Branck Construction initially gave this customer a bid on a job related to wind-damaged siding and outlined a process they planned to implement to fix the siding. The siding on the home could not be matched up with new siding and Branck planned on removing pieces of siding from the garage and cutting, mixing, and matching that to replace what was damaged on the back of the home. The idea was that this would match the siding as best as possible so as not to have the mismatched patterns stand out. Some siding had blown off previously and been temporarily screwed to the home, which Branck correctly pointed out was not the proper way to fix siding and left holes in the siding. The initial cost quoted to the customer to implement the fixes explained by Branck seemed fair. On day one of the job Branck spent the entire day setting up one story of scaffolding and lumber on the roof to reach the siding near the eaves of the home. There was no other work completed on this day. On day two of the job Branck was onsite no longer than two hours, the siding that had the screws in it was still in place with holes in it from where Branck had removed the screws, and the siding that had been damaged by the wind appeared to have been tucked back into the roofline and repaired. When Branck was called and asked about the work that was done a representative stated that the initial plan that was explained during the bid process (moving, replacing siding, etc.) had been scrapped and that the holes in the siding from the screws were "no big deal". When Branck was asked why the customer was not notified of the changes, the representative from Branck stated that the job was still hard and pointed to an "as needed" stipulation in the work contract. When Branck was asked about the initial cost that was quoted (which now seemed high with regard to the work actually done) a representative from Branck stated that the customer should have been charged more for the work that was done on the home. It is the opinion of this customer that Branck implemented a bait and switch tactic to lead the customer to believe that a certain amount of work was required and would be performed to fix the home. At no point did Branck notify the customer of any changes in the agreed-upon work that was to be done to the home. While it is understood that sometimes unforeseen circumstances may dictate changes in what a contractor does when implementing repairs; it is this customer's opinion that the changes in what work was to be performed meant that the initial quoted cost of repairs was no longer fair. The siding with holes in it was still in place and the siding that had been dislodged from wind had simply been tucked back into the roofline. It is also worth mentioning that personnel from Branck primarily interacted with an elderly couple who reside at the home and it is this customer's opinion that this fact was exploited by Branck to receive the initial quoted cost while doing minimal work. read more