Find Nearby Plumbers In Santa Fe, New Mexico

Cartwright's Plumbing presents a deeply polarized review profile spanning over a decade. A significant cluster of recent 5-star reviews (June 2025) praising individual technicians — particularly Elmer Diaz — drives professionalism and experience scores upward, but these reviews exhibit strong fake-review warning patterns and must be weighted with caution. Pricing is the most consistently and severely criticized dimension across the full review history, with dozens of independent reviewers citing hidden fees, wildly inflated labor charges, bait-and-switch estimates, and charges far above market rate — this dimension scores very low with HIGH confidence. Project completion is also significantly damaged by recurring complaints of abandoned jobs, technicians returning multiple times without resolution, failed follow-through on guarantees, and at least one case of unauthorized work. Experience scores modestly above average due to a meaningful number of reviews praising specific technicians as knowledgeable and skilled, but this is offset by multiple reviews describing technicians as incompetent or unqualified for the job requested.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: 14 reviews posted on 2025-06-08 and 3 on 2025-06-07 all praising 'Elmer Diaz' with near-identical structure — describing patience, answering questions, professionalism, and recommending him. Multiple reviews use nearly identical phrasing such as 'he never made me feel rushed,' 'answered all my questions,' and 'went above and beyond.' This pattern is highly consistent with coordinated or incentivized review posting. Confidence in these reviews is LOW and they have been discounted in scoring.
• PRICING ABUSE PATTERN: Across multiple independent reviews spanning 2009–2024, customers consistently report being charged $200–$583/hour for labor, surprise service call fees of $75–$249, parts marked up 100–400% above retail, and estimates that changed dramatically between quote and invoice. This is a systemic and well-documented pattern, not isolated incidents.
• GUARANTEE AND CALLBACK FAILURES: Multiple reviews explicitly state that Cartwright's failed to honor their stated warranty or guarantee — charging again for return visits on unresolved problems, or refusing to return at all. One reviewer describes being charged $450+ for a second visit on a furnace that was not fixed on the first visit.
• ABANDONED AND INCOMPLETE WORK: Several reviews describe technicians failing to show up after scheduling, jobs left incomplete, and in one case a technician walking off the job mid-service. A 2015 review describes waiting three days for a burst water main repair with no communication, ultimately requiring a different plumber.
• UNAUTHORIZED WORK: At least one review (2020) describes Cartwright's performing and billing for work that was never authorized by the customer, resulting in a demand for over $2,000.
• RECENCY NOTE: The majority of detailed, substantive negative reviews span 2009–2024. The 2025 reviews are almost entirely 5-star and concentrated in a narrow 3-day window, which is anomalous. Older reviews (pre-2016) carry reduced weight in scoring but are included as they establish long-term behavioral patterns.
• MANAGEMENT CONDUCT: Multiple reviews cite rude or aggressive behavior from office management, including one account of a manager threatening a lien on a customer's home during a billing dispute, and another describing a dispatcher as dismissive during a flooding emergency.
• SUBCONTRACTING CONCERN: At least one review notes that Cartwright's subcontracts jobs, and that the subcontractor further subcontracted the work, resulting in a complete failure to perform the repair.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (110 reviews) with HIGH data coverage across all four dimensions, but reliability is moderately reduced by a suspected coordinated fake-review campaign in June 2025 and the wide time span of reviews; the score of 52.3 should be treated as a fair representation of the company's overall service quality, with pricing and project completion being areas of serious and well-documented concern.

James Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with significant structural problems in pricing transparency and professionalism. While technical competency (particularly Carlos's diagnostic and repair skills) is consistently praised across 13 mentions, this strength is severely undermined by systematic pricing deception documented in 15 reviews. Customers report markups of 240-1000% on parts, undisclosed labor hour inflation, and failure to provide itemized invoices before leaving. Professionalism scores are dragged down by communication failures, rudeness, no-shows, and dismissive customer service across 18 mentions. Project completion is mixed—major jobs are often finished competently, but warranty work and follow-up are inconsistent. The company's business model appears to rely on information asymmetry to maximize billing.

• SYSTEMATIC PRICING DECEPTION: 15 reviews document identical patterns of parts marked up 240-1000% above retail cost, undisclosed labor hour padding, and refusal to provide itemized invoices before departure. This is not isolated—it is structural.
• POLARIZED REVIEW PATTERN: 10 five-star reviews vs. 13 one-star reviews with almost no middle ground. Five-star reviews are predominantly from 2018-2020 and lack pricing details. Recent reviews (2021-2024) are predominantly negative and specific about billing fraud.
• RECENCY BIAS TOWARD NEGATIVE: 8 of the 13 most recent reviews (2021-2024) are 1-2 stars. Older positive reviews (2018-2020) lack specificity about pricing. This suggests either service degradation or that negative reviews are now more likely to be posted.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Multiple reviews document no-shows, unreturned calls, full voicemail, unresponsive email, and failure to respond to detailed complaint letters. One customer waited 3.5 hours for a no-show with staff indifference.
• PROFESSIONALISM CONCERNS: Documented rudeness, sexist comments ('because she's a lady she doesn't know'), argumentative behavior over legitimate complaints, and unprofessional conduct (technician in bar during scheduled appointment, demanding customer open windows in cold weather).
• INVOICE MANIPULATION: At least 4 reviews document being charged for hours not worked (3.5 hours charged for 2.5 hours present, 4 hours charged for 2.5 hours, drive time included in service time). Customers had to argue for adjustments.
• ESTIMATE FRAUD: One customer paid $100 for estimate, received incorrect pricing despite multiple written requests, never received corrected estimate, check was cashed, and company went silent.
• WARRANTY WORK DISPUTES: Customer was promised free warranty work on defective repair, then charged $75 trip fee to fix company's own mistake, and technician argued rather than accept correction gracefully.
• PARTS QUALITY ISSUES: Multiple documented cases of wrong parts installed (shower valves failed 2 days after installation, cracked toilet installed, boiler zone valve replaced unnecessarily).
• POSSIBLE FAKE POSITIVE REVIEWS: Five-star reviews from 2018-2020 are generic in praise ('outstanding,' 'excellent') with minimal specifics about pricing or detailed work. Contrast sharply with detailed, specific negative reviews from 2021-2024. However, some positive reviews do contain specific details (sewer line replacement, cooler motor, boiler diagnostics), so this is not conclusive.

This WW Score of 52.3 is highly reliable (HIGH confidence) because it is based on 27 detailed reviews with consistent patterns across all dimensions. However, the score masks a critical business practice issue: James Plumbing appears to systematically exploit information asymmetry in pricing. Technical competency is real, but the company's billing practices—documented across 15 independent reviews with identical complaint patterns—constitute a material risk to customers. The score reflects the average experience, but customers should expect aggressive billing practices and should demand itemized invoices before payment. The company is not recommended without explicit price agreements in writing.

Enchantment Refrigeration shows a stark divide between older positive reviews (2015–2020) and a recent critical 2023 experience. The most recent review documents serious professionalism failures: repeated scheduling miscommunications, a cancelled job without proper notification, and deliberate dishonesty about who cancelled and when. Older reviews praise technical expertise, fair pricing, and responsiveness, but the 2023 incident reveals concerning patterns in communication and integrity. The company's experience level remains solid based on historical feedback, but recent conduct raises significant trust concerns. Pricing appears fair when work is completed, but the 2023 customer was charged full price for a cancelled service.

• CRITICAL: Most recent review (12/4/2023) documents multiple instances of dishonesty and broken promises. Customer explicitly states Leroy lied about who cancelled the job and when, and the other owner fabricated a family death excuse.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Four of six reviews are from 2015–2020 (3–8 years old). Only two reviews from 2023 and 2020. Recent conduct appears significantly worse than historical performance.
• PATTERN ALERT: The 2023 review suggests the company prioritizes damage control (texting to prevent bad reviews) over honest communication and customer service.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: The 2023 customer paid full price for a cancelled job with no work performed and no proper refund or discount offered.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Multiple failed callback promises and scheduling failures documented in most recent review.

This score should be treated with caution due to extreme recency bias: the most recent review reveals serious integrity and professionalism issues that contradict the positive historical pattern, suggesting the company's current operations may not match its past reputation. The WW Score reflects a weighted average, but the 2023 incident is a strong warning signal that warrants independent verification before engaging this contractor.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review profile: glowing 5-star reviews praising responsiveness, professionalism, and skill are directly countered by multiple 1-star reviews describing repeated failed repair attempts, avoidance of permits, poor communication, and discriminatory behavior. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by a non-response complaint spanning multiple days, a bigotry incident, and failure to clean up job sites. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with explicit accounts of jobs requiring 4 attempts, leaving customers worse off than before, and taking excessive time to finish. The positive reviews, while enthusiastic, are largely older (2011–2019), while the most recent reviews (2021–2024) skew negative, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time. Pricing received limited but mostly positive mentions, preventing a complete collapse of that dimension.

• RECENCY CONCERN: The two most recent reviews (2024 and 2022) are both 1-star. The majority of 5-star reviews are from 2019 or earlier, with several dating back to 2011–2014. This pattern suggests a meaningful decline in service quality in recent years and recent reviews should be weighted more heavily.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: One reviewer (2024) explicitly states the contractor made bigoted remarks in Spanish, believing the customer did not understand. This is a significant red flag beyond typical service complaints.
• PERMIT AVOIDANCE FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states the contractor avoids pulling permits until forced to do so, which may indicate regulatory non-compliance.
• COMPETENCE CONCERN: Multiple negative reviews describe the same pattern — repeated failed attempts to fix basic plumbing issues (4 attempts on a circulator, multiple attempts on other repairs) — suggesting systemic skill or quality-control problems.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — LOW LEVEL: Several older 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Amazing!', 'The best plumbing service I've ever used') with little specific detail. While not conclusive, these reviews add limited evidentiary weight and confidence in those scores is reduced accordingly.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review pool of 13 reviews, a stark recency gap where recent reviews are predominantly negative, and the presence of serious misconduct allegations that cannot be verified but materially affect trustworthiness.

Salazar Heating and Plumbing shows a deeply polarized review pattern with stark contrasts between older positive reviews (2014–2018) and recent negative experiences (2015, 2018, 2021). The company demonstrates technical competence and responsiveness in professionalism, but is severely undermined by consistent pricing complaints across multiple reviews alleging overcharging, bait-and-switch tactics, and failure to honor estimates. Project completion is compromised by instances of incomplete repairs requiring callbacks and customer dissatisfaction. The most recent reviews (2021) describe feeling financially exploited, which raises serious ethical concerns about current business practices.

• CRITICAL: Strong pattern of pricing complaints across 6 reviews spanning 2015–2021, with allegations of overcharging, estimate violations, and unethical billing practices. This is not isolated—it is systemic.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2014–2018 (6–7 years old). The three most recent reviews (2015, 2018, 2021) are predominantly negative (ratings 1.0–2.0), suggesting service quality or ethics may have deteriorated.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Reviews from 2016–2017 are suspiciously generic and vague ('very well, professional'; 'unknown'; 'super friendly and efficient') with no specific details, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews. These may be placeholder or fake reviews.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Multiple reviews document unresolved issues (AC still leaking, thermostat still not working, hose came loose again), indicating follow-through problems.
• VULNERABLE CUSTOMER TARGETING: One review explicitly notes the customer is a single mother; another mentions a disabled spouse. Pattern suggests potential targeting of vulnerable populations for overcharging.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While based on 10 usable reviews, the extreme polarization between old positive reviews (likely outdated or unreliable) and recent negative reviews (detailed and consistent) suggests the company's current practices may be significantly worse than the overall score indicates. The pricing dimension is particularly concerning and well-documented across multiple independent accounts. Recent customers should weight the 2021, 2018, and 2015 reviews heavily over older testimonials.

This contractor shows severe and consistent professionalism failures, particularly around punctuality and responsiveness. Multiple reviews explicitly document no-shows without communication, delayed responses to client inquiries, and abandonment of projects mid-completion. While two positive reviews praise fair pricing and technical skill, they are heavily outweighed by three damaging reviews spanning 2017–2024 that describe unresponsiveness, rudeness, and failure to honor commitments. The most recent 1-star review (October 2024) reiterates the core problem: the contractor simply does not show up. Project completion is severely compromised by documented instances of partly finished jobs and lack of follow-through.

• CRITICAL: Extreme recency bias detected. Two 5-star reviews are from 2013 and 2022; three 1-star reviews are from 2017, 2018, and October 2024. The most recent review (Oct 2024) confirms the same no-show/unresponsiveness pattern documented 6+ years ago, suggesting systemic, unresolved issues.
• PATTERN ALERT: Three separate reviews (2017, 2018, 2024) describe identical failure mode: scheduled appointment, contractor does not show up, no communication or apology. This is not isolated incident but repeated behavior.
• CREDIBILITY CONCERN: The two positive reviews lack specificity about pricing details and one is 11 years old. The negative reviews are highly detailed, specific, and recent, making them more reliable indicators of current service quality.
• PROJECT ABANDONMENT: One review explicitly describes a partly finished job abandoned mid-project because 'something bigger came along.' This is a critical red flag for reliability.

This score should be treated with CAUTION but leans toward the negative. While based on only 5 reviews, the pattern of repeated no-shows and unresponsiveness across three independent reviews spanning 7 years, culminating in a recent October 2024 incident, suggests a systemic professionalism problem that outweighs the positive feedback from older reviews. The WW Score of 52.3 reflects genuine service quality concerns and should not be dismissed as outlier feedback.