Borrell Construction Service

The collection of reviews presents a predominantly negative view of the siding repair company, with a few isolated positive notes about individual workers. Reported experiences center on quality, reliability, and conduct, and potential customers should consider these themes when evaluating the firm.

Quality and completion
- Many reviewers describe sloppy workmanship, incomplete or poorly executed work, and materials that do not meet expectations (e.g., siding issues, peeling or damaged surfaces, misaligned components). Some projects are described as unfinished or only partially completed, with parts installed inconsistently or left in poor condition.
- Several accounts mention damage to existing features or interiors (cracked drywall, floors that squeak, a damaged deck) and in one case a walk-in tub and ramp that did not meet needs.
- A number of customers report projects taking far longer than promised, with one notably long timeline and others noting repeated delays or partial completion.

Site condition and safety
- Multiple reviewers report debris and nails left around the property after work, including nails around the perimeter and general trash or disorder on site.
- Some accounts describe abrupt departures from jobs or returning to a site that had not been properly protected or cleaned up.

Professionalism, communication, and conduct
- There are frequent claims of unprofessional behavior, including threats, harassment, and confrontations with homeowners, and unannounced visits.
- Several reviewers allege poor communication, broken promises, and a lack of responsiveness. In some cases, customers say contracts or project details were not provided in writing or were altered without consent.
- A number of posts describe disputes over payments, with accusations of exaggerated charges or attempts to pressure for additional money.

Contractual and financial aspects
- Reviewers report perception of overcharging, misleading statements, and tactics described as extortion or coercive, including withholding services or components until new payments were made.
- Some comments reference involvement with “homeowner funding” processes and misrepresentations or mismanagement related to funding or grants.

Subcontractors and scope
- Several accounts mention subcontractors (e.g., window installers, other referenced crews) bringing additional coordination challenges, delays, or inconsistent quality.
- In a few instances, reviewers point to specific individuals positively (e.g., some workers who installed windows or handled particular tasks well), but these are isolated and not representative of the overall trend in the reviews.

Practical takeaways for potential customers
- Verify licensing, obtain a detailed written scope and contract, and request copies of all agreements.
- Insist on a clear, written timeline, milestones, and a cleanup plan, and confirm who is responsible for debris removal and site safety.
- Check references and inspect past work if possible; ask about subcontractors and project management processes.
- Be cautious of high-pressure tactics or funding/sales offers that require immediate decisions; ensure all promises are documented in writing.
- Plan for contingencies around delays, potential scope changes, and the possibility of disputes requiring formal resolution.

Overall, the reviews urge careful due diligence and suggest there is a substantial risk of poor workmanship, disrupted schedules, and challenging interactions with the company.