Find Nearby Plumbers In Roswell, Georgia

Scott Plumbing shows strong technical skill and reasonable pricing, but professionalism and reliability are significantly undermined by critical failures in responsiveness and appointment adherence. Two reviews explicitly document no-shows and failure to return emergency calls, which directly contradict the positive experiences reported in other reviews. While Matt demonstrates competence and politeness when present, the inconsistency in showing up and responding to calls is a major concern that outweighs the quality of work performed. The company's ability to complete projects is compromised by these scheduling and communication failures.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews (2020 and 2014) document no-shows and failure to return emergency calls, directly contradicting the 5-star reviews. This suggests serious operational inconsistency.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 6+ years old (2015-2018). Only 2 reviews are from 2020 or later, limiting confidence in current service quality.
• PATTERN ALERT: The positive reviews lack specific detail about pricing transparency or project completion timelines, while negative reviews focus on responsiveness failures. This asymmetry suggests the company may perform well when present but fails at scheduling/communication.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Low risk detected. Reviews show genuine variation in experience and tone; however, the age of most positive reviews combined with recent negative feedback warrants caution.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recent data and a stark contradiction between positive and negative experiences regarding responsiveness and reliability. The WW Score reflects a company with demonstrated technical competence but serious operational inconsistencies that directly impact customer satisfaction.

The reviews present a mixed picture of PlumbWise. Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with multiple reviewers praising punctuality, friendly communication, and on-time arrivals, though this is tempered by one severe negative experience involving abandoned or poorly completed work. Pricing is a notable concern — one reviewer explicitly criticized the labor-to-cost ratio as outlandish and felt a potential upsell was not properly demonstrated, while another praised upfront reasonable pricing, resulting in a below-average pricing score. Project completion is significantly dragged down by one 1-star review alleging the contractor left a project in a damaged state and charged for poor work, which is a serious flag. Experience scores moderately, with several reviewers noting competent and efficient work, but the severe negative review prevents a higher score.

• One review (owlover247, 2020-08-12) contains no actionable service information — it only compliments the company logo and offers generic praise. This review was excluded from scoring as it provides no usable data on any dimension.
• The 1-star review (2019-07-11) alleges serious project failure, financial harm exceeding $10,000, and abandoned work. This is a significant red flag that materially impacts project completion and experience scores.
• All reviews with usable data are dated between 2017 and 2020 — none are within the past 12 months relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date. Recency is poor across the board; this score may not reflect current service quality.
• The review pool is very small (7 total, 6 usable), which severely limits statistical reliability. Scores should be treated with caution.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the owlover247 review is suspiciously generic and logo-focused with no service experience described.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to a very small review sample (6 usable reviews), all reviews being more than 4 years old, and the presence of one severe negative review that significantly skews multiple dimensions — prospective customers should seek more current references before hiring.

This contractor has a clearly split track record across 5 reviews spanning 2014 to 2024. Three positive reviews highlight timely arrivals, correct diagnoses, quality installations, and fair pricing, painting a picture of a capable and caring family-owned business. However, two strongly negative reviews — one describing a complete no-show on two consecutive days with no follow-up, and another describing a dismissive response to a late-night emergency despite advertised 24/7 service — significantly drag down scores in professionalism and project completion. Pricing feedback is consistently positive among those who mentioned it, and technical workmanship was praised in the reviews where work was actually completed. The negative reviews are older (2014 and 2017), while the most recent reviews (2022 and 2024) are positive, suggesting possible improvement over time, though the sample size is too small to confirm a trend.

• Small sample size of only 5 reviews — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and low-reliability.
• Two reviews (2014 and 2017) describe serious reliability failures: a complete no-show across two scheduled appointments, and a dismissive response to a stated emergency despite 24/7 advertising. These are significant red flags for project completion and professionalism.
• Review date range spans 10 years (2014–2024). The two negative reviews are older; the three positive reviews are more recent. Recency weighting favors the positive reviews, but the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions about improvement.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and include both positive and negative experiences, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning a decade and should be considered LOW reliability — treat it as a directional signal only, not a definitive assessment of this contractor's current quality.

The review set is heavily dominated by negative experiences spanning multiple years, with serious recurring complaints across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down sharply by documented incidents of rudeness, sexist remarks from a technician, failure to return calls, and unprofessional appearance, offset only slightly by a handful of older positive reviews praising politeness and punctuality. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: multiple reviews describe abandoned work, unresolved repairs, ignored warranty callbacks, and jobs left incomplete — including a raw sewage pit left unaddressed and a hot water heater improperly installed. Pricing concerns include a charge of $125 for an unrequested repair that diagnosed the problem incorrectly, and a $220 charge that left a customer still without water. Experience scores reflect a mixed but mostly negative picture, with one technician documented as needing phone guidance during a job and another failing to locate an accessible clean-out that the homeowner found via a quick internet search. The two positive reviews — one from 2024 and two from 2012–2013 — provide some upward pressure but are insufficient to offset the volume and severity of negative evidence.

• The majority of reviews are older than 1 year; most negative reviews cluster in 2017–2018, with only one positive review from 2024 and two positives from 2012–2013. Recency weighting limits how much the older positive reviews can improve the score.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, specificity, and rating — this appears to be an authentic review set.
• Multiple reviews describe the same systemic failure pattern: work left incomplete, no follow-up contact, and voicemail that goes unreturned. This suggests an organizational or operational problem rather than isolated incidents.
• One review documents a technician making a sexist comment to a female customer during a dispute. This is a serious professionalism flag.
• One review describes a misdiagnosis that cost the customer $125 for an unrequested repair, while a competing plumber correctly identified the problem at no charge — raising concerns about diagnostic integrity and possible upselling pressure.
• The 2024 positive review is the only recent data point. It is encouraging but represents a single data point and cannot be treated as evidence of sustained improvement.

This WW Score carries MODERATE-to-HIGH reliability given 9 reviews with usable data across all dimensions, but should be interpreted cautiously due to the wide date range of reviews and the possibility that business quality may have changed since the 2017–2018 period when the most severe complaints were recorded.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is critically weak, with consistent reports of non-responsiveness, no-shows, and failure to return calls or emails over extended periods. Project completion is compromised by incomplete diagnostics, defective workmanship (pump failure within weeks, possible use of refurbished equipment), and refusal to honor callbacks. Technical experience is questionable, with at least one documented case where the contractor failed to identify a problem that a non-professional neighbor solved. The single positive review lacks detail and cannot offset the weight of documented failures. Most reviews are from 2013–2015, limiting recency data.

• One review marked 'unknown' with 5-star rating (2014-06-02) — insufficient detail to verify legitimacy; excluded from scoring
• Serious quality control issue: pump installed by contractor failed within weeks and appears to have been refurbished (tampered serial number plate), suggesting deceptive practice
• Pattern of non-responsiveness: multiple reviews cite weeks of unanswered calls, emails, and no-show appointments
• All reviews are 9+ years old (2013–2015); no recent data available to assess whether practices have improved
• Technical competence questioned: contractor unable to diagnose problem that non-professional identified

This score should be treated with caution due to age of reviews (9+ years old), but the consistency of negative patterns across multiple independent reviews regarding responsiveness, workmanship quality, and follow-through suggests genuine systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.

This contractor's review record is dominated by a massive volume of serious, detailed complaints spanning over a decade, with the most damaging pattern being systematic bait-and-switch pricing: customers are quoted $150–$300 and routinely billed $1,000–$12,000 after work has already begun. Professionalism scores are severely dragged down by repeated accounts of rude technicians, missed appointments, no-shows, and in at least one case a technician using profane language toward an elderly customer. Project completion is critically undermined by multiple accounts of work that failed shortly after completion, jobs left unfinished, property damage (broken water lines, destroyed yards, shattered windows) caused by technicians, and a refusal to honor callbacks or warranty claims. Experience scores are low due to documented misdiagnoses, unnecessary work performed, and at least one case where a technician gutted a condo without finding a leak that a competitor located in 90 minutes. The minority of positive reviews, while genuine in some cases, are heavily outweighed by the volume and specificity of negative accounts.

• SUSPECTED FAKE OR INCENTIVIZED REVIEWS: A significant cluster of 5-star reviews are extremely brief (e.g., 'Great job', 'Mattie did an excellent job', 'Would highly recommend 10 out 10', 'Quick service would recommend 10 out of 10') with no specifics, no detail about the work performed, and no mention of price or outcome. Several are blank text with only a 5-star rating. These contrast sharply with the detailed, specific negative reviews and may represent solicited or fabricated positive reviews.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2023-08-31 are nearly word-for-word identical, one with a timestamp and one without. This is a strong indicator of review manipulation or padding.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2022-01-10 are nearly word-for-word identical, one with a timestamp and one without. Same manipulation pattern observed.
• SYSTEMATIC BAIT-AND-SWITCH PRICING: Across more than 40 individual reviews spanning 2005–2025, customers consistently report being quoted $150–$300 and billed multiples of that amount after work begins. This is not isolated — it appears to be a deliberate business practice.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024–2025) continue to show the same pricing deception and professionalism complaints as reviews from 2010–2022, indicating no meaningful improvement over time.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe technicians causing significant property damage (broken water lines, destroyed yards, shattered windows, flooded homes, damaged driveways, cut internet/cable lines) with the company refusing to take responsibility or make repairs.
• FAILED WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews describe work that failed within days or weeks of completion, with the company refusing to honor warranties or return to fix the problem without additional charges.
• COERCIVE SALES TACTICS: Multiple reviews describe technicians using high-pressure or threatening language (threatening liens, threatening to 'put fail on the invoice', refusing to pump without upsells) to force customers into expensive unnecessary services.
• BLANK REVIEWS EXCLUDED FROM SCORING: Eight reviews contained no text and only a 5-star rating. These were not used as evidence for any dimension score.

This WW Score of 28.4 is highly reliable and should be trusted: it is based on 130 reviews spanning 15+ years, with well over 5 mentions per dimension, and the negative patterns are consistent, specific, independently corroborated, and recurring across a long time horizon with no evidence of sustained improvement.