BBB Logo

Better Business Bureau ®
Start With Trust®
Northeast California

BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Petkus Brothers meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services.

Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 16 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that raised the rating for Petkus Brothers include:

  • Length of time business has been operating.
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size.
  • Response to 5 complaint(s) filed against business.
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business.
  • BBB has sufficient background information on this business.

Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

5 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 1 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 0
Billing/Collection Issues 0
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 5
Total Closed Complaints 5

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Petkus Brothers
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 0

Additional Information

BBB file opened: January 17, 1990 Business started: 11/01/1983 Business started locally: 11/01/1983 Business incorporated: 12/17/1992 in CA

This business is in an industry that may require professional licensing, bonding or registration. BBB encourages you to check with the appropriate agency to be certain any requirements are currently being met.

These agencies may include:

Contractor's State License Board
9821 Business Park Drive, Sacramento CA 95827
Phone Number: (800) 321-2752

Type of Entity


Business Management
Mr. Kevin Petkus, President
Contact Information
Principal: Mr. Kevin Petkus, President
Business Category

Contractors - General Patio & Deck Builders Patio Builder Patio Cover Siding Contractors Baths Contractors - Flooring Landscape Contractors Kitchen & Bath - Design & Remodeling Concrete - Custom

Alternate Business Names
PBC Enterprises
Industry Tips
Hiring a Contractor in California: Essential Tips

Additional Locations


What is a BBB Business Review?

We offer free reviews on businesses that include background, licensing, consumer experience and other information such as governmental actions that is known to BBB. These reviews are provided for businesses that are BBB accredited and also for businesses that are not BBB accredited.


About BBB Business Review Content & Services:

Some Better Business Bureaus offer additional content & services in BBB Business Reviews.
The additional content & services are typically regional in nature or, in some cases, a new product or service that is being tested prior to a more general release.
Not all enhanced content & services are available at all Better Business Bureaus.

Professional AffiliationsX

Types of Complaints Handled by BBB

BBB handles the following types of complaints between businesses and their customers so long as they are not, or have not been, litigated:

  • Advertising or Sales
  • Billing or Collection
  • Problems with Products or Services
  • Delivery
  • Guarantee or Warranty

We do not handle workplace disputes, discrimination claims or claims about the quality of health or legal services.


BBB Complaint Process

Your complaint will be forwarded to the business within two business days. The business will be asked to respond within 14 days, and if a response is not received, a second request will be made. You will be notified of the business's response when we receive it (or notified that we received no response). Complaints are usually closed within 30 business days.


What is BBB Advertising Review?

BBB promotes truth in advertising by contacting advertisers whose claims conflict with the BBB Code of Advertising. These claims come to our attention from our internal review of advertising, consumer complaints and competitor challenges. BBB asks advertisers to prove their claims, change ads to make offers more clear to consumers, and remove misleading or deceptive statements.


What government actions does BBB report on?

BBB reports on known significant government actions involving business' marketplace conduct.


Thank you for your feedback!

Help us improve by taking our survey.


BBB Reporting Policy

As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.

BBB Business Reviews are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information in this BBB Business Review is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy.

BBB business Reviews generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Reviews are subject to change at any time.


Additional Phone Numbers

  • (916) 429-2121(Phone)
Find a LocationX

  Change Location
Show Only Accredited Locations

Complaint Detail(s)

1/6/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: Patio Cover gutter leaks and they are being unresponsive to repair requests. Back in 2012 we had a patio cover installed in our back yard. Ever since installation, the gutter leaks whenever it rains. While they have been out to fix it three times it has taken many calls to get someone to come out to look at it. The first two times they came back to fix the leak they smeared caulking all over the top of the gutter, creating an eye sore from our upper windows. This did not fix the leak however. The third time, one of their guys, ****, came out to look at it and this time used our hose to flood the cover until he saw the leak and said he knew what it was and how to fix it but he didn't have time that day so he would be back. Weeks went by and I had to call them again, always talking to Cyndi who is very helpful and sympathetic. Finally, **** came back out, spent about 10 minutes on a ladder, and then left. Now the gutter leaks worse than before. I have called them again and as always am told they will look into it and as usual, I am receiving no response. It's been a month since my last call. All I want is for the gutter to be fixed. It is obvious where the leak is coming from, it comes from where they joined two pieces together and the joint is clearly visible. I have been far too patient with Petkus Brothers and regret that I have had to take this step.

Desired Settlement: I want them to come back out, promptly, and fix this once and for all. I want the gobs of smeared caulking cleaned off of the top of the gutter area and for the gutter to be properly installed and sealed this time.

Business Response: Initial Business Response
We have completed the leak repair and caulking clean up on his patio cover and everything has been resolved to Mr. *******'s satisfaction. In fact, he said he was very happy with Petkus Brothers and his patio cover! We have spent some extra time with our installation staff making sure they are fully trained and highly doubt this issue will happen again.

BBB's Final Determination: Business offered a resolution. Consumer did not pursue further with BBB and the matter was assumed to be resolved

8/12/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: On Feb 2011 Petkus Brothers put in a 18x23x18 patio room at my residence at the cost of $18,317.80 There has been a leak on one of the existing walls every time it rains. We have been calling about that leak every time it rains and all they do is come over and put some caulking. I installed a indoor/outdoor rug by Carpeteria Rugs at the cost of $1488 which we feel is now ruined form the leakage. The last repair person (Mr. ****** ******* came in on the last storm we had (March 2013) said that we needed a new wall installed to replace the old wall that was leaking. In April I got a phone call from Mr. *** ******. He said the repair was going to take more than a few hours and that he was going to come and see the area. We set a specific day, April 13. We waited all day and he never showed up. I have called many, many, many times and talked to ***** ******* She keeps telling me she gives the messages to Mr. ******, I don't know what else to do but hire an attorney. We have waited long enough!!

Desired Settlement: We would like to have that wall replaced and the replacement of a new rug...

Business Response: Business' Initial Response
We acknowledge we have had issues with this project. We have serviced it several times in response to customer request for service. We have contacted Mr. ******, met at his house and have made arrangements to correct situation. This will be completed in the next 30 days.

Consumer's Final Response
Petkus Bros. had indicated they knew what was wrong. They were going to come over to look at it. I am still waiting. We had an appt. since April 13th, 2013 and no one has ever come to this premises.

BBB's Final Determination: Business offered a resolution. Consumer did not pursue further with BBB and the matter was assumed to be resolved

3/5/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: On July 31, 2012, I signed and approved a contract with ****** Brothers to construct a patio cover at ************* Lane, Sacramento. The contract notes that I have a copy of the plans and that the Architectural Committee of SunCountry Homeowners Association had approved them. ****** Brothers applied to the Sacramento County building department for a building permit on August 8, 2012. They received plan review approval and were given a permit. Construction workers from ****** Brothers arrived at my home at 9:00am on August 24. They began to install the posts and I watched to be sure that they were placed in the correct location. They had no visible information as to the exact placement. Then they began to drill on the roof eave. I stopped them and said that the building permit plan showed no connection to the house roof. I was told that the permit was in the office and they had been given directions as to how the construction was to be done. They completed the job by 3:15 and left. I called your office to say that the construction did not even come close to the plan that I had approved and requested that the building permit be sent to me. It was. In October, I received a letter from the SunCountry Architectural Committee stating that the new patio had been inspected, did not pass, and must be removed and the roof repaired. Sacramento County building inspector checked the patio cover for final inspection on December 26. He stated in his report that the design on the cover built by ****** did not match the design on the building permit. I immediately called ****** office to inform you that the cover did not pass. I heard nothing from your office. After waiting a week, I made the trip to the office to see why nothing had been done. I was told that there was no record of my call. Other phone calls to the office are not returned. When I signed my contract with ******, I expected my patio cover to be built exactly as it was presented on the contract. That was not done. The patio cover must be properly completed as per building permit and contract and pass final inspection by February 28, 2013 or I shall turn the matter over to my attorney for legal action.

Desired Settlement: Company needs to build the cover to the specifications of the contract and the building permit.

Business Response: Business' Initial Response
This cover was built and completed. There are some issues now with how it was built and we are actively trying to contact Mrs ********** and wish to resolve this with her. She has yet to respond however we are trying.

Business' Final Response
We are working to resolve attachment issue (Done) and get permit finaled (Done and finaled 2/20/13).Will confirm if all complete after discussion with customer. ****** ******

BBB's Final Determination: Business offered a resolution. Consumer did not pursue further with BBB and the matter was assumed to be resolved

1/15/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: Contractor did not supervise his sub contactor and then was unwilling to fix the problem. Or get permit for the job. In November of 2010 I had ****** ****** (with ****** Brothers) come and give a bid on a sun-room and remodel on my kitchen. There was an issue of a pool that needed to be taken out and backfilled. I decided to do the project in two sections. First take out the pool. ****** ****** told us that we would take out a permit when we did the additions. I signed a contract with ****** Brother to take out the pool. They sub Contracted the job to ****** Concrete. They did not do the job right and thus the backyard flooded which uncovered rebar that was sticking out of the ground. A ****** Brother solution was to have me pay ****** Concrete more money for drainage for the problem and add a top layer of soil. ****** Brother was unresponsive and I decide to use another contractor. When the new contractor went to put in footing for the new addition, he found the side of the pool a mere 6 inches below the surface! The soil had not been compacted. The City of Sacramento said a permit had to been taken out and should have been done in the first place to have the pool removed. In October of 2012 ****** ******, my contractor, a company that does Geo-technical testing, another concrete company and I were there on site to run the compaction test. ****** Brother took no responsibly for the problem and said "He did not think he had to get permits to backfill the pool". He said this in front of witnesses. He offered NO solution to the problem and just walked away before the end of the meeting. He did come back on site and watched them dig up the pool and spoke to my contractor. I now have a bill over $9,000.00 that I have had to pay. I have sent ****** Brothers a letter with all the information and have not received a solution other than "he needed more time". The company has known about this problem for 2 years, that is plenty of time to right this wrong. It is now November 2012 and the project has been delayed for yet another month. I now have to seek a legal remedy to this mess. DO NOT USE THIS CONTRACTOR ALL HE WANTS TO DO IS SELL YOU A SUN-ROOM AND WILL NOT STAND BEHIND HIS CONTRACT OR HIS SUB-CONTRACTORS.

Desired Settlement: I want them to pay for the trouble and for having to hire another contractor to fix the problems.

Business Response: Business' Initial Response
****** Brothers' Response: 1. The customer, ******, was not ignored for two years. The first I heard of the problem was a month or 2 ago when ****** contacted me with a request to contact her contractor. The contractor asked me some questions about what was done previously. ****** had contacted me up until this time other then the issues with drainage. 2. The project was to be done by ***** Concrete, as is clearly stated in line 1 of the service order ****** signed. It was done with her full knowledge by ***** Concrete. 3. I have spoken to the City of Sacramento and the guidelines for abandoning a pool are vague but are primarily concerned with making sure the electrical and water are disconnected and holes are drilled in the bottom of the pool for water to evacuate. These items were done. 4. We were asked to remove the concrete from around the pool, place the concrete in the pool along with soil for backfill and compact it as we go. Then to finish, we brought in additional soil so that it would be a suitable base for a grass area. 5. The backyard flooded because there was not proper existing drainage to the front of the house and then to the street. However, when contacted, ***** worked out a solution directly with ****** to bring drainage to the street. An agreement was made between them and it was completed and paid for by ****** to ***** directly. 6. I was contacted by ****** regarding the pool and asked to call her contractor, Scott. I spoke to him regarding what was done with the pool. 7. The delays in the project where created when the pool was discovered upon preparation for the foundation. ****** should of disclosed to her contractor ,Scott, the abandoned pool when planning for the addition. 8. This required a site specific plan taking into consideration what would be required for a foundation over an abandoned pool. Adandoning a pool per City of Sacramento guidelines in no way guarantees it is suitable for an addition. 9. What ****** has choosen to have built 2 years after the work was done by PB and ***** Concrete requires all the things she is doing now to be done. Had she requested of me to prepare the site for a significant room addition of conventional construction, I would have followed the same path she is currently on. I would have done plans, gotten permits for the addition and explained the cost involved. The problem is, two years ago she had no idea she was going to build this addition. There were no plans. I was not requested to prepare such plans. There is no way I could prepare for an addition that was yet to be imagined. The project we did discuss was a sunroom that required only a standard patio slab and could have been built on the site with no further preparation. She assured me she would contact me at a later date to review that option. She did not contact me regarding the sunroom option. 10. Scott informed me of things he was doing to move the project along. I came out to observe on a couple of occasions. Independent of me, it was decided the quickest way to move along was to excavate the pool. A company was hired and the work was done. ****** did not contact me directly regarding any of these decisions. Scott indicated he did not know how they would address it with me. Then I recieved a letter, after the fact, asking for PB to pay the bill. 11. In summary, I wrote a service order to do certain items with the pool. I performed those tasks. Abandoning a pool is not preparing it for an addition. It was never asked of me and my service order is very clear as to what was asked of PB. I did not ignore the customer for 2 years. There was no problem to fix until ****** decided to do an addition over the abandoned pool area. ****** chose to build an addition. She should have disclosed the pool in her planning process. When she signed a contract to build her addition, she took on all the requirements to complete the project. Known or unknown at the time. To come back to PB 2 years later to fulfill site specific requirements I had no idea existed at the time (and neither did the customer) is not reasonable. The project costs are her responsibility.

Consumer's Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) The purpose of the licensing law is to protect the public from incompetence and dishonesty of those who provide building and construction services. The term is broadly defined to include any person who undertakes to; construct, alter, repair, improve or demolish any building or structure (pool), road or other improvement. The licensing requirement provide minimal assurance that all person offering services in California have the requisite skill and character, understand applicable local laws and codes, and know the rudiments of administering a contracting business. 1. ****** Brothers did back fill the pool, which then flooded the yard and the neighbors yard this was done incorrectly to code. 2. ****** Brothers violated the law and did not get a permit that would have insured that the work was done right (no hole in bottom of pool) 3. ****** Brother violated the law California Business and Profession Code section 7151.2 (3) limits the amount a contract may charge for a down payment the down payment my not exceed one thousand dollars or 10% of the contract amount. ****** Brothers is unaware of the building codes and laws that govern their profession. The State Contracts Board has contacted us and we will move forward from there.

Business' Final Response
1. I stand by original outline dated 12/01/12 and will add some additional information. 2. The original complaint states I was unwilling to fix the problem. In the complaint she indicates "we did not do the job right and thus the backyard flooded." She states in the complaint that "The ****** solution was to have me pay ***** Concrete more money for drainage for the problem and add layer of top soil." She says I was unresponsive and so she decided to hire another contractor. 3. What really happened? The fact is I received the email you will find enclosed asking me to address a problem with flooding. She states the drains may need to be fixed (previously undisclosed to me) and some concrete may have to be removed to do this task and bring drainage to the front of the house. She states "I realize that this extra work was not in the price and will need to be added." Please find email enclosed. We responded and ***** Concrete and ****** ****** came to an agreement on what was to be done and ****** paid him directly in full to complete work. No other contractor finished any work we were asked to do. 4. The email directly contradicts her claim in this complaint. 5. Once this work was completed I did not hear a word from the claimant until she got involved in building a room addition. She claims I have known about this problem for 2 years, however, there was no problem until she found out here new scope of work required additional cost to complete. 6. She has no claim because the scope of work requested of me was fulfilled in good faith as evidence by the email and her payments on work preformed. She received a bid only, not a set of plans to install a sunroom. Had she installed the sunroom as she insisted she would at a later date she would have had no probiem because a sunroom does not require a full foundation, just a standard patio slab. I could only prepare for the scope of work I was given. She changed entirely the scope of work by going from a sunroom to a full on conventional construction. She is entitled to change her mind; however, it also is her responsibility to pay for the new scope of work required. She has not a shred of evidence that indicates I promised or inferred the pool would be suitable for room addition. 7. In regards to the permit. It is very vague as to what is required to demo a pool. However, In item 8 of the of the Residential Plan review (The current permit review for this residence) it states to demo a pool it is an over the counter permit without submittal of plans. The guidelines would have required electrical and water to be disconnected and holes in bottom for drainage. Since we were placing grass/landscaping over it compaction is not a big issue. We completed the above items. There were no plans, request for plans to be submitted or site specific plans 2 years ago when this was completed. None were provided by the customer and customer gave no indication a full on room addition was to be built. Anything to the contrary is heresy. 8. She talks about a meeting I was to attend. I spoke to the contractor and he indicated I should come by and take a look. No one requested a meeting specifically with me. I assumed upon learning they were building a room addition they understood that the scope of work from two years ago had nothing to do the project they were currently doing. I asked Scott specifically what he needed from me. He indicated he would review it with building and let me know if I needed to get involved. I also asked what ****** was thinking regarding this matter and my responsibility in it. He said he did not know and they would contact me if there was something. 9. In Summary: I have been very transparent in my responses in this matter. The email I have provided contradicts the core of this complaint. The demo in no way guarantees you have a buildable site for any project you decide to do unless you have site specific plans at the time of the demo. The customer had no plans and did not know she would be building this project two years ago. The scope of work today is completely different than what was proposed two years ago. I believe this is the key to understanding our disagreement. She did not directly involve me in any of her decisions to expedite the foundation work, nor indicate she intended for me to pay for it prior to contracting to have the work done. If she intended to bill me she should have been up front about it. I have operated in good faith and my record should not in any way be tarnished because we disagree on this point regarding the scope of work.

BBB's Final Determination: After reviewing the position of all parties, BBB determined that the business made a reasonable offer to resolve the complaint. However the consumer did not accept the offer.

5/24/2012 Problems with Product/Service