Find Nearby Plumbers In Albuquerque, New Mexico

This contractor shows highly polarized performance with extreme variance across reviews. One recent review (Aug 2024) documents severe professionalism failures including rudeness, dismissiveness, and poor quoting practices, while two older reviews (2023 and 2017) praise installation quality, competitive pricing, and on-time/under-budget delivery. The single negative review is recent and detailed with specific complaints, while positive reviews lack specificity and one is from 2017 (7+ years old). With only 3 reviews total and conflicting signals, confidence in any overall assessment is severely limited. The recency and specificity of the negative review suggests potential current operational issues.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — sample size is too small for reliable scoring
• RECENCY CONCERN: One positive review is from 2017 (7 years old); only one review from past 12 months, and it is 1-star negative
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: 1-star and 5-star reviews with no middle ground suggests either inconsistent service delivery or potential data quality issues
• SPECIFICITY IMBALANCE: Negative review contains specific complaints (rude behavior, multiple quotes without inspection, dismissive attitude); positive reviews are generic and lack detail
• POTENTIAL SERVICE DEGRADATION: Most recent review (Aug 2024) is highly negative, while positive reviews are older, suggesting possible decline in service quality over time

This score should be treated with extreme caution due to insufficient sample size (n=3), extreme rating polarization, and recency concerns. The single recent review is negative and detailed, while positive reviews are dated and generic. Do not rely on this score for decision-making without additional current reviews.

This contractor exhibits severe and consistent professionalism deficits, including poor communication, unresponsiveness, unprofessional owner behavior, and lack of follow-through on callbacks. Pricing practices are highly problematic, with evidence of bait-and-switch tactics, price gouging, and aggressive billing disputes. Project completion is inconsistent—while some jobs are finished on time, multiple reviews document incomplete work, unresolved callbacks, and damage caused by poor workmanship. Technical experience is mixed: some crews demonstrate competence and problem-solving ability, but critical failures (misdiagnosis of PRV valve, lack of basic plumbing knowledge) undermine credibility. The stark polarization between 5-star and 1-star reviews, combined with documented ethical violations, suggests serious operational and management issues.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews dated 2022-09-20 and 2022-01-16 are nearly identical (same customer, same incident, same detailed narrative about PRV valve failure and gun-carrying plumber). This is the same complaint submitted twice, inflating negative sentiment artificially.
• PATTERN OF UNETHICAL BUSINESS PRACTICES: Multiple independent reviews document price manipulation (quote changes mid-day, discount pressure tactics), bait-and-switch operations, lack of proper licensing/permits, and refusal to honor quoted prices.
• SEVERE COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Documented pattern of non-responsiveness, no follow-up calls, unreturned messages, disconnected phone numbers, and full voicemails across multiple reviews spanning years (2018-2024).
• CRITICAL TECHNICAL FAILURES: Lead plumber unable to identify basic plumbing components (PRV valve), misdiagnosed root causes, and caused cascading failures (no water to entire house) requiring external diggers to resolve.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe unprofessional, aggressive, or dismissive behavior from owner 'Richard,' including refusal to warranty completed work and hostile responses to payment disputes.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between positive reviews (praising specific crews like Diego, Isaac, Kobe) and negative reviews (criticizing lead plumbers and owner). Suggests quality depends heavily on which crew is assigned.
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are from 2019-2024 (recent), while some positive reviews are older (2017-2019). Recent pattern suggests ongoing issues rather than historical problems.

This score should be treated with MODERATE-to-HIGH caution. While the data volume is adequate (12 reviews), the presence of one confirmed duplicate review, extreme polarization (8 one-star vs. 4 five-star), and documented pattern of unethical business practices across multiple independent sources suggest this contractor has serious systemic problems. The positive reviews appear tied to specific crew members rather than company-wide standards. Potential customers should heavily weight the professionalism and pricing concerns, which show consistent negative patterns across years.

Anytime Plumbing's review corpus reveals a deeply polarized customer base, with a significant majority of negative reviews dragging all four dimensions into poor territory. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is severely damaged by repeated accounts of no-shows, cancelled appointments without notice, rude owner interactions, workers leaving messes, and threatening behavior toward customers — offset only partially by a subset of reviewers praising specific named technicians as polite and timely. Pricing is the second-worst dimension, with numerous explicit complaints about opaque billing, charges for failed or incomplete work, 100% parts markups, emergency rate manipulation, and invoices totaling thousands of dollars for standard jobs — with only a handful of reviewers describing pricing as fair or reasonable. Project completion is critically impaired by a pattern of unresolved repairs, return visits that failed to fix the original problem, abandoned work, toilets left uninstalled, and jobs that left customers worse off than before — though a minority of positive reviews do describe efficient, same-day completions. Experience scores marginally higher due to some reviewers praising specific technicians by name for competence and thoroughness, but this is substantially undermined by multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, technicians calling manufacturer support because they lacked knowledge, and incorrect parts orders causing weeks-long delays.

• BILLING MISCONDUCT PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe being charged for work not completed, receiving no itemized invoices, having credit cards charged without prior review of the bill, and being threatened with police or credit damage when disputing charges. This is a systemic pattern, not isolated incidents.
• NO-SHOW / CANCELLATION PATTERN: At least 4 reviews explicitly describe scheduled appointments where the plumber did not show and did not call, including at least one emergency situation. This is a recurring reliability failure.
• OWNER CONDUCT CONCERNS: Multiple reviews specifically name the owner 'Tim' in negative contexts — yelling at customers, refusing to honor verbal commitments, threatening customers, and failing to respond to written complaints including registered letters. This suggests a top-down culture issue.
• WORK QUALITY REGRESSION: Several reviewers describe being repeat customers whose later experiences were significantly worse than earlier ones, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of reviews span 2013–2023. The most recent reviews (2023) continue to show both positive and negative experiences, indicating the problems are not historical only. Reviews from 2020–2023 carry the most weight in this analysis.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK — LOW: The positive reviews are sufficiently varied in language, detail specific technician names, and describe distinct scenarios. No strong fake review pattern detected. However, the contrast between detailed negative reviews and some brief positive reviews warrants mild caution.
• DUPLICATE INCIDENT: Two reviews dated 2020-06-02 appear to describe the same Noritz water heater incident from two different perspectives (possibly two members of the same household). These were counted as two reviews but scored conservatively to avoid double-weighting a single event.

This WW Score of 38.2 is based on 44 reviews spanning 10 years with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence — the score reliably reflects a contractor with serious and recurring deficiencies in pricing transparency, job completion, and professional conduct, partially offset by a subset of genuinely satisfied customers who praised specific technicians.

Martin demonstrates strong technical expertise and fair pricing when he shows up, as evidenced by the detailed positive review from 2020. However, this is severely undermined by a pattern of no-shows and failure to honor commitments across three separate reviews from 2019. His professionalism score is dragged down by repeated missed appointments, unresponsiveness to warranty claims, and unavailable communication channels. Project completion is critically compromised by abandonment of warranty work and failure to appear for scheduled service. The single positive review cannot offset the consistent pattern of unreliability documented in three separate complaints.

• CRITICAL: Three separate no-show/no-call incidents documented across 2019, suggesting systemic reliability issues rather than isolated incidents
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2019 (3 of 4 reviews). Only one positive review from 2020. Current status of business operations unclear
• WARRANTY ABANDONMENT: Explicit failure to honor warranty obligations and unresponsiveness to customer contact attempts (email, text, phone)
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple reviews cite unavailable phone lines and full voicemail, indicating systemic communication failure
• PATTERN RECOGNITION: The three negative reviews describe nearly identical problems (no-shows, unavailability), suggesting this is not a one-time mistake but a recurring business practice

This score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (4 reviews), but the pattern of documented failures is consistent and serious enough to warrant significant concern about reliability and follow-through, despite demonstrated technical competence.

American Pumping Service has a deeply polarized review profile, with a cluster of serious 1-star complaints that describe dishonesty, incomplete work, property damage, and owner misconduct alongside a smaller set of positive reviews praising timeliness and helpfulness. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple credible accounts of the owner (Otto) being unresponsive, deceptive, trespassing on customer property, and hanging up on customers — though a few reviewers praised individual crew members and phone staff. Project completion is severely impacted by multiple detailed accounts of unfinished work, a failed service contract, garage plumbing left unconnected, and alleged deliberate sabotage of a septic system. Pricing receives a middling score because one reviewer praised the emergency fee as reasonable and another confirmed the final bill matched the quote, but these positives are offset by allegations of fraudulent billing and unexpected charges. Experience scores low due to multiple accounts of misdiagnosis, improper system installation, and poor planning, though a few reviews from earlier years describe competent and thorough work.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS: Multiple reviewers independently allege deliberate property damage, fraudulent inspection reports, unauthorized entry onto private property, and dishonoring verbal agreements. These are not minor complaints and suggest a pattern of bad-faith business conduct.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent reviews (2023–2024) are negative. The positive reviews are predominantly from 2017–2021, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. More weight has been given to recent reviews.
• UNVERIFIED CRIMINAL ALLEGATION: One reviewer (2022) alleges American Pumping deliberately damaged their septic tank to generate repair revenue and states they contacted an attorney. This is unverified but is a serious claim corroborated in tone by other reviews.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR PATTERN: At least three independent reviews specifically name the owner (Otto) as the source of problems — including dishonesty, poor planning, and retaliatory billing — while praising field crew separately. This suggests a leadership-level issue rather than isolated incidents.
• NO FAKE REVIEW FLAGS: Reviews vary significantly in length, detail, writing style, and rating. No patterns of coordinated fake reviews detected. Both positive and negative reviews appear organically written.
• RECENCY NOTE: Only 2 reviews fall within the past 12 months (2023–2024), both rated 1 star. The most recent 5-star review is from June 2021.

This WW Score is based on 12 reviews with usable data across all four dimensions and carries MODERATE overall confidence; however, the score should be treated as a serious warning signal given the volume, specificity, and recency of misconduct allegations, and prospective customers are strongly advised to consult the Better Business Bureau and seek independent references before engaging this contractor.

This contractor shows severe deficiencies across all dimensions. While one positive review (2023) noted punctuality and reasonable pricing, three detailed negative reviews (2021-2023) document critical failures: unlicensed workers performing code-violating work, abandoned service calls with no follow-up, deceptive billing practices on 'free estimates,' and aggressive collection tactics including lien threats. The single positive review is heavily outweighed by documented evidence of incomplete projects, poor workmanship, unresponsive communication, and unfair pricing practices. The WW Score reflects consistent patterns of professional misconduct.

• SEVERE: Multiple reviews document unlicensed workers, code violations, and property red-tagging — potential legal/regulatory violations
• SEVERE: Pattern of abandoned work and non-responsive follow-up across multiple reviews
• SEVERE: Deceptive billing practices — charging for 'free estimates' with undisclosed conditions; significant quote discrepancies ($950 vs. actual cost far lower)
• SEVERE: Aggressive collection and legal threats (lien threats) documented in review
• RECENCY NOTE: Most negative reviews are from 2021, but one recent negative review from 2023 suggests ongoing issues; one positive review from 2023 is insufficient to offset documented pattern of harm
• The single 5-star review lacks detail and does not address the serious systemic issues documented in other reviews

This WW Score should be trusted as a strong warning signal. The score is based on multiple detailed, specific accounts of serious professional failures including code violations, incomplete work, deceptive practices, and aggressive behavior — not mere complaints about minor issues. The single positive review does not credibly counter documented evidence of systemic problems.