Find Nearby Plumbers In Dunwoody, Georgia

Just Plumbing demonstrates strong overall performance across all four dimensions, with a WW Score of 82.1. The company excels in project completion (85.0) and professionalism (84.0), with extensive evidence of on-time service, thorough work, and courteous technicians. Experience scores are solid (83.0), reflecting consistent technical competency and problem-solving ability. Pricing (76.5) is the weakest dimension, with numerous complaints about high costs, unexpected charges, and price increases post-estimate, though many reviews also praise fair pricing. The company shows reliability over time with strong recent performance (past 12 months), though older reviews reveal some recurring service inconsistencies.

• PRICING VOLATILITY: Multiple reviews (2020-2023) report significant price increases after initial estimates, diagnostic fees charged without prior disclosure, and complaints about high hourly rates. This suggests inconsistent pricing communication and potential upselling practices.
• SERVICE CONSISTENCY ISSUES: Several negative reviews cite missed appointments, failure to follow up on estimates, poor communication from dispatch/office staff, and incomplete callbacks. These issues appear scattered across the timeline but indicate systemic gaps.
• QUALITY CONTROL CONCERNS: A small number of reviews (2023, 2018) describe poor drywall finishing, improper pipe installation (pipes outside walls, sharp metal protruding), over-tightened fittings causing damage, and lack of post-installation support. One 2023 review explicitly called work a 'hack job.'
• OFFICE STAFF PROFESSIONALISM: Multiple reviews (2024, 2013) report rude or dismissive receptionists, impatience with customer questions, and failure to return calls during business hours. This contrasts sharply with field technician praise.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most reviews are from 2022-2025 (recent, high confidence). Older reviews (2009-2015) are predominantly positive with fewer pricing complaints, suggesting possible business model or management changes.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - LOW: While many 5-star reviews exist, they contain specific details (technician names, job types, timelines, warranty info) and vary in length and tone. No obvious patterns of identical phrasing detected. Reviews appear authentic.

This WW Score of 82.1 is highly reliable, based on 261 reviews with strong mention counts across all dimensions (68-127 mentions each). The company demonstrates genuine strengths in execution and technical skill, but the pricing dimension is legitimately weaker and should be a consideration for prospective customers. Recent reviews (past 12 months) show consistent performance, though office communication issues and occasional quality control lapses warrant caution.

Shawn demonstrates strong performance across all four dimensions based on five reviews spanning 2023–2024. Professionalism is evidenced by punctuality, responsiveness (holiday/emergency availability), easy appointment scheduling, and timely communication. Pricing is consistently described as fair, reasonable, and competitive relative to other quotes. Project completion is solid, with jobs finished to high quality and one instance of going above scope (shower frame support). Experience is reflected in technical skill, problem-solving (identifying correct water heater specs), and work guarantees. The primary weakness noted is one instance of longer-than-expected job duration, which slightly tempers the project completion score.

• Small sample size (5 reviews) limits statistical confidence; recommend collecting additional reviews for more robust scoring
• Two reviews (2023-06-11 and 2023-06-01) are older than 12 months; more recent data (2024) is available and weighted more heavily
• One review (2023-06-01) is very generic with no specific details; however, it does not exhibit patterns of fakery and is outweighed by detailed reviews

This WW Score of 88.2 should be treated as moderately reliable due to the small sample size and moderate confidence across all dimensions; the score reflects genuine positive feedback but would benefit from additional recent reviews to increase statistical robustness.

Pablo receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions from three reviewers. His professionalism is highlighted through clean work habits, responsiveness, and ease of scheduling. Pricing is noted favorably in two reviews, with one reviewer specifically calling the fee affordable and another citing price as a positive factor. Project completion is strong, with all three reviewers describing jobs that were fully finished, including a range of plumbing tasks across multiple visits. His technical experience is reinforced by his ability to handle complex or uncommon jobs that other companies declined, such as the reverse osmosis system installation.

• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — while the reviews do contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• Two of the three reviews are older than 12 months (2019 and 2020), with only one review from 2022. Recency of data is limited and the score may not reflect current performance.
• Only 3 reviews total — the WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as preliminary rather than definitive.

This score is based on only 3 reviews, two of which are over 3 years old, making it a low-volume, low-recency dataset; the WW Score should be treated as a tentative positive signal rather than a confident assessment.

Property Medics generally presents well on professionalism — four of five reviews explicitly praise punctuality, communication, and courteous conduct, and even the negative review does not dispute the team's demeanor. However, project completion is meaningfully dragged down by a detailed 1-star review describing improper floor leveling during installation, subsequent peeling, and a refusal to remedy the defect outside the one-year labor warranty window; this is a serious workmanship failure that offsets the otherwise positive completion narratives. Experience scores are similarly mixed: three reviews praise skill and quality, but the manufacturer's finding that floors were never properly leveled is a concrete technical failure that cannot be ignored. Pricing data is sparse — only two reviews touch on it, both positively noting insurance coordination that reduced out-of-pocket costs — so that dimension carries very low confidence. Overall, the WW Score reflects a contractor with strong interpersonal qualities but a documented quality-control gap that prospective customers should weigh carefully.

• RECENCY WARNING: One review dates to 2018 (over 6 years old) and was given reduced weight relative to the four 2024 reviews.
• WORKMANSHIP DEFECT FLAG: The 1-star review (2024-07-21) includes a manufacturer finding that floors were not leveled during installation, constituting a documented technical failure. This is not a subjective complaint and materially lowers the experience and project_completion scores.
• WARRANTY DISPUTE FLAG: Property Medics declined to remedy an installation defect by citing an expired one-year labor warranty, even when the defect appears to stem from improper installation rather than normal wear. This raises a consumer-protection concern.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews are available. While the WW Score has been calculated, it should be treated with caution due to the small sample size. A single negative review has outsized influence on the overall score.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in length, specificity, rating, and detail. No suspicious repetition or generic phrasing was identified.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 6 years and should be considered a preliminary signal rather than a definitive assessment — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references, particularly regarding the quality and durability of completed work.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile, with a cluster of strong positive reviews offset by a significant number of severe complaints. Professionalism scores are dragged down by multiple explicit accounts of non-responsiveness, staff sleeping on the job, workers not showing up, and the owner becoming unreachable after payment was collected. Project completion is a major liability: at least five reviews describe work that was abandoned, never started, or left in worse condition than before, including a $10K+ shower remodel that developed mold and a flooring job where $10,000+ was collected with no work completed. Pricing concerns are serious, with multiple reviewers alleging inflated estimates, borderline fraudulent insurance billing practices, and unexpected charges mid-project. On the positive side, a subset of customers — particularly those dealing with emergency water mitigation — report fast response times, clean work, and helpful navigation of the insurance process, suggesting the mitigation team performs better than the restoration/construction side.

• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: At least 4 reviews explicitly describe work being abandoned or never started after full or substantial payment was collected. This is a serious red flag for project completion reliability.
• NON-RESPONSIVENESS AFTER PAYMENT: Multiple reviews describe the owner and staff becoming completely unreachable after money was received, suggesting a systemic business practice rather than isolated incidents.
• ALLEGED INSURANCE FRAUD: One detailed review alleges the company deliberately inflates urgency and scope to maximize insurance payouts, describing the business model as 'borderline criminal.' A second review describes unnecessary demolition in a commercial setting that drove up costs without justification.
• WORKMANSHIP FAILURES: A $10K+ shower remodel resulted in mold growth within 6 months. A reviewer had to redo mudding, sanding, and painting themselves after the crew's poor work. A vapor barrier was installed incorrectly and a window was left unsealed for two weeks.
• WORKER CONDUCT: One reviewer found a worker asleep on their bedroom floor. Another review describes workers who were consistently late, left without returning from lunch, and spoke no English, creating communication and supervision failures.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2022–2023) include both a strong positive (August 2023 mitigation team) and a serious negative (April 2022 mold/shower failure, April 2022 abandoned flooring job). The pattern of complaints is not isolated to older reviews.
• SPLIT PERFORMANCE: There is a clear and consistent pattern where the emergency water mitigation side of the business receives praise, while the construction/restoration side receives the most severe complaints. Customers should be especially cautious about engaging this company for any reconstruction work.
• OLDEST REVIEW: One review dates to December 2013, which is over 10 years old and was given reduced weight in scoring.

This WW Score is based on 19 reviews with strong coverage across all four dimensions and is considered reliable in direction, but the score reflects a genuinely divided customer experience — the contractor may perform adequately on emergency mitigation but carries substantial documented risk for any restoration or reconstruction engagement.

Only one review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. That single review does speak positively across several dimensions: Steven Lauder is described as punctual and the office staff as easy to deal with, supporting a modest professionalism score. The reviewer explicitly noted the plumber identified and corrected prior handyman errors, rebuilt structural damage beneath a toilet, and resolved sink leaks, indicating solid technical experience and reasonable project completion. Pricing was not mentioned at all, so that dimension cannot be scored. Because all data comes from a single review, all scores are treated conservatively and flagged as LIMITED confidence.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and should be treated as highly preliminary.
• Pricing dimension has zero data and cannot be scored.
• Review is dated April 2020, making it over 4 years old at time of analysis — recency weighting is a concern if this is the only available data point.
• No fake review patterns detected in this single review — language is specific, includes named individuals, a location, and a described follow-up booking, which are positive authenticity signals.

This WW Score report is based on a single review from 2020 and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance — significantly more review data is required before any score can be trusted.