Find Nearby Plumbers In Roswell, Georgia

Shumate demonstrates significant inconsistency across all dimensions. While the company shows strong technical expertise and occasional excellent professionalism (particularly in installations and select technicians like Troy, Tim, and Derek), it is severely hampered by chronic pricing complaints, poor scheduling/communication practices, and documented instances of misdiagnosis and overselling. The company's advertised same-day and emergency services are frequently not delivered. Multiple reviews detail aggressive upselling tactics, failure to follow through on promises, and unresponsive management. However, loyal long-term customers and successful installations indicate capability when execution aligns with promises.

• PATTERN OF MISDIAGNOSIS: Multiple independent reviews (freon leak not disclosed, capacitor overpricing, mini-split compressor misdiagnosis, ductwork overestimation) suggest systemic diagnostic issues or deliberate overselling to drive equipment replacement sales.
• ADVERTISING MISMATCH: Repeated complaints about '24/7 same-day service' and 'emergency service' promises not being honored. Company advertises services it does not reliably deliver.
• SCHEDULING DYSFUNCTION: At least 8 reviews document no-shows, missed appointments, unscheduled arrivals, or failure to call back for scheduling despite confirmation calls.
• MANAGEMENT UNRESPONSIVENESS: Multiple reviews report unanswered calls, unreturned voicemails, and unresponsive management (Michael, Matt, Dennis) to customer concerns and follow-up requests.
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Quotes range from 30-50% below competitors to 2-3x market rates for identical parts (capacitors, filters). Service fees ($95 diagnostic per unit) not applied to repairs. Saturday premium charges appear excessive.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUES: Installation defects documented (improper thermostat installation, humidifier wiring hazards, flex ductwork, improper gas line connection causing gas leak with child in home, circuit board damage from technician error).
• SELECTIVE TECHNICIAN QUALITY: Named technicians receive both 5-star and 1-star reviews (Tino/Tito specifically called out as problematic in multiple reviews; Troy, Tim, Derek praised). Suggests inconsistent training or accountability.
• WARRANTY HANDLING: Multiple complaints about warranty denial or non-registration of units, shifting responsibility to customers for service agreement proof.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews cluster in 2012-2022 period. Recent reviews (2024) show continued issues with emergency service false advertising and misdiagnosis.

This WW Score of 62.8 should be treated with caution despite HIGH confidence in the data: the company exhibits a Jekyll-and-Hyde pattern where quality depends heavily on which technician arrives and whether the customer is a long-term loyalist versus new customer. The score reflects genuine high-quality work capability undermined by systemic business practice failures (scheduling, communication, pricing transparency, diagnostic integrity). Prospective customers should obtain multiple independent diagnoses before authorizing work and verify all promises in writing.

Royal Flush Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately due to a large number of positive mentions of friendly, courteous technicians, but is significantly dragged down by repeated complaints about no-shows, missed appointment windows, poor communication, rude staff interactions, and an unresponsive management team. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with multiple detailed complaints about rates perceived as excessive or arbitrary, surprise charges, and refusals to honor implied credits or reimbursements — though a handful of reviewers praised fair or reasonable pricing. Project completion is also troubled: while many jobs were completed successfully and promptly, there are credible, detailed accounts of abandoned work, return visits required to fix botched jobs, property damage left unaddressed, and promises of reimbursement never fulfilled. Experience scores slightly higher than completion, as many individual technicians are praised for skill and knowledge, but serious workmanship failures — including improperly wired floats, reversed check valves, and recurring leaks after repair — prevent a higher score.

• 14 reviews contain no text body — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable qualitative data.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Aaron was excellent!', 'The service was awesome the tech man really perform over and above') with no specifics. These were counted but weighted conservatively.
• A cluster of reviews dated 2024-06-09 with no text and ratings of both 1 and 5 stars is suspicious and may indicate review manipulation or a platform import artifact. Confidence is slightly reduced for that date cluster.
• The review base spans from 2012 to 2025 — over a decade. Reviews older than 2022 (approximately 20+ reviews) were given reduced weight as they may not reflect current business practices.
• Multiple independent reviewers describe the same pattern: management unresponsiveness, a customer service manager ('Vickie' or 'Vicky') being dismissive or hostile, and promises of reimbursement or callbacks that were never honored. This recurring pattern across unrelated reviewers adds credibility to the negative feedback.
• One reviewer (1-star, 2024-04-10) submitted only the text 'A terrible dishonest com pany.' with a line break mid-word, suggesting a truncated or corrupted submission. Treated as a negative signal but not scored dimensionally.
• The company appears to have genuine strengths at the individual technician level but systemic weaknesses in scheduling, management responsiveness, and pricing consistency.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 13 years, with sufficient mentions across all four dimensions to carry HIGH confidence labels; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given the wide variance in customer experiences, the presence of blank reviews, and evidence of recurring systemic issues that suggest the score reflects genuine inconsistency rather than statistical noise.

Billy's Handyman Services has a large base of positive reviews praising punctuality, friendliness, responsiveness, and fair pricing, which drives moderate-to-good scores in professionalism and pricing. However, several detailed and credible negative reviews — including accounts of abandoned jobs after payment, work left incomplete, rude behavior, and seriously substandard workmanship — significantly drag down the project completion and experience scores. The most damaging reviews describe structural, plumbing, and electrical work that was not only incomplete but potentially dangerous and non-code-compliant, which cannot be offset by volume of generic praise. Project completion is the weakest dimension, weighed down by multiple independent accounts of jobs left unfinished and promises not honored. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with genuine capability on smaller jobs but a meaningful and documented pattern of failure on larger or more complex projects.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: One detailed negative review (2019) explicitly alleges that reviews posted under 'William C.' and 'Tammy C.' were written by Billy himself and his wife, violating platform guidelines. Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Really good people...', 'Highly recommend!!!', blank review with 5 stars) with no job-specific detail, which is consistent with this allegation.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: At least 4 independent reviews describe Billy accepting payment and then failing to return to complete the job — a serious and recurring pattern that heavily penalizes the project completion score.
• LICENSING CONCERN: A 2019 review alleges Billy Cunningham did not hold a valid plumber's license, electrician's license, or residential basic contractor's license in Georgia at the time of writing, and legally could not perform projects over $2,500. This has not been verified but is a significant flag for consumers.
• DANGEROUS WORKMANSHIP DOCUMENTED: The 2019 detailed review describes multiple code violations on plumbing and gas line work, including missing P-traps, improper gas line sizing, missing drip legs, and an incorrectly installed tankless water heater that caused equipment damage. This is a serious safety concern.
• RECENCY NOTE: The two most recent reviews (2025) are mixed — one is a strong positive, one is a detailed negative describing poor workmanship and rude behavior. The negative 2025 review is recent and specific, and should be weighted heavily.
• RECENCY NOTE: A significant portion of 5-star reviews are dated 2020 or earlier, some clustered on the same date (e.g., multiple reviews on 2020-06-10, 2021-06-10, 2023-06-10), which is a pattern sometimes associated with review manipulation or bulk submission.
• ONE REVIEW SUBMITTED WITH NO TEXT: A 5-star review dated 2020-06-10 contained no review text and was excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• ONE REVIEW UPDATED TO NEGATIVE: The review originally posted as 5 stars (2018-12-04) was later updated by the reviewer to report that Billy stopped returning calls and left an unfinished prepaid project — this was scored as a negative data point for project completion despite the original star rating.

This WW Score is based on a substantial review set (52 reviews) with HIGH confidence across all dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced by credible allegations of fake reviews, a documented recurring pattern of job abandonment after payment, and serious safety-related workmanship failures described in multiple independent detailed accounts.

Plumbing Central presents a deeply split profile: when Terry and his crew show up, the quality of work and pricing are consistently praised across many reviews, with customers highlighting fair rates, fast diagnosis, and skilled repairs. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of no-shows, unreturned calls, and broken appointments — spanning from 2015 through 2024 — severely drags down professionalism and project completion scores. The most damaging single data point is the 2024 update revealing that an improper underground fitting caused a water line failure years later, suggesting a workmanship defect on at least one job. The business also appears to have become largely unreachable since around 2020, which compounds concerns about reliability and follow-through. The high volume of reviews on both sides gives this score strong statistical grounding, but the trajectory over time is clearly negative.

• SEVERE RELIABILITY PATTERN: At least 12 reviews explicitly describe no-shows, unreturned calls, and broken appointments spanning 2015–2024. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• BUSINESS ACCESSIBILITY CONCERN: Multiple reviewers from 2020 onward report being unable to reach the business by phone or email, suggesting the company may be operating at severely reduced capacity or effectively defunct.
• WORKMANSHIP DEFECT FLAGGED: The 2024 update to the earliest review alleges that an improper underground fitting (shark bite/compression connector) was used on a buried water line, causing a failure approximately 3 years later. This is a legitimate technical concern and a serious quality flag.
• RECENCY BIAS WARNING: The majority of positive reviews are dated 2018–2022. Reviews from 2023–2024 are either negative or contain negative updates to previously positive reviews. The business's recent performance appears significantly worse than its historical average.
• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CONCERN (MINOR): A cluster of positive reviews share the exact date of 2022-06-10 and 2021-06-10 with no timestamps, which may indicate batch-submitted or solicited reviews. Language is varied enough to avoid a strong fake flag, but the date clustering warrants caution.
• ONE BLANK REVIEW: One review contained no text with a 5-star rating (2020-06-10) and was excluded from dimension scoring as it provides no usable data.
• SPLIT IDENTITY: Reviews reference the plumber by multiple names — Terry, Kerrie, Terence, Terrance, Tim — which may indicate multiple technicians or name confusion, but could also reflect inconsistent customer recall. This does not materially affect scoring but is noted for transparency.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning nearly a decade, giving it high statistical confidence, but the score should be interpreted with caution given the strong negative trend in recent years and documented patterns of no-shows and post-2020 unresponsiveness that suggest the business may no longer be reliably operational.

Dixie Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately at 72, with strong praise for punctuality and politeness from recent positive reviews, but serious complaints about rudeness and unresponsiveness from multiple customers. Pricing is a major weakness at 58, with multiple explicit complaints about overcharging, lack of transparency, and prices nearly double competitors. Project completion at 65 reflects serious concerns: incomplete repairs requiring callbacks, damage caused during service, and failure to honor warranty work. Experience scores highest at 80, with detailed praise for troubleshooting and technical skill, though undermined by instances of poor workmanship. The company demonstrates capability but suffers from inconsistent execution and pricing practices.

• PRICING RED FLAG: Multiple independent reviews (2016, 2017) cite prices nearly double competitors for identical work. Pattern suggests systematic overpricing, not isolated incidents.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERNS: At least 4 reviews document incomplete repairs, callbacks, or damage caused by technicians (2015, 2014, 2020 shower cartridge incident, 2016 senior citizen case).
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most reviews are from 2014-2020 (6+ years old). Only 1 recent review from 2023. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• EMPTY/MINIMAL REVIEWS: 4 reviews contain no text or single words (5-star ratings with no substance), suggesting possible fake or placeholder reviews.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews praising specific technicians (Cory, Greg, Rick) and 1-star reviews citing same company as unethical. Suggests quality depends heavily on which technician is assigned.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple complaints about phone staff being rude/dismissive (2021, 2014) and unresponsiveness to follow-up (2016 senior citizen case).

This score should be treated with caution. While based on 33 usable reviews, the data is heavily weighted toward 2014-2020 (6+ years old), making current reliability questionable. The company shows genuine capability in technical work but is undermined by consistent pricing complaints, project completion failures, and communication issues. The stark polarization between 5-star and 1-star reviews suggests inconsistent service quality. A score of 68.2 reflects a below-average contractor with serious concerns about pricing transparency and follow-through, though some customers report excellent experiences.

Towne Plumber demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for responsiveness, punctuality, and courteous communication across multiple reviews. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple customers reporting aggressive upselling tactics, bait-and-switch practices, and unexpectedly high costs. Project completion is generally solid with same-day or next-day service delivery, though the pricing disputes raise concerns about transparency. Technical experience shows mixed signals—some reviews praise knowledgeability while others question competence. The company's score is pulled down substantially by documented pricing concerns that suggest systematic overcharging practices.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (2023-07-11, 2022-11-18) describe classic bait-and-switch tactics with significant price escalations after work begins. The 2022-11-18 review details a $1000 surprise charge justified by claiming they didn't carry the correct pipe size—a highly suspicious claim for a professional plumbing company.
• Pricing dimension shows consistent negative pattern: customers report quotes that are 'a little high' (2017-12-18), $500 savings offered for customer self-digging (2023-07-11), and major post-discovery price increases (2022-11-18). This suggests systematic overpricing or poor initial estimates.
• Recency concern: Most positive reviews are from 2018-2019 (older than 5 years). The two most recent reviews (2023-07-11, 2023-04-04) show stark contrast—one extremely negative on pricing, one extremely positive on service. This volatility warrants caution.
• Experience dimension has limited data (3 mentions). One review explicitly questions knowledgeability (2017-12-18: 'didn't seem like they were all that knowledgeable'), while others praise technical skill. Insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While professionalism and completion metrics are well-supported, the pricing dimension reveals a troubling pattern of aggressive upselling and bait-and-switch practices that significantly undermines overall trustworthiness. The stark contrast between older positive reviews and recent negative pricing complaints suggests potential deterioration in business practices or selective customer targeting. Prospective customers should obtain detailed written estimates and clarify all material specifications before authorizing work.