Find Nearby Plumbers In Sandy Springs, Georgia

Allgood Plumbing, Electric, Heating & Cooling presents a deeply polarized review profile: a significant portion of positive reviews praise individual technicians by name for professionalism, punctuality, and knowledge, while an equally large and detailed body of negative reviews documents systemic failures across all four dimensions. The pricing dimension is the weakest performer, with dozens of explicit complaints about extreme markups on parts (capacitors, valves, disposals), bait-and-switch quoting, and labor charges that reviewers consistently found to be two to ten times competitor rates. Project completion is severely damaged by a pervasive pattern of no-shows, repeated missed appointments without notification, abandoned warranty work, faulty installations that failed city inspections or caused flooding, and refusal to honor stated warranties. Professionalism scores moderately due to a genuine split: many individual technicians are described as courteous and knowledgeable, but management responsiveness, customer service callbacks, and dispatcher reliability are repeatedly described as nonexistent or deceptive. Experience scores in the middle range because while some technicians demonstrate clear skill, multiple reviews document misdiagnoses, incorrect installations, use of banned materials, and work that required correction by competing companies.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW ALERT: Multiple reviews appear to be exact or near-exact duplicates posted on different dates within days of each other (e.g., the 'Roderick Goodrum was a Excellent Representative' review appears on 2025-06-09 and 2025-06-06; the negative 2023 AC maintenance review appears five times across June 2025 dates; the 'John and Geo were awesome' review appears twice; the 'Do not do business with this company' refund review appears twice; the 'Top notch work! Joseph was a great tech!' review appears twice; the 'Our water heater decided it didn't want to be a water heater anymore' review appears twice; the 'Today Allgood sent the most professional' review appears twice; the 'HORRIBLE!!!! I had them come out' review appears twice; the 'This is one of the most useless companies' review appears twice; the 'Pedro and Mauro did a great job' review appears twice). This pattern of duplication significantly inflates both positive and negative review counts and suggests possible platform data aggregation errors or coordinated review posting.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE SIDE: A cluster of very short, generic 5-star reviews with no substantive detail (e.g., 'Technician was very knowledgeable, helpful and professional' repeated verbatim multiple times; numerous blank-text 5-star reviews) are consistent with patterns of inauthentic positive reviews. These have been discounted in scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — NEGATIVE SIDE: The same detailed negative review about the 2023 AC maintenance incident appears at least five times across different dates in June 2025, suggesting either a platform duplication bug or coordinated negative posting. This review has been counted only once in scoring.
• WARRANTY FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years (2021–2025) describe a consistent pattern of Allgood denying or misrepresenting warranty coverage, charging labor on parts-only warranties, and failing to honor lifetime labor warranties that were verbally promised at point of sale. This is a systemic concern, not isolated incidents.
• UPSELLING / MISDIAGNOSIS PATTERN: Numerous detailed reviews from different years describe technicians diagnosing problems as requiring full system replacement when competitors fixed the same issue for a fraction of the cost. Multiple reviewers explicitly state they believe technicians were incentivized to sell new systems rather than repair existing ones.
• NO-SHOW / SCHEDULING FAILURE PATTERN: Across the full review history spanning 2016–2025, no-shows, missed appointment windows without notification, and repeated rescheduling are among the most frequently cited complaints. This is a persistent, unresolved operational failure.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews analyzed are from 2024–2025 and are therefore within the 12-month recency window. Older reviews (2016–2022) show the same patterns, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.
• BLANK REVIEWS: Approximately 25–30 reviews contained no text and only a star rating (mostly 5-star). These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence per scoring rules.

This WW Score of 47.2 is based on a very large volume of detailed, substantive reviews spanning nearly a decade and carries HIGH confidence; however, consumers should be aware that the score reflects a company with genuinely strong individual technicians operating within a systemically dysfunctional organization marked by chronic scheduling failures, aggressive and opaque pricing, warranty disputes, and poor management responsiveness.

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism is severely damaged by repeated accounts of threats from the owner, drivers abandoning jobs, blocked phone numbers, no-shows across multiple days, and dismissive or hostile responses to legitimate complaints. Pricing transparency is a major red flag, with multiple reviewers describing bait-and-switch tactics — quotes given over the phone that were significantly changed on arrival, and charges collected for work that was never completed. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: reviews describe unfinished jobs, damaged property left unaddressed, lids not replaced, yards and fences destroyed, and cracked driveways with no accountability. The few positive reviews do highlight genuine skill and quality workmanship from specific technicians, which prevents the experience score from bottoming out entirely, but these positives are heavily outweighed by the volume and severity of negative accounts.

• OWNER CONDUCT WARNING: Multiple independent reviewers describe the owner (Michael) as threatening, hostile, and retaliatory — including threats to dig up completed work and filing liens as leverage. This is a serious red flag.
• BAIT-AND-SWITCH PRICING: At least 3 reviews explicitly describe quotes changing significantly upon arrival, or charges being collected for services not rendered. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• ABANDONED WORK / NO-SHOW PATTERN: At least 2 reviews describe technicians or the company failing to show up across multiple scheduled appointments with no resolution.
• PROPERTY DAMAGE WITH NO ACCOUNTABILITY: Multiple reviews describe damage to driveways, sod, yards, and fences caused by the company's equipment, with the company refusing to acknowledge or compensate.
• COMMUNICATION BLACKOUT: At least 2 reviewers report being blocked or having calls go unanswered after raising complaints — a pattern suggesting deliberate avoidance of accountability.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2024) are among the most negative, suggesting conditions have not improved. Positive reviews are older (2021–2023), reducing their current relevance.
• POSSIBLE REVIEW IMBALANCE: The 5-star reviews are notably more generic and brief compared to the detailed, specific negative reviews. While not conclusively fake, the contrast warrants caution. Confidence in positive reviews is reduced slightly.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: With only 13 total reviews, individual outliers carry more weight. However, the negative pattern is consistent enough across multiple reviewers to be treated as credible.

This WW Score of 34.2 is based on 13 reviews with strong cross-dimensional coverage and should be treated as a reliable signal of serious, systemic service quality problems — this contractor should be approached with extreme caution or avoided entirely.

Only 2 of 4 reviews contain usable data; two reviews are either blank or unreadable. The single substantive negative review explicitly criticizes project completion (extended timeline with required callbacks) and pricing (charged high fees). No positive reviews provide specific detail about dimensions. The WW Score of 45.0 reflects severe data scarcity and negative signals on the two dimensions mentioned, but confidence remains limited due to minimal mention counts.

• Two reviews are unusable: one marked 'unknown' with no text, one containing only a period with no substantive content
• All reviews are older than 10 years (2011–2014); no recent data available to assess current performance
• Only one detailed negative review; insufficient volume to establish reliable patterns
• Positive reviews lack specificity and do not address key dimensions

This score should be treated with extreme caution due to very limited usable data (2 reviews), age of reviews (10+ years old), and absence of information on professionalism and experience dimensions.

Two of the three reviews are highly detailed, negative accounts describing serious failures across nearly every dimension — abandoned work, substandard craftsmanship, roof tiles not properly nailed, poly pipes bursting and flooding a condo, unpaid-for stairs charged at $2,500, and a pattern of cutting off communication when complaints were raised. The sole positive review praises honesty, fair pricing, and quality work across multiple projects, and explicitly acknowledges Ira's transparency about his limitations — but it is one voice against two detailed, corroborated negative accounts. Professionalism scores are severely dragged down by the consistent pattern across two independent reviewers of Ira going silent and refusing to return calls after problems arose. Project completion is the lowest-scoring dimension given explicit evidence of work charged but never started, work done shabbily or not at all, and repairs that failed within months. Experience scores reflect a mixed picture — some tasks (burglar bars, windows, tile) were praised, but major technical work (roofing, plumbing, electrical) repeatedly failed inspection or caused consequential damage.

• Two of three reviews are 1-star with highly specific, detailed complaints — these do not appear fabricated and carry significant credibility due to their specificity and corroborating details (e.g., both the 2019 and 2020 reviewers independently describe the same pattern of Ira cutting off communication after complaints).
• The sole 5-star review, while plausible and not obviously fake, is notably generic in some areas and was posted in 2019 — it predates the most recent negative review (2020) and may not reflect current service quality.
• All three reviews are from 2019–2020, meaning the most recent data is over 4 years old as of 2024. This significantly limits the reliability of the score for current hiring decisions.
• A recurring pattern across two independent negative reviews — specifically the practice of layering new roofing over old shingles and cutting off communication after complaints — suggests systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• With only 3 total reviews, the WW Score carries very limited statistical reliability. A single additional review could substantially shift the score in either direction.

This WW Score should be treated with significant caution — it is based on only 3 reviews, all dated 2019–2020, and the two detailed negative accounts describe serious, consequential failures that substantially outweigh the single positive review in evidentiary weight.

Bynum and Sons Plumbing receives overwhelmingly negative reviews across all four scored dimensions, with the vast majority of the 68 reviews describing serious, repeated failures. Professionalism is the lowest-scoring dimension, with dozens of reviewers citing rude office staff, technicians who hung up on customers, no-shows without notification, late arrivals, and hostile or dismissive responses to complaints — with only a small handful of positive experiences. Pricing is nearly as poor, with a pervasive pattern of bait-and-switch tactics: low quotes given over the phone followed by dramatically higher charges upon arrival, hidden fees, and parts marked up far above retail cost. Project completion is also severely deficient, with multiple accounts of abandoned jobs, failed county inspections, incorrect installations causing flooding or carbon monoxide leaks, and refusals to return and correct faulty work. Experience scores marginally higher only because a small number of reviewers — primarily those who contacted Bynum directly for septic work rather than through Home Depot — reported competent and knowledgeable technicians, but these positive accounts are heavily outnumbered by reports of substandard workmanship, code violations, and dangerous installations.

• STRONG PATTERN OF FRAUDULENT PRICING: At least 15 reviews independently describe the same bait-and-switch scheme — low phone quotes followed by significantly higher charges on arrival, often with fabricated justifications. This is a systemic business practice, not isolated incidents.
• SAFETY CONCERN: One review (2023-12-13) documents a water heater installed without replacing a faulty vent pipe, resulting in a slow carbon monoxide leak into the home. The company allegedly attempted to cover this up during a follow-up inspection rather than fix it.
• DANGEROUS WORKMANSHIP DOCUMENTED: Multiple reviews cite failed county/city inspections after Bynum installations, including code violations on water heater installs and a septic job that left standing water around the tank.
• ALLEGED CREDIT CARD FRAUD: One reviewer (2019-10-04) alleges their card number was stolen by office staff and used at Walmart the same day. Another reviewer (2024-09-30) reports being double-charged $2,000 with the company denying the second charge despite credit card company confirmation.
• PATTERN OF NO-SHOWS: At least 8 reviews describe technicians failing to appear within scheduled windows, sometimes missing appointments entirely with no call or explanation, across multiple years.
• HOSTILE CUSTOMER SERVICE: Multiple reviews across many years cite the same behavior — office staff (named individuals include Jeannie, Linda, Amelia, Reana, Amy) being rude, hanging up on customers, and refusing to acknowledge or resolve complaints. This suggests a systemic cultural issue.
• RECENCY NOTE: Negative reviews span from 2012 through September 2024, indicating these are not isolated historical issues. The most recent reviews (2024, 2023) continue to document the same patterns as reviews from 2014-2018, suggesting no meaningful improvement over time.
• POSITIVE REVIEW PATTERN: The minority of positive reviews (approximately 10 out of 68) tend to be shorter, less specific, and several reference individual technicians by name (Frantz, Matt, Eric, Derek, Zach, Michael). These appear genuine but represent a small fraction. No fake review pattern detected, but the positive reviews are heavily concentrated in septic services rather than Home Depot-referred plumbing work.
• HOME DEPOT / LOWES REFERRAL RISK: The overwhelming majority of negative reviews involve customers referred through Home Depot or Lowes. Customers who contacted Bynum directly for septic services report significantly better experiences, suggesting the Home Depot/Lowes pipeline may involve different staffing, pricing structures, or incentives that produce worse outcomes.

This WW Score of 18.7 is based on 68 reviews spanning over a decade with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a highly reliable and damning assessment — the volume, consistency, specificity, and recency of negative reviews leave very little doubt about the systemic nature of this company's failures.

With only 4 reviews spanning 2009–2016, this dataset is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. The reviews present a deeply contradictory picture: one detailed, positive review from 2016 praises Tom's professionalism, fair pricing, quality workmanship, and character; however, three older reviews (2009–2014) document serious failures including no-shows without explanation, a price overrun of 102% above the original quote with no notice, and alleged non-payment of bills. The extreme recency gap and conflicting narratives make it impossible to determine current reliability.

• CRITICAL: Only 4 reviews total — below minimum threshold for reliable scoring
• SEVERE RECENCY ISSUE: Most negative reviews are 7–15 years old (2009–2014); single positive review is from 2016. No recent reviews to assess current business practices
• CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: One highly detailed positive review conflicts sharply with three older negative reviews documenting serious failures (no-shows, price overruns, non-payment). Cannot reconcile without more recent data
• PRICE OVERRUN RED FLAG: 2011 review documents 102% cost overrun ($3,000–$3,500 quoted vs. $7,069 invoiced) with no change order or notice — suggests potential billing practices issue
• PROFESSIONALISM FAILURES: Two reviews document no-shows without explanation or follow-up (2014), raising serious questions about reliability and communication
• BUSINESS NAME CHANGE: Review mentions transition from 'Tom Connolly' to 'the dunwoody plumber' / 'Zoom Plumbing' — unclear if same entity or rebranding after negative history
• INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR CONFIDENCE: With only 1–3 mentions per dimension and extreme age disparity, all scores carry LIMITED or MODERATE confidence at best

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. The dataset is too small (4 reviews), too old (most from 2009–2014), and too contradictory to provide meaningful guidance. Any contractor selection based on this analysis alone would be high-risk. Current customer references and recent work samples are essential before engaging this contractor.