Find Nearby Plumbers In Marietta, Georgia

Fletch Barney exhibits significant inconsistency across reviews, with strong positive feedback on professionalism and experience in recent jobs (2024, 2020) contrasted sharply by severe pricing complaints and project completion failures in older reviews. Pricing emerges as the most critical weakness, with multiple customers reporting charges 3-10x higher than market rates without transparent quotes or customer consent. While field technicians (Ken, Nate, Roland, John, Galin, Jeremy) consistently receive praise for courtesy and skill, office management and pricing practices are heavily criticized. The company's ability to complete complex diagnostic work is questioned in the 2019 leak-finding case, though simpler jobs show reliable completion.

• SEVERE PRICING PATTERN: Five reviews explicitly cite excessive charges ($742 for drain clearing, $682.50 for <$50 tank, $560 vs $210 expected, $2000 for failed leak detection). This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• LACK OF TRANSPARENCY: Multiple reviews report no written quotes, no price confirmation before work, and surprise billing. One customer was never given pricing option and had no signature on authorization.
• OFFICE MANAGEMENT ISSUES: Phone staff described as impatient, argumentative, unwilling to negotiate, and dismissive of customer concerns. One manager 'hung up' on a customer.
• PAYMENT SECURITY CONCERN: One review reports handwritten credit card numbers with security codes—a serious data security violation.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: One 2019 review details catastrophic failure to locate leaks over 25 hours and 5 days, later found in 90 minutes by competitor. Suggests either skill gaps or inadequate equipment.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Most negative reviews are 2018-2022 (older); most positive reviews are 2024 (recent). This may indicate company improvement OR selection bias in recent reviews.
• ADMINISTRATIVE DELAYS: One review reports 9-day delay in invoice delivery after 3 follow-up calls.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent 2024 reviews are uniformly positive and suggest improved field performance, the historical pattern of aggressive pricing, lack of transparency, and poor office management is severe and well-documented across multiple independent customers. The WW Score of 58.3 reflects genuine operational strengths in field technician professionalism offset by critical business practice failures. Customers should request detailed written quotes and verify pricing before authorizing work.

E. Dennis (The Original Plumber) exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile. While individual technicians frequently demonstrate strong technical skills and professionalism (evidenced by 5-star reviews praising specific workers like Fernando, Donny, and Jake), the company systematically undermines this through aggressive pricing practices, poor follow-up, and unreliable scheduling. The most damaging pattern is pervasive price gouging: customers report markups of 1400% on parts, quotes 2-4x higher than competitors for identical work, and pressure-sales tactics during vulnerable moments (emergency calls, yard already excavated). Project completion suffers from no-shows, cancellations after minimal missed calls, and failure to return calls from dissatisfied customers. The company's responsiveness to complaints is nearly non-existent, with multiple reviews documenting 5+ unanswered calls to management. Positive reviews cluster around specific technicians and HVAC work; negative reviews span plumbing, septic, and electrical services, suggesting inconsistent quality control and possible systemic issues in sales practices.

• CRITICAL: Systematic price gouging pattern across 25+ reviews. Examples include: $1200 for a $150 valve (1400% markup), $2700 vs $1200 for identical scope, $510 vs $165 for 10-minute job, $1115 vs $270 for valve replacement, $2000+ for routine grease clogs. This is not isolated—it is pervasive.
• CRITICAL: Deceptive quoting practices. Multiple reviews document technicians providing false pressure readings, misidentifying problems, and recommending unnecessary replacements (entire toilets, water heaters, AC units, electrical boxes) to justify inflated quotes. Customers consistently verify claims via YouTube, second opinions, or DIY and find the original diagnosis was wrong.
• CRITICAL: Severe communication and follow-up failures. At least 15 reviews document: no-shows without notice, cancellations after minimal missed calls (6 minutes), failure to return manager callbacks (5+ attempts), ghosting after payment, and false claims about 24/7 emergency service.
• CRITICAL: Unethical contract practices. One review explicitly states customers are pressured to sign documents without understanding terms during high-stress situations (yard excavated, no water). Another describes a 'free' estimate that becomes paid-only if customer accepts inflated bid.
• Pattern of damage and refusal to take responsibility: Multiple reviews document crew damage (electrical lines cut, heating elements damaged, improper installations) with company refusing accountability or offering refunds.
• Inconsistent quality by technician: Positive reviews consistently name specific technicians (Fernando, Donny, Jake, Randall, Chris, Levi); negative reviews often describe different technicians at same company. Suggests quality control failure and possible lack of oversight.
• Recency concern: Most damaging reviews (price gouging, no-shows, communication failures) are from 2020-2024. Positive reviews skew older (2017-2019), suggesting company culture may have deteriorated or review base shifted.
• Potential fake review risk: Several 5-star reviews are generic praise with minimal specifics ('great service,' 'highly recommend') and lack detail about actual work performed. However, the volume of detailed negative reviews with specific dollar amounts, part numbers, and timelines suggests negative reviews are authentic.
• BBB and legal risk: Multiple reviews mention filing BBB complaints, Nextdoor posts, and intent to pursue legal action. One review explicitly states customer shared experience with entire neighborhood HOA and abutting neighborhoods.

This WW Score of 52.3 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence across all dimensions with 38-52 mentions each) and reflects a company with severe systemic issues in pricing ethics and customer service, despite pockets of strong individual technician performance. The score should be trusted as an accurate representation of customer experience risk, particularly for price-sensitive decisions and projects requiring follow-up service.

Garrett Mechanical shows a deeply polarized performance profile. Positive reviews (4 of 9) consistently praise technicians like Ben, Tommy, and James for technical skill, responsiveness in emergencies, and fair pricing on specific jobs. However, negative reviews (5 of 9) reveal systemic issues: inflated quotes 40-50% above market rate, misdiagnosis of plumbing problems leading to unnecessary expensive work, poor follow-through on promised callbacks and refunds, and unprofessional communication (late-night texts, unresponsive to complaints). The company's professionalism and pricing scores are significantly dragged down by documented instances of poor communication, broken promises, and apparent overcharging. Project completion suffers from incomplete repairs requiring callbacks and unresolved customer complaints.

• MAJOR PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (2024-10-17, 2023-11-28, 2024-05-09) explicitly state quotes are 40-50% above market rate and pricing is inconsistent. One customer was quoted $3,600 for work another plumber completed for minimal cost.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE: 2024-05-09 review documents misdiagnosis by technician—traced drain line incorrectly, leading to unnecessary $395 charge and $3,600 recommendation that was completely wrong. Second opinion revealed actual problem was simple.
• FOLLOW-THROUGH FAILURE: 2024-05-09 review—customer sent 3 emails requesting refund for incorrect service; company ignored all requests but responded immediately when they needed payment.
• INCOMPLETE REPAIRS: 2021-09-23 review—pipe repair failed immediately after technician left; promised callback never materialized; owner promised discount that was never applied.
• UNPROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION: 2021-09-23 review documents late-night texts (11:43 PM, 12 AM, 1 AM, 2 AM) to customer's wife after being told to communicate with husband only; broken promises about morning callbacks.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2023-2024 (recent); most positive reviews are from 2021-2022 (older). This suggests potential decline in service quality over time.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing reviews mentioning specific technicians (Ben, Tommy, James) and scathing reviews about overcharging and poor work. Suggests quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 9 reviews with adequate mention counts, the extreme polarization (5 one-star vs. 4 five-star reviews) and documented evidence of systematic overcharging, misdiagnosis, and broken promises in recent reviews (2023-2024) indicate serious operational issues. The positive reviews, while genuine, appear to reflect exceptional individual technician performance rather than company-wide standards. Customers should obtain independent quotes before engaging this company.

Clog Dawgs receives a below-average WW Score of 42.8, driven primarily by severe pricing complaints and mixed professionalism feedback. While some reviews praise technical competence and customer service (one 5-star review, one 4-star review), the majority of feedback (four 1-star reviews) highlights exorbitant pricing, poor project execution, unprofessional supervisor behavior, and lack of quality control. Project completion shows mixed results with some jobs completed correctly but others marred by poor workmanship and cleanup. The company appears to have inconsistent service quality and a significant reputation problem around affordability.

• SEVERE PRICING COMPLAINTS: Multiple reviews explicitly cite prices 3-5x higher than competitors for identical work. This is the dominant negative theme across reviews.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: One review documents supervisor rudeness and dismissiveness; another describes technician appearing unprepared and exhausted after poor execution.
• PROJECT EXECUTION ISSUES: One detailed review describes extensive property damage (gouges in walls, concrete debris dumped on lawn, insulation loss, mud/water damage) during a leak detection job, with inadequate cleanup and dismissive management response.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews are from 2018-2022 (3-5 years old). Only one recent positive review from 2020. Limited current data to assess if company has improved.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing praise (5-star: 'Steve is awesome') and severe criticism suggests either highly variable technician quality or selective positive reviews.

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (6 reviews) and age of most data, but the consistency of pricing complaints and documented project failures across multiple independent reviews suggests genuine service quality and pricing concerns that warrant serious consideration.

This contractor's review profile is deeply polarized, with a cluster of severe 1-star complaints describing dishonest practices, property damage, abandoned work, and hostile communication from the owner, contrasted against a smaller set of positive reviews praising professionalism and responsiveness. The most damaging and detailed negative reviews are recent (2024), describing a pattern of starting insurance-related work without approval, refusing to address property damage caused by crews, and the owner verbally abusing a customer. Pricing concerns are significant, with multiple reviewers independently flagging overcharging, bait-and-switch tactics, and mid-job quote changes. Project completion is a major liability, with multiple reviews describing unfinished or botched work, standing water after grading, and customers left without functional bathrooms. The positive reviews, while genuine in tone for the most part, are largely older (2018–2021) and carry less weight given the more recent and detailed negative experiences.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The most detailed and severe negative reviews are from 2024 and early 2024, suggesting a possible deterioration in service quality over time. Positive reviews are predominantly from 2018–2021.
• PATTERN OF MISCONDUCT: Multiple independent reviewers describe the same owner ('Roman') engaging in dishonest insurance practices, refusing to respond after causing damage, and verbally abusing a customer — this is a serious and credible pattern, not isolated incidents.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH ALLEGATIONS: At least two reviews independently allege that the company expands scope of work dishonestly to increase billing, including one allegation of starting insurance work without approval.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE UNADDRESSED: Two separate reviews describe crew members causing physical damage to customer property (hardwood floors, dryer, yard) with no remediation offered by the company.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: The 5-star reviews from 2021 and earlier are somewhat generic in praise (e.g., 'amazing company,' 'great employees,' 'very honest about cost') with limited specifics, which warrants mild caution, though they are not identical in phrasing and some include specific names and details.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR: One review documents the owner calling a customer profane names and threatening late fees in response to a negative review — this is a significant professionalism red flag.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a sufficient review count (13 reviews), but the sharp split between detailed recent negative reviews and older positive reviews, combined with credible allegations of fraud, property damage, and hostile owner conduct, means the score should be treated as a serious warning signal rather than a balanced average.

The overwhelming majority of reviews describe Randal Lowe Plumbing as a deeply problematic contractor across every measured dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by pervasive reports of rude office staff, supervisors refusing to speak with customers, missed appointments without notification, and condescending attitudes — with only a small handful of positive interactions noted. Project completion is the most critically scored dimension, with dozens of accounts of defective installations, failed pipes, burst expansion tanks, improperly glued joints, concrete left in sewer lines, and a consistent pattern of refusing to honor warranty obligations or stand behind completed work. Workmanship quality is rated extremely low based on explicit descriptions of substandard materials, incorrect installations, and failures occurring within just a few years of construction — with multiple independent plumbers confirming the poor quality of Randal Lowe's original work. Pricing receives a marginally higher score only because a small number of positive reviews mention fair or reasonable pricing, but one review explicitly describes overcharging, and several others note the company's refusal to provide service at all, undermining any pricing value. The few positive reviews (approximately 4 out of 32) are vastly outweighed by the volume and specificity of negative accounts spanning over a decade.

• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most spanning 2012–2021. Only 3 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2023–2024). The most recent positive review is from October 2020. Score reflects the full historical record but recent data is sparse.
• PATTERN WARNING: The positive reviews (approximately 4) are significantly outnumbered by negative reviews (approximately 27) and represent isolated experiences. The positive reviews do contain specific details (named technicians, specific jobs) suggesting they are likely genuine, but they do not represent the dominant customer experience.
• SYSTEMIC FAILURE FLAG: Multiple independent reviewers across different housing developments and years describe identical failure modes — burst expansion tanks, failed pressure reducing valves, improperly glued pipes, and refusal to honor warranty work. This suggests systemic installation quality issues rather than isolated incidents.
• ACCOUNTABILITY FLAG: Numerous reviews explicitly describe supervisors refusing to speak with customers, hiding behind subordinates, and a company-wide pattern of deflecting responsibility for defective work once warranty periods expire.
• STAFF CONDUCT FLAG: Multiple named staff members (Nancy, Tabitha, Jessica, Macie, Amanda, Jeff) are cited by name across separate reviews for rude, condescending, or dismissive behavior, indicating a persistent customer service culture problem.
• LICENSING FLAG: One reviewer (2018) states they could not find a valid plumbing license for the owner Herald Marku Edgar and called for investigation. This has not been verified but is noted as a serious concern.

This WW Score of 24.1 is based on 32 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, and should be considered a highly reliable and conservative assessment of this contractor's performance — the low score is well-supported by consistent, specific, and independently corroborated negative experiences spanning more than a decade.