Find Nearby Plumbers In Roswell, New Mexico

Mondo's Plumbing demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically weak, with multiple reviews citing rude staff, poor communication, lack of follow-through, and unprofessional behavior both in the field and at the office. Project completion is problematic, with evidence of incomplete work, abandoned jobs, and failure to honor callbacks. Pricing concerns emerge in 2 reviews citing overcharges and unfair quotes. Technical experience shows mixed results—one positive review praises quality workmanship, but three reviews document failures including inability to locate equipment, incorrect water shutoff, meter damage, and unlicensed work. The company's track record suggests unreliable service delivery and poor customer relations.

• Multiple reviews (4 of 6) are 1-star ratings with consistent complaints about professionalism and follow-through, suggesting a systemic operational problem rather than isolated incidents.
• Review from 2019-05-23 documents potential technical incompetence: plumber unable to identify correct water shutoff and damaged customer's meter, then hung up on customer—serious red flag.
• Review from 2018-07-18 alleges unlicensed work and billing for incomplete services—potential legal/licensing concern.
• One positive review (2019-10-10) is notably generic in praise and lacks specific detail about pricing or timeline, while negative reviews are highly specific about failures.
• Most reviews are older than 2 years (4 of 6 from 2016-2020); only 2 reviews from 2023. Recency is limited.
• Office staff behavior is mentioned negatively in 3 reviews (rude, dismissive, no apologies, hung up on customer), indicating potential management/culture issue.

This WW Score of 32.8 should be trusted with moderate-to-high confidence. The score is driven by consistent negative patterns across multiple independent reviews spanning several years, with specific documented failures in professionalism, project completion, and technical competence. However, the small sample size (6 reviews) and age of most reviews (2016-2020) introduce some uncertainty about current operational standards.

Every single review analyzed is a 1-star rating, painting an overwhelmingly negative picture of this contractor across all dimensions. Professionalism is catastrophically poor, with repeated no-call no-shows, unanswered phones, full voicemails, rude and condescending behavior from the owner (Daniel), and broken appointment commitments documented across multiple reviews spanning several years. Pricing is a major red flag, with multiple reviewers explicitly citing hidden fees, refusal to provide itemized receipts, dramatic parts markups, and unclear daily penalty charges. Project completion is nearly nonexistent in positive terms — one reviewer waited 3 months for an AC fix, another had work abandoned mid-job after payment was collected, and multiple customers report paid-for work that was never completed. Workmanship quality, where mentioned, is described as dangerous — including a rigged AC installation that caused ceiling flooding and nails left behind — indicating serious deficiencies in technical skill and care.

• ALL 9 reviews are 1-star ratings — this is a uniformly negative dataset with no positive reviews to balance the score.
• Reviews span from 2018 to 2024, indicating persistent and long-standing problems rather than isolated incidents.
• Multiple reviews independently describe the same specific issues: no itemized receipts, no-call no-shows, and owner 'Daniel' being unresponsive or rude — this cross-review consistency strongly suggests these are genuine complaints, not coordinated attacks.
• No fake review concern detected — reviews vary in writing style, detail level, and specific incidents, suggesting authenticity.
• Recency note: The two most recent reviews (June and August 2024) continue to reflect the same patterns seen in reviews from 2018–2021, indicating no improvement over time.
• Potential consumer protection concern: Multiple reviewers describe paying for services not rendered or parts not delivered, which may constitute fraud or breach of contract.
• One reviewer explicitly mentions filing a BBB complaint; others reference home warranty assignment, suggesting this contractor operates through warranty networks despite poor performance.

This WW Score is highly reliable — it is based on 9 reviews with consistent, specific, and independently corroborated negative experiences across all four scored dimensions, with no positive data points to introduce uncertainty.

Both reviews are positive, with one reviewer specifically praising the pricing as significantly lower than competitors and noting no upselling behavior. Professionalism is mentioned in both reviews — same-day responsiveness in one and a direct 'professional' descriptor in the other. Project completion is implied in both cases as the jobs were finished satisfactorily. However, with only 2 reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, and all dimension scores carry very low confidence due to minimal data.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• One review (2014-03-11) is over 10 years old and carries significantly reduced relevance under recency weighting rules.
• The 2014 review references a technician named 'Cory' while the 2023 review references 'Mr. Gonzales' — it is unclear if these represent the same business or consistent service quality over time.
• No negative reviews present, but the extremely small sample size means this absence is not meaningful evidence of consistent quality.

This score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — only 2 reviews were available, one of which is over a decade old, making any dimension scores highly speculative and statistically insignificant.

Both reviews are highly positive and explicitly praise professionalism, project completion, and work quality. Review 2 specifically mentions fair pricing and expert technical knowledge. However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. The reviews are also dated 2020 and 2022, limiting recency. While the evidence present is uniformly strong, confidence remains limited due to insufficient volume.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score calculation suppressed per protocol
• Reviews lack recency — most recent is 2022; no reviews from past 12 months
• Both reviews are 5-star with uniformly positive language; no critical feedback or specifics on pricing details beyond 'reasonable'
• Sample size too small to detect patterns or validate consistency

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only 2 reviews; a minimum of 3 reviews is required, and ideally 5+ recent reviews are needed for meaningful confidence.

This single review paints a positive picture across all four dimensions. Roger is praised for clear communication, constant updates, and setting expectations — all strong professionalism indicators. Pricing is noted as 'great value,' and honesty around the quote process suggests transparency. The reviewer references 'great work' and commitment to craft, implying solid experience and workmanship. However, with only one review, no dimension can be scored with meaningful confidence, and all scores are intentionally conservative.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimensions are scored at LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis.
• No negative feedback present, but this cannot be interpreted as absence of issues given the extremely small sample size.
• Review is relatively recent (January 2024), which is a positive signal, but recency cannot compensate for lack of volume.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — a single review is statistically insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about any dimension.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across nearly every dimension evaluated. On professionalism, the receptionist interrupted the customer repeatedly, called her rude, and a promised callback from the service manager never materialized weeks later — indicating severe communication and follow-through failures. On project completion, the initial technician signed off on an HVAC unit that failed within hours of the customer taking possession, and subsequent visits only provided a temporary workaround rather than a real fix. On experience, the first technician failed to identify an obvious incompatibility between the old furnace and new compressor — a problem a technician from a different company identified readily — suggesting a significant lapse in technical assessment skill. Pricing was not mentioned in this review and therefore cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review is present — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• The review is dated 2022-07-29, which is more than 12 months ago. Recency weighting cannot be applied favorably.
• The review describes a potential liability issue: a paid professional inspection by Rhoads gave a clean bill of health on a unit that failed within hours, and the customer alleges this cost them the price of a furnace replacement.
• No fake review concerns detected — the review is highly specific, detailed, and narratively consistent with a genuine negative experience.

This score is based on a single review and should be considered extremely low confidence — no meaningful WW Score can be produced from one data point alone, and the scores above reflect only what was explicitly described in that one account.