Find Nearby Plumbers In Albuquerque, New Mexico

This contractor's review record is deeply mixed, with serious recurring complaints dragging down multiple dimensions. Professionalism is heavily penalized by multiple no-shows, a tech entering a woman's room without knocking, dismissive office staff, an owner who abandoned a job mid-completion in anger, and billing disputes — these are not minor issues. Project completion is similarly damaged by an abandoned sewer job, a broken septic pipe left unrepaired, a water heater old unit not removed as promised, and repeated missed appointments. Pricing receives a moderate score because some reviewers praised competitive estimates and fair value, while others reported overbilling for time and a final invoice that ballooned from $2,800 to $4,000. Experience scores somewhat better, as several reviewers acknowledged the work itself was technically competent when completed, and one reviewer noted the contractor correctly identified a problem another company missed entirely. The overall WW Score reflects a contractor with real technical capability undermined by serious and repeated failures in reliability, professionalism, and job follow-through.

• Multiple reviews describe abandoned or incomplete work, which is a serious pattern and not isolated incidents.
• A deeply concerning incident was reported in which a technician entered a woman's room without knocking while she was undressed, and the office staff blamed the victim rather than addressing the complaint appropriately.
• Billing irregularities appear in multiple reviews: one job went from $2,800 to $4,000 with a lien placed on the customer's home; another customer was charged for time the technician was not actively working.
• The owner reportedly left a job unfinished after becoming angry with the customer, leaving a kitchen drain disconnected on a Friday afternoon.
• Most reviews are older than 3 years, with the most recent usable review dated April 2021. Only one review falls within the past 12 months relative to a 2024 analysis window, significantly limiting recency confidence.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary substantially in tone, detail, rating, and content, suggesting authentic submissions.

The WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a reasonable volume of reviews with substantive detail, but is tempered by the age of most reviews and the absence of any recent data to confirm whether service quality has improved or declined.

Signature Heating & Cooling exhibits severe and consistent deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically undermined by chronic no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, dishonesty, and unprofessional behavior including bullying and gaslighting of customers. Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete work, abandoned jobs, repeated callbacks, missed deadlines, and failure to honor commitments. Pricing practices are deceptive, with overcharging, hidden fees, inflated quotes (often 2-3x competitors), and misleading discounts. While some technicians demonstrate competence and skill, this is inconsistently applied and overshadowed by systemic failures in accountability and follow-through. The company shows a pattern of lying to customers, blaming them for company errors, and refusing to rectify mistakes.

• CRITICAL: Overwhelming pattern of no-shows and missed appointments across 8+ reviews spanning 2018-2024, indicating systemic scheduling/operational failure
• CRITICAL: Multiple documented instances of dishonesty and gaslighting (denying service was provided, lying about customer responsibility, false claims about regulations)
• CRITICAL: Consistent overpricing pattern with quotes 2-3x higher than competitors; deceptive advertising of 'free' services and specials not honored
• CRITICAL: Incomplete and defective work requiring multiple callbacks; installations done incorrectly requiring rework (thermostats, AC units, furnaces, plumbing)
• CRITICAL: Documented property damage (broken toilets, mirrors, filters thrown carelessly) with refusal to take responsibility or apologize
• CRITICAL: Aggressive customer treatment including bullying, threatening, and refusing service to existing customers
• CRITICAL: Forged signatures on invoices documented in at least one review
• HIGH CONCERN: Bait-and-switch tactics (selling low-maintenance units that require expensive motor replacements every 2 years)
• HIGH CONCERN: Technicians lacking proper tools and training; one review mentions technician borrowing customer's tools
• HIGH CONCERN: Inconsistent service quality with some 5-star reviews (primarily 2018-2021, Costco installations) contrasting sharply with predominantly 1-star reviews (2022-2024)
• RECENCY ISSUE: Most negative reviews are from 2022-2024 (recent); most positive reviews are from 2018-2021 (older), suggesting company quality has deteriorated significantly
• PATTERN: Positive reviews often mention specific technicians by name and Costco contracts; negative reviews cite systemic company failures, suggesting individual technician quality varies wildly but company processes are broken

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning against this company. The score is based on 50 reviews with substantial data across all dimensions, particularly strong evidence in professionalism (28 mentions) and project completion (26 mentions). The overwhelming majority of recent reviews (2022-2024) document severe, consistent failures in scheduling, honesty, work quality, and customer treatment. While some older reviews (2018-2021) praise individual technicians, the systemic pattern of company-level failures, documented dishonesty, and deteriorating service quality over time indicates fundamental operational problems that persist regardless of individual employee performance.

Day and Night Plumbing shows severe and consistent performance issues across all dimensions. While some positive reviews highlight punctual service and technical competence (particularly from 2015-2018), the overwhelming majority of recent reviews document poor professionalism including rude phone staff, defensive technicians, and lack of responsiveness. Project completion is critically weak, with multiple instances of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, failure to return for callbacks, and refusal to honor verbal estimates. Pricing concerns are substantial, with customers reporting inflated charges, unexpected cost escalations, and refusal to complete work without additional payment. The company's reliability has deteriorated significantly, with recent reviews (2019-2024) predominantly negative.

• RECENCY PATTERN: 17 of 28 reviews are from 2019 or later, and 15 of those are 1-star ratings. The company's performance appears to have sharply declined after 2018. Only 6 positive reviews exist, all from 2015-2018.
• OWNER ACCOUNTABILITY: Multiple reviews specifically name 'Shane' (owner) as non-responsive, unreliable, and unprofessional. Pattern of owner avoiding callbacks and delegating to staff while being unavailable.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Consistent pattern across 8+ reviews of no-shows, no callbacks, failure to return messages, and poor phone staff behavior. This is a systemic issue, not isolated incidents.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: At least 6 reviews document jobs left unfinished, abandoned after payment, or requiring callbacks that were never honored.
• PRICING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews report verbal estimates not honored, unexpected charges, inflated pricing, and refusal to complete work without additional payment beyond original quote.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: One 5-star review (2021-05-01) uses unusually formal language and detailed process description that differs stylistically from other positive reviews. However, insufficient evidence to definitively flag.
• STAFF BEHAVIOR: Multiple reports of rude, hostile, or aggressive behavior from phone staff and technicians, including yelling at customers and disrespect toward elderly clients.

This WW Score of 42.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong warning indicator. The score is based on 28 reviews with substantial mention counts across all dimensions, and the pattern of negative feedback is consistent, specific, and corroborated across multiple independent reviewers over a 5-year period. The sharp deterioration in recent years (2019-2024) is particularly concerning and suggests current operational problems.

Professionalism is the most heavily cited dimension and is severely damaged by repeated, specific complaints about the owner Melvin being rude, condescending, and dismissive — particularly toward women — across multiple independent reviews spanning several years. Pricing receives a very low score due to a detailed and credible account of a $2,000 estimate for work ultimately completed by a competitor for $167.50, as well as a separate complaint about bullying tactics used to pressure a customer into expensive code upgrades. Project completion is mixed: several positive reviews describe same-day service and completed jobs, but are offset by a no-show appointment, an abandoned job, and a sloppy swamp cooler installation that required a second company to fix. Experience scores moderately, as technicians like Kerby and Matt received specific praise for skill and clear explanations, but the pattern of shoddy workmanship in negative reviews prevents a higher score.

• Multiple reviews specifically name the owner 'Melvin' as rude and unprofessional — this is a consistent, named pattern across independent reviewers and carries high credibility.
• The five positive reviews (all 5-star) are somewhat generic in praise and several lack specific job details, raising a mild concern about authenticity; however, three of them name a specific technician (Kerby) which adds some credibility.
• The majority of reviews are dated 2017–2020, with the most recent being March 2020. All reviews are older than 4 years as of 2024, significantly reducing their reliability for assessing current business quality.
• One 1-star review (Pride Parade incident, June 2019) describes a non-service interaction and raises concerns about the owner's conduct toward the LGBTQI community; this was factored into professionalism but not project completion or experience.
• A refund of $50 was issued per one review (June 2019), which slightly mitigates one negative experience and was noted as a positive integrity signal, but does not materially change the overall pattern.
• RECENCY WARNING: No reviews from the past 12 months (relative to 2024) are present. The WW Score reflects historical performance only and should be treated with caution for current service quality assessment.

This WW Score is based on 17 reviews with high mention counts across all four dimensions, but the score's reliability is significantly reduced by the age of the data — all reviews predate 2021 — and the stark polarization between positive reviews praising specific technicians and deeply negative reviews consistently targeting the owner's conduct and pricing practices.

The review set is small (5 reviews) and spans nearly a decade, making trend analysis difficult. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is sharply divided: two reviews describe pleasant, professional interactions while two others describe serious failures including an alleged owner calling a customer a 'cheap customer,' refusing to provide his name, and technicians leaving without completing work. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with the 1-star 2024 review detailing repeated failed repairs, an unresponsive emergency line, and a false invoice claim that the unit was working when it was not. Pricing signals are mixed — one reviewer praised fair and transparent quoting, another received a discount, but one was hit with an unexpected charge after being explicitly told there would be none. Experience scores modestly given one strong advisory visit with no upselling, offset by multiple failed repair attempts on a single water heater job.

• Only 5 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as very low confidence and not representative of consistent performance.
• Reviews span from 2012 to 2024 — older reviews (2012, 2014, 2015, 2019) may not reflect current business practices or staff.
• The most recent review (April 2024) is the most detailed and most negative, describing repeated failed repairs, an unresponsive emergency line, a false invoice, and an unexpected charge after being told there would be none — this recency is weighted heavily.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews vary in tone, detail level, and rating, suggesting authentic authorship.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews spanning 12 years and should be considered very low reliability — do not use this score as a definitive assessment of current contractor quality without gathering significantly more recent review data.

Comfort Solutions shows mixed performance across a small sample of reviews. Experience is the strongest dimension, with consistent mentions of technical knowledge and workmanship quality across all three reviews. However, project completion is significantly undermined by documented failures to follow plans, improper flushing causing clogs, and poor follow-up on warranty work. Professionalism is inconsistent—one review praises the owner's honesty and friendliness, while another criticizes poor communication and scheduling issues. Pricing is a major concern, with explicit complaints about undisclosed hourly charges for travel time and perceived unfair billing practices. The WW Score is conservative due to the small sample size (3 reviews) and conflicting evidence.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed—insufficient volume for high-confidence scoring. Results should be treated as preliminary.
• Significant recency gap: one review from 2019, one from 2016, and one from 2022. Older reviews may not reflect current practices.
• Conflicting evidence on owner integrity: one review calls owner 'one of the most honest businessmen,' while another criticizes billing practices and lack of transparency on pricing policy.
• Project completion failures documented in 2016 review (incorrect faucet locations, improper line flushing, poor warranty follow-up) suggest systemic issues with quality control and accountability.
• Pricing complaint (2022) indicates lack of upfront transparency on labor charges for travel/parts acquisition, contradicting the positive review's claim of fairness.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews) and significant time gaps between reviews. The conflicting narratives about owner honesty and business practices, combined with documented project completion failures, suggest real quality concerns, but more recent and numerous reviews are needed to establish reliable current performance trends.