and 1-star reviews suggests highly variable service delivery.

• CRITICAL: Multiple no-show incidents documented across different years (2022, 2019, 2018) indicating systemic scheduling/dispatch problems, not isolated incidents
• CRITICAL: At least two reviews describe identical or nearly identical unresolved septic/toilet issues from 2017-2021 with incomplete work, suggesting potential pattern of abandoned projects
• CRITICAL: Professionalism concerns include argumentative staff (Ms. Maddox), poor communication, missed appointment windows, late-night calls to customers, and inconsistent pricing quotes from untrained receptionists
• MODERATE: One review (2019-04-18) contains detailed allegations of unethical sales practices and pressure to purchase equipment, though this is a single account
• MODERATE: Recency issue—several critical negative reviews are from 2018-2019, but no-show incidents also documented in 2022, suggesting ongoing issues
• MODERATE: Positive reviews cluster around specific technicians (Torian, Byron, Odari), suggesting quality depends heavily on individual technician assignment rather than company-wide standards

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to extreme polarization in reviews (9 five-star, 8 one-star, 3 mixed). The score of 68.2 reflects genuine strengths in technical expertise and pricing, but is heavily weighted down by documented professionalism and completion failures. The company appears capable of excellent work but unreliable in execution and customer communication; customers should expect variable service quality and should verify appointment confirmations multiple times before scheduling.

This contractor shows significant inconsistency in service quality. Two early reviews (2020) praise responsiveness, fair pricing, and professionalism, while two older reviews (2016, 2013) document serious failures in workmanship and follow-through. The 2016 review details multiple installation defects including improper valve assembly, excessive caulking, and poor drainage planning. The 2013 review describes a refused callback and refusal to correct incomplete work, resulting in small claims court action. Project completion is the primary weakness, with explicit evidence of abandoned work and refusal to honor callbacks. Professionalism ratings are mixed—positive communication in recent reviews contrasts sharply with bullying behavior and breach of contract in older reviews.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2013 and 2016 (8–11 years old); only two are recent (2020). Older reviews may not reflect current operations, but they document serious legal/contractual failures.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (2020) and damning 1-star and 3-star reviews (2013, 2016). This suggests either significant operational changes or inconsistent service delivery.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: The 2013 review documents refusal to perform warranty work and breach of contract (small claims court action). The 2016 review documents multiple defects left unaddressed. These are critical failures.
• WORKMANSHIP CONCERNS: The 2016 review provides detailed technical failures (improper valve sweating with cartridges installed, excessive caulk blocking drainage, misaligned fixtures, scratched trim). These suggest lack of technical expertise or quality control.
• CALLBACK REFUSAL: The 2013 review explicitly states the plumber refused to return to fix incomplete work and demanded additional payment. This is a severe professionalism and completion failure.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme inconsistency across reviews spanning 11 years, with serious documented failures in project completion and contractual obligation. Recent positive reviews do not fully offset evidence of breach of contract and poor workmanship in earlier reviews. Recommend requesting references from work completed in the past 12 months before engaging.

Coleman Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. While older reviews (2006–2015) predominantly praise professionalism, punctuality, and technical skill, recent reviews (2023–2024) reveal serious systemic failures including non-responsive follow-up on warranty work, unprofessional conduct, unlicensed operation, and installation defects that violate code. The most recent review documents 18 months of unresolved callback requests despite a claimed 5-year guarantee, combined with poor workmanship (sawdust clogging pipes, improper venting). Pricing concerns appear in multiple reviews, with allegations of upselling unnecessary work and misrepresenting advertised discounts. The company's reliability has deteriorated significantly over time.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2023–2024) allege the owner is unlicensed and operating illegally. This is a disqualifying red flag.
• RECENCY BIAS: Oldest reviews (2006–2015) are uniformly 5-star with generic praise; newest reviews (2023–2024) are uniformly 1-star with specific, detailed complaints. This temporal inversion suggests either a dramatic decline in service quality or potential review manipulation in the older cohort.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Eight reviews contain only 'unknown' text with 5-star ratings (2016, 2015, 2015, 2015, 2014, 2011). These provide zero substantive information and appear to be placeholder or artificially inflated entries. Confidence reduced accordingly.
• UNRESOLVED WARRANTY CLAIMS: The November 2024 review documents a customer who paid $5,200 for work with a claimed 5-year guarantee, yet has been unable to obtain callback service for 18 months despite 10+ contact attempts. This directly contradicts claims of reliability.
• UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT: July 2023 review documents Jacob Coleman using derogatory language ('retard') about a family member within earshot of a customer.
• CODE VIOLATIONS: December 2018 review alleges improper fittings buried underground and installed to code by the son; a larger company confirmed the violation. May 2024 review documents improper venting and drain placement in main bathroom.
• UPSELLING ALLEGATIONS: March 2015 review alleges the company pressured customer to perform $994 in unnecessary work; a second plumber confirmed these items were not urgent.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: May 2015 review documents refusal to honor advertised 10% senior discount, instead offering only $26 coupon, and charging $79 for 'free' estimate contrary to Angie's List claims.
• WORK QUALITY DEFECTS: November 2024 review documents multiple installation failures: toilet 5 inches from wall (improper spacing), unvented toilet in main bath (code violation), drain passing shower (improper routing), and pipes clogged with sawdust from unnecessary joist cutting.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION and interpreted as a DECLINING COMPANY. While the overall score of 62.8 reflects mixed historical data, the temporal pattern is alarming: recent reviews (2023–2024) document serious legal, safety, and service failures that contradict the company's older reputation. The presence of eight 'unknown' placeholder reviews inflates historical scores artificially. Potential customers should prioritize the recent negative reviews, verify current licensing status independently, and consider the documented pattern of unresolved warranty claims and code violations as disqualifying factors. This company does not appear trustworthy for new work.

Donald the Plumber exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile with stark contrasts between positive and negative experiences. While some customers praise responsiveness, technical skill, and fair pricing on routine jobs (diverter stem, sump pump, water line replacement), a significant cluster of recent reviews (2020-2023) document serious issues: egregious overcharging ($640 for toilet unclog, $475 for 30-minute faucet install, $325 for $10 part replacement), incomplete work (unglued pipe connections causing crawlspace damage), failure to follow installation protocols (untested faucets causing pipe burst and bathtub damage), and severe communication breakdowns when problems arise. The pattern suggests inconsistent quality, possible crew training issues, and a troubling pattern of non-responsiveness after service failures. Pricing transparency is a critical weakness across multiple reviews.

• CRITICAL: Strong pattern of pricing complaints across multiple independent reviews (2023, 2023, 2021, 2021, 2019) with consistent theme of excessive charges without prior quotes or transparency. This is not isolated—it appears systemic.
• CRITICAL: Multiple reports of non-responsiveness and communication failure specifically when problems occur or customers question charges (2023, 2021, 2020, 2018). This suggests avoidance behavior rather than isolated incidents.
• CRITICAL: Project completion failures documented in recent reviews (2020, 2021) including incomplete gluing of connections and failure to follow manufacturer installation protocols, resulting in property damage.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2020-2023 (recent), while most positive reviews are from 2017-2019 (older). This suggests deteriorating service quality over time.
• CREW QUALITY ISSUE: Multiple reviews mention inconsistent crew performance and lack of knowledge (2019, 2020, 2021), suggesting possible training or hiring problems.
• INSURANCE/LIABILITY: One review documents significant property damage (flooded floor, damaged bathtub) requiring insurance claims and weeks of follow-up, indicating serious quality control issues.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 17 reviews with adequate mention counts, the data reveals a highly polarized contractor with a clear negative trend in recent years. The score of 62.8 reflects genuine high-confidence data showing serious deficiencies in pricing transparency, communication, and project completion quality. Customers should be aware that positive reviews are predominantly from 2017-2019, while recent reviews (2020-2023) document systemic problems including overcharging, incomplete work, and communication failures.

Express Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and generally completes projects, but is significantly undermined by serious pricing and professionalism issues. Multiple reviews document deceptive pricing practices, hidden fees, and aggressive owner behavior toward customers—including seniors and disabled individuals. While field technicians receive consistent praise for skill and responsiveness, the owner's conduct (screaming at elderly customers, misrepresenting quotes, adding undisclosed charges) creates a pattern of customer mistreatment that overshadows positive workmanship. The company's WW Score reflects this contradiction: solid execution capability marred by unethical business practices.

• PRICING INTEGRITY CONCERN: Multiple independent reviews (2018-2022) document identical pattern of bait-and-switch pricing—quotes given without mention of extra fees, then surprise charges added after work begins. This is not isolated complaint but systemic practice.
• OWNER CONDUCT RED FLAG: At least 4 reviews explicitly describe owner 'Wayne' as rude, aggressive, or abusive—screaming at elderly customer, insulting disabled customer, hanging up phone, dismissing customer concerns. This suggests behavioral pattern, not isolated incident.
• VULNERABLE POPULATION TARGETING: Two reviews specifically describe mistreatment of seniors (mid-80s couple) and disabled customer (C5-C6 quadriplegic). Raises ethical concerns about targeting vulnerable populations.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster 2018-2022 (older); most positive reviews cluster 2020-2024 (recent). Possible ownership/management change or improved field operations, but pricing/owner conduct issues persist through 2022.
• CONFIDENCE CAVEAT: While mention counts are high, the extreme polarity (5 five-star reviews vs. 6 one-star reviews with no middle ground) suggests possible selection bias in review population. Satisfied customers may be less likely to leave detailed reviews than those wronged by pricing schemes.

This WW Score should be treated with caution: while data volume is adequate, the stark bimodal distribution (5-star vs. 1-star with minimal 3-4 star reviews) and documented pattern of deceptive pricing practices suggest the company's actual reliability is lower than the 62.8 score indicates. The score reflects technical competence but significantly underweights the systematic business ethics issues documented across multiple independent reviews.