Find Nearby Plumbers In Albuquerque, New Mexico

The reviews for MRM Mechanical LLC paint an overwhelmingly negative picture across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is critically low, with repeated accounts of no-shows, unanswered calls, ignored texts, broken promises, and dismissive or hostile communication from the owner. Project completion is nearly nonexistent as a positive trait — multiple reviewers describe jobs abandoned mid-project, work taking months beyond quoted timelines, and the owner becoming unreachable after partial payment. Workmanship quality is severely deficient, with documented examples including improperly vented tankless heaters creating carbon monoxide hazards, a water heater installed sideways, a bathtub installed off-level, and tile work that collapsed. Pricing received a marginally higher score only because initial estimates were described as reasonable in one or two cases, but this was consistently used as a hook before the job deteriorated; hidden costs, unfinished work, and refusal to refund compound the pricing concerns. The single 5-star review is an outlier and shows signs of being inauthentic given the volume and consistency of negative experiences.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW: The single 5-star review (2024-06-02) uses generic, repetitive praise with no specific details about pricing, timeline, or any challenges overcome. Its tone and structure contrast sharply with all 11 other reviews and is flagged as a likely shill review — consistent with one reviewer explicitly calling out shill reviews.
• SAFETY CONCERN: At least one reviewer (2023-03-30) reported an improperly installed tankless water heater vent causing carbon monoxide buildup, RV-grade parts used in a residential install, and a unit mounted with toggle bolts. This represents a serious public safety risk.
• LICENSING/REGULATORY CONCERN: Multiple reviewers report filing complaints with the BBB, NMRLD (New Mexico Regulations and Licensing Department), and noting that Angi's List removed this contractor due to complaint volume. One reviewer reports the contractor failed to obtain required permits.
• PATTERN OF ABANDONMENT: At least 5 reviewers describe the same pattern — reasonable initial quote, partial payment collected, work started but not completed, then owner becomes unreachable. This is a consistent and serious pattern of consumer harm.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent negative reviews are from 2024, indicating the problematic behavior has continued and is not historical only. No improvement trend is evident.
• CONTRACT CONCERNS: At least one reviewer describes a contract heavily weighted in the contractor's favor, and another describes terms not being honored. This suggests potential predatory contracting practices.

This WW Score of 14.2 is based on 12 reviews with HIGH confidence across all dimensions and should be considered highly reliable as a warning signal — the volume, specificity, consistency, and recency of negative reviews leave very little doubt about the quality of service provided by this contractor.

This contractor (Ruben/Rooters Plus Plumbing) demonstrates severe deficiencies across all dimensions. Project completion is critically poor, with multiple reviews documenting incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and refusal to honor callbacks or finish commitments. Professionalism is severely compromised, with customers reporting rude behavior, poor communication, unannounced cancellations, and dismissive attitudes when issues are raised. Pricing practices are deceptive, with documented cases of estimates being doubled without advance notice. Technical competency is questionable, evidenced by improperly installed fixtures, failure to use proper installation methods, and inability to read levels correctly. The cumulative pattern across six independent reviews spanning a decade indicates systemic operational failures.

• CRITICAL: All six reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints. No positive reviews present.
• Multiple reviews document identical contractor name variations (Ruben, Reuban, Ruben McCutcheon) and business name variations (Rooters Plus, Rooter Plus), suggesting potential reputation management or shell company tactics.
• Pattern of incomplete work, contract termination by contractor, and refusal to address damages across multiple reviews (2015-2023).
• Evidence of deceptive pricing practices: estimates given then doubled without customer consent.
• Multiple documented instances of poor workmanship requiring expensive remediation by other contractors.
• Documented pattern of ignoring customer calls and refusing to address legitimate complaints.
• Reviews span 10 years (2013-2023) with consistent negative pattern, indicating chronic operational issues rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. Six independent reviews with specific, detailed complaints across all dimensions, spanning a decade, with zero positive feedback, establish a clear and consistent pattern of poor service, incomplete work, deceptive pricing, and unprofessional conduct. This contractor should be avoided.

This analysis reveals a retail hardware/plumbing supply store (Samon's) with a deeply polarized customer experience. Professionalism scores are severely dragged down by 11 highly detailed negative reviews citing rude staff, dismissive behavior, racial discrimination allegations, and poor customer service across multiple locations (2024-2019). However, 5 positive reviews from 2017-2013 praise knowledgeable staff, helpful service, and a welcoming atmosphere. Experience/skill is consistently praised when positive interactions occur. Pricing receives moderate positive mentions. The stark temporal divide—recent reviews are overwhelmingly negative while older reviews are positive—suggests significant organizational decline or management changes. No reviews address project completion, as this is a retail supply store, not a contracting service.

• CRITICAL: This business is a retail hardware/plumbing supply store, NOT a contractor or plumber. The WW Score framework is designed for service contractors. This analysis is fundamentally misaligned with the intended use case.
• SEVERE RECENCY BIAS: 11 of 18 reviews are from 2024, 2023, and 2020—all negative (ratings 1.0-2.0). The 5 positive reviews are from 2017-2013. This suggests either severe organizational deterioration or a shift in management/operations.
• DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS: Review dated 2024-02-10 explicitly alleges racial discrimination. Review dated 2023-03-24 describes unprofessional behavior and refund disputes. These are serious allegations affecting professionalism scoring.
• SECURITY CONCERN: Review dated 2015-02-04 alleges credit card machine compromise and fraudulent charges. This is a critical operational/security failure.
• INCONSISTENT STAFF QUALITY: Positive reviews specifically name helpful employees (Rudy G., Namida, Jay, Michael, Matthew, Ernest, Larry). Negative reviews describe different staff as rude and dismissive. This suggests inconsistent hiring, training, or management across locations.
• PRODUCT QUALITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews cite defective products (swamp cooler motor, toilet flapper, water fitting failures). These are product/supplier issues, not service contractor issues.
• NO CONTRACTOR DATA: Zero reviews mention actual plumbing or electrical work performed by this business. All reviews are about retail transactions. WW Score cannot be reliably calculated for a service contractor when the business is a supply retailer.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted because the business analyzed is a retail hardware supply store, not a service contractor or plumber. The scoring framework is fundamentally misaligned with the business model. Additionally, the severe recency bias (recent reviews overwhelmingly negative, older reviews positive) and lack of any project completion data make this analysis unsuitable for contractor evaluation. If this business were a contractor, the professionalism score would be severely compromised by discrimination allegations and security failures, but the absence of any service delivery reviews makes overall scoring invalid.

With only 3 reviews available, reliable scoring is not possible. The data shows severe inconsistency: one review praises electricians and rapid response (5-star), while two reviews (1-star each) document critical failures including missed gas leak detection, poor workmanship (damper installation), water damage from installation defects, and complete inability to contact the company for warranty service or callbacks. The company appears to have operational and quality control issues, but the extremely limited sample size and age of reviews (oldest from 2019) prevent confident assessment.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY ISSUE: All reviews are 3+ years old (2019–2021); no recent data available to assess current operations
• SEVERE INCONSISTENCY: One 5-star review vs. two 1-star reviews with documented failures (missed gas leak, installation defects, water damage, unresponsive to callbacks)
• BUSINESS STATUS CONCERN: First review explicitly states 'My opinion, they are out of business' and mentions inability to contact company; suggests possible closure or severe operational decline
• QUALITY CONTROL RED FLAG: Multiple documented failures (damper installation defect, missed gas leak detection, water damage from improper installation, no commissioning/instruction provided)

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. The sample size is far too small (3 reviews), all reviews predate 2022, and the company may no longer be operational. Any scoring would be unreliable and potentially misleading.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review contains substantive, usable information. That review (from August 2021) explicitly mentions punctuality, communication, and technical knowledge, but a single review is insufficient to establish reliable scoring across dimensions. Two additional reviews are non-evaluable: one contains only 'unknown' and another states 'see above' with no actual content. The single usable review is over 2 years old.

• Only 1 of 3 reviews contains usable data; 2 reviews are non-substantive or empty
• Review from August 2021 is over 2 years old; no recent data available
• Insufficient review volume (minimum 3 usable reviews required) to calculate WW Score with any confidence
• No pricing information mentioned in any review
• Cannot assess overall contractor reliability with this limited dataset

This score cannot be calculated or trusted. With only one usable review and no recent data, any scoring would be unreliable and potentially misleading.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 3 reviews are available, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews needed for confidence. The reviews show extreme polarization: two 1-star reviews citing severe professionalism failures (no-show with rude communication, lack of technical competence on a sink repair) and one 5-star review praising punctuality and professionalism. This stark contradiction, combined with very small sample size and older review dates (2017-2018), makes any aggregate score unreliable.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 total reviews — insufficient for reliable scoring. Minimum 5-8 reviews recommended.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: Two 1-star reviews vs. one 5-star review with no middle ground suggests either inconsistent service quality or potential review authenticity concerns.
• RECENCY ISSUE: All reviews are from 2017-2018 (5-7 years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Two reviews explicitly cite rudeness, lack of communication, and failure to show up. One review praises professionalism. Conflicting signals.
• TECHNICAL COMPETENCE QUESTIONED: One review suggests lack of diagnostic skill on a basic plumbing issue (sink leak diagnosis).
• INCOMPLETE DATA: Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and extreme polarization between reviews. Do not rely on any aggregate metric from this dataset. Additional recent reviews are essential before making a hiring decision.