Find Nearby Plumbers In Macon, Georgia

This contractor's review set is extremely small (4 reviews) and deeply polarized. Two reviews from 2013 describe genuinely positive experiences — after-hours responsiveness, honoring estimates, professional follow-through, and reasonable pricing. However, two reviews from 2016 describe serious failures: a complete no-show with no communication during a septic emergency, and a separate allegation of financial dishonesty involving a $2,500 unpaid refund. The 2016 reviews are more recent and carry greater weight per recency rules, dragging professionalism and project completion scores down significantly. The positive pricing and experience signals are noted but carry very low confidence given only 2 mentions each.

• RECENCY WARNING: The two positive reviews are from 2013 (over 10 years old). The two negative reviews are from 2016. More recent data is negative and should be weighted more heavily.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One review alleges financial fraud — a contractor who accepted a money order, promised to return $2,500, provided false tracking information, and then became unresponsive. This is not a service quality complaint but a potential fraud allegation.
• NO-SHOW FLAG: One review documents a complete failure to appear for a scheduled emergency appointment with zero communication or follow-up, which is a critical project completion and professionalism failure.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW WARNING: The second 1-star review (truck sale / $2,500 refund) appears to describe a used vehicle transaction, not a plumbing or septic service. It may reference the same individual operating under a different business. It has been included as it reflects on the contractor's personal honesty and character but should be interpreted with caution.
• VERY LOW SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total. No reliable statistical conclusions can be drawn. Score should be treated as highly provisional.
• DATA SPLIT: 2 reviews are strongly positive, 2 are strongly negative — resulting in a near-even split that makes any aggregate score inherently unstable.

This WW Score has very low reliability due to an extremely small and outdated review set, a severe positive-negative split, a potential fraud allegation, and the fact that all positive data is over a decade old while all negative data is more recent — treat this score with significant caution and seek additional current references before hiring.

The overwhelming majority of reviews across all four dimensions are deeply negative, painting a consistent picture of a company in serious decline. Professionalism scores are devastated by pervasive no-shows, extreme hold times, rude staff, broken promises of callbacks, and technicians who disturb customers despite explicit requests — with only a small handful of positive interactions from individual technicians like Jason, Ellery, and Michael W. saving the score from near-zero. Pricing is flagged repeatedly as deceptive and predatory, with multiple reviewers citing undisclosed UCC liens placed on homes, lease agreements that cost two to three times the equipment value, bait-and-switch advertising, and charges for work not completed or not authorized. Project completion is catastrophically poor, with recurring themes of brand-new systems failing within months, installations left incomplete, technicians departing without resolving the issue, motors catching fire twice in the same unit, and multi-week waits for repairs in extreme weather — including for elderly and disabled customers. Experience scores reflect a pattern of misdiagnosis, incorrect parts, improper installations, subcontractors with inadequate training, and technicians unable to identify basic wiring faults that customers resolved themselves in minutes via a Google search.

• DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES — REPEATED: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe undisclosed UCC liens or mechanic's liens placed on their homes at the point of financing, without clear disclosure at time of sale. This is a systemic pattern, not an isolated incident.
• PREDATORY LEASE STRUCTURES: Multiple reviewers describe lease-to-own contracts where total payments far exceed equipment value (e.g., $22,000+ for a generator worth ~$6,500; units costing nearly 3x retail). Reviewers report being misled by salespeople about the true cost structure.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONED OR INCOMPLETE WORK: Numerous reviews describe technicians leaving mid-job, failing to return, or completing work that fails within hours or days. This is consistent across multiple years and service types (HVAC, plumbing, duct work).
• SYSTEMIC COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Dozens of reviews describe being unable to reach anyone beyond a call center, promised callbacks that never occur, and managers who are perpetually unavailable. This is not an occasional lapse but an operational pattern.
• POSSIBLE FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED POSITIVE REVIEWS: The five 5-star reviews in this dataset are notably brief, generic, or name-specific technicians in isolation. Given the volume and specificity of negative reviews, the positive reviews appear disproportionately sparse and may not reflect the typical customer experience. Confidence in positive signals is reduced accordingly.
• RECENCY NOTE: The vast majority of negative reviews are from 2022–2024, with the most recent dated October 2024. The decline appears to have accelerated after a change in ownership. A small number of older reviews reference better service under prior ownership, suggesting the current score reflects a company that has materially deteriorated.
• SAFETY CONCERN FLAGGED: At least one review describes motors catching fire twice during a repair attempt, with the company misdiagnosing the cause. Another describes bare wires left hanging after installation and a unit shorting out. These represent potential safety hazards beyond mere service quality issues.
• BILLING AND COLLECTIONS MISCONDUCT: Multiple reviewers describe being sent to collections for bills already paid, unauthorized charges continuing after contract cancellation, and refunds promised but never issued. This suggests systemic billing dysfunction or intentional misconduct.

This WW Score of 22.1 is based on a large volume of detailed, specific, and independently corroborated reviews spanning multiple years and service categories, and should be considered highly reliable as a reflection of this company's current service quality — the score is low because the evidence overwhelmingly supports it being low.

All five reviews are from 2012–2013 (11–12 years old), which significantly limits the reliability of this assessment. Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with explicit mentions of punctuality, cleanliness, honesty, and responsiveness across four reviews. Experience is supported by three reviews praising skill and workmanship. Pricing is mentioned in only two reviews, both positively. Project completion is mentioned in only two reviews with positive outcomes. The uniformly high ratings (all 5-star) with minimal specificity and the age of the reviews raise concerns about data freshness and representativeness.

• All reviews are 11–12 years old (2012–2013). No recent data available to assess current performance or reliability.
• All five reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback or critical detail. This uniformity, combined with age, limits confidence in current accuracy.
• Insufficient recent data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Recommend collecting current reviews before making contractor decisions.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient recent data and the absence of any critical or mixed feedback. Reviews from 2012–2013 do not reflect current performance, and all five being perfect 5-star ratings without substantive detail raises questions about representativeness. Do not rely on this assessment for current contractor evaluation.

With only 3 reviews, this dataset is too small to produce a reliable WW Score. The reviews present a stark contradiction: one detailed 1-star complaint alleging billing fraud and lack of transparency, versus two generic 5-star reviews lacking specifics. The negative review explicitly documents professionalism failures (no price quote before work, billing disputes, cash payment claims), while the positive reviews offer minimal actionable detail. The age disparity (2016, 2019 vs. 2022) and generic praise in older reviews raise concerns about data reliability.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews total — insufficient for reliable scoring
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The 2019 5-star review uses generic praise ('Best guys around!', 'go above and beyond') with no specific details or dates — typical of fake reviews
• SEVERE RECENCY ISSUE: Two reviews are from 2016 and 2019 (5+ years old); only one recent review from 2022
• CONTRADICTORY DATA: One detailed negative review alleges billing fraud and lack of transparency; two vague positive reviews provide no corroborating detail
• BILLING DISPUTE: The 2022 review explicitly claims the company sent a bill after the customer paid cash and disputes the work performed — serious red flag for trustworthiness

This score should NOT be trusted. With only 3 reviews, extreme age disparity, suspected fake reviews, and a serious unresolved billing dispute allegation, any aggregate score would be meaningless. Recommend collecting at least 10-15 recent, verified reviews before making a hiring decision.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. The first review (2023) explicitly criticizes professionalism, citing last-minute cancellations without proper notice. The second review (2011, over 12 years old) praises speed and technical execution. The extreme age gap, minimal review count, and conflicting signals prevent reliable WW Score calculation. No pricing feedback was provided in either review.

• Only 2 reviews total — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Extreme recency gap: one review from 2023, one from 2011 (12+ years old). Recent review is negative; older review is positive.
• No pricing data mentioned in any review
• Insufficient mentions across all dimensions (1 mention each for professionalism, project completion, experience) — all at LIMITED confidence
• Cannot calculate composite WW Score with confidence due to insufficient data volume

This score cannot be reliably calculated with only 2 reviews, one of which is over a decade old. The contractor should not be evaluated based on this data alone.

Both reviews paint a consistently negative picture of Pro Tech across all scored dimensions. Project completion is severely impacted by reports of unresolved issues persisting for over a year, including improperly sized return vents, unsealed ceilings, torn ducts, and frozen coils — none of which were corrected under an active maintenance contract. Experience scores are critically low, as a competing company was able to immediately identify and fix errors attributed to Pro Tech's installation and wiring work. Professionalism suffers due to the company's apparent inability to diagnose problems and, in one case, attempting to charge the customer for what may have been their own installation error. Pricing receives a very low score because one reviewer was asked to pay for additional return vents that arguably should have been correctly sized during the original installation.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• One review is from 2021 (over 3 years old) and carries reduced recency weight; the other is from 2023.
• No positive reviews were provided for this contractor. The dataset is entirely negative, which may reflect selection bias or a genuinely poor service record — this cannot be determined from 2 reviews alone.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews contain specific, detailed complaints with distinct language and scenarios, suggesting authentic experiences.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, which is below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score; all dimension scores should be treated as preliminary indicators only and not as a definitive assessment of this contractor's overall performance.