Complaints

This profile includes complaints for HMK Construction's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

HMK Construction has 2 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  HMK Construction

  1170 Mars Evans City Rd Mars, PA 16046-2216

• 

  HMK Construction

  762 Route 422 E Butler, PA 16002

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/25/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  HMK Construction is working in my home. The project had an anticipated completion time of ten days. Today marks one month since HMK began work. The project is far from completed, there is significant poor workmanship that will need to be fixed or redone and items of value have been damaged. I have lost all confidence with HMK Construction and don’t trust the company. From crew members fighting in my driveway to metal mudding tools (covered in joint compound) being washed in the newly installed bathroom sink, there has been non-stop issues. I have been in contact with the owner who placed video surveillance on the workers for two days only. Documentation of concerns have been provided to the owner through emails and detailed photos. I have repeatedly been provided completion dates (via email) that have passed. My concerns about poor workmanship have not prompted quality work. The project is not completed and every aspect of the project has a concern that needs to be addressed or fixed. With no confidence and entering into month two, I have asked HMK to leave the premises at the end of the business day today. A balance of $5,739 remain on the contract. I believe that I have overpaid for what is currently completed and will need to have poor quality work fixed. There is also costly damage. For example the new sink/countertop is badly scratched. Follow the washing of metal tools in the bathroom sink, the team continued to use the countertop as a work area. I will end up in small claims court with HMK Construction if I am expected to pay a remaining balance on the contract.
  Note: **** ***** ***** completed the installation of a new bathtub, surround, vanity and countertop/sink, toilet, and flooring prior to HMK being hired to address the walls and add shelving.
  I have many photos to document the situation. When uploading, I received an error-perhaps I tried to add too many. Many more are available.
  I also have the email correspondence with the owner.

  Business Response

  Date: 09/25/2025

  It is true that the project took longer than projected. We did hope to have it done sooner, and believe that we would have been able to deliver satisfying results upon completion. She had a tendency to judge the finished result before it was finished, for example she would look at unfinished drywall and express concerns that it looked rough. We would agree that unfinished drywall looks rough, but our position was never that we were going to leave it that way. 

  A point of contention had to do with a misunderstanding in communication. When we would say "we expect to be done by this date", what we believe she HEARD was we were saying we were leaving in a rough condition by that day one way or the other, but of course that is not what we were saying. What we WERE saying was that we planned to be done by that date, meaning finished to a satisfying result. Where the biggest failure happened, was simply in taking longer than required. 

  To help manage our team remotely, we relied on tech tools and job site cameras which she reported successfully enhanced productivity. We used various tools throughout the project as needed. Setting up cameras and taking them down every day required precious time, and considering the fact that we were past schedule as it was, and the reliability of our field reports confirming productivity, and our other communication apps helping us to stay in the loop play by play, we used what was enabling efficiency and supporting supervision without redundancy as needed. 

  Sadly, there was a new hire who came in on a Monday and was fired on a Tuesday or Wednesday because of his attitude and productivity. He was a hot head and once his behavior was determined to be toxic, he was removed from not only the job site, but our company. I wish this sort of thing were more avoidable. This employee cleaned out a tool in her sink, which upset her very much. We offered to take whatever action was required to leave her satisfied, and are still working towards those resolutions in good faith, as this is an ongoing matter. 
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 09/30/2025

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  A detailed reply to HMK along with email correspondence between myself and HMK has been emailed to Ms. Muzzio, Dispute Resolution Director. Please confirm receipt of the reply to HMK Construction. 
  
  
  I would appreciate the BBB’s opinion regarding the situation.   

  Thank you for your time. 

  My reply is broken into
  segments.
  Project taking longer than projected:
  The initial length was estimated at 10 days. The HMK team worked very slowly with minimal
  change from day to day. I expressed my concerns as the project lingered. During this time of
  slow progression, poor workmanship became more evident, my personal items were used to
  support the construction project (without agreement) and items were damaged. I was informed
  of completion dates on more than a few occasions. These dates of anticipated completion
  came and passed. For reasons that include extremely slow progression, poor workmanship,
  damage, and not seeing the project coming to a close in the near future, I informed the owner
  that I wanted HMK to leave the premises in two days.
  Damage and loss:
  ? Damage: (1)
  a. Just before HMK began their project, **** ***** ***** (***) installed a new
  solid wood vanity, sink/countertop (one piece), bathtub, and surround. *** knew
  that I was having the wallpaper removed, walls prepped and painted along with
  shelving added. With wallpaper on the walls, *** placed the backsplash at the
  back of the sink countertop, where it rested against the wall. New baseboards
  were cut and resting in place for their final attachment once HMK completed their
  project. The last day that HMK was in the home, I (in writing/given to the foreman
  while on site) requested that all baseboards be placed back to rest in their
  original position. The new baseboards and backsplash prepared by *** are not
  on the premises. I don’t know what HMK did with these items but they are not at
  my home. They will need to be replaced by *** and cost will be incurred for
  this.
  b. As mentioned in (a.), the vanity, sink/countertop, and bathtub are newly installed.
  The sink/countertop is damaged with scratches and a dulled finish. With the
  white finish of the sink/countertop, the scratches only show minimally in photos.
  In person, the damage is very evident. HMK construction’s reply mentions firing a
  worker after being at my property. This worker did a great deal of damage to the
  sink/countertop. I was frustrated by the damage and was clear about the
  sink/countertop being new and wanted the sink/countertop covered while working
  in the bathroom. Following this crew member being fired, it is unfortunate that
  the sink/countertop was consistently used as a worktable.
  c. At the end of one of the days that HMK worked in the bathroom, I went to have a
  shower. The bathtub had debris in it including screws. After I cleaned the
  bathtub, the scratches seen in the photo below remained.
  d. The vanity has been damaged with minor scratching and areas of paint.
  e. Newly installed mirror doors show damage. This damage is to the mirrored doors
  and runners. (Pictured below)
  f. There is damage to flooring in the bathroom. The laminate flooring (existing) has
  a transition strip that needs to be fixed.
  g. The ceiling in one of the rooms was scraped with something, leaving a series of
  small gouges into the ceiling sheetrock
  ? Refuse:
  a. HMK brought in a dumpster that was on the premise for most of the time they
  were at *** ******. Items were brought to the premise and placed in this
  dumpster. Items such as several large chunks of asphalt, windows, office
  furniture, and general debris.
  b. The deck repair completed by HMK was completed quickly and correctly.
  However, debris from the repair was left in the yard.
  c. Once the dumpster was removed from the premises, my garage was used for
  storage and a holding area for garbage. HMK did remove the garbage when they
  left the final day.
  ? Loss:
  a. The extended amount of time that HMK was in the home, created problems for
  my work schedule and the completion of work during the typical workday.
  b. The repair and replacement of items will cost money and be time consuming, not
  to mention the stress of the situation. In hindsight, when completing my initial
  report with the BBB, I should have requested to have a portion of the money
  already paid, returned to me. The current billing change desire is to not pay any
  further money to HMK Construction.
  Poor workmanship:
  ? Poor workmanship is evident in each area that HMK worked.
  ? From the install of shelving to the install of the bathroom fan, measuring was off
  by several inches. For example, the opening for the bathroom fan was cut by
  HMK construction (my electrician prepped the wiring) The opening was overshot
  by several inches.
  ? Framing wood was mismeasured or wrongly placed causing uneven wall jams
  and corner trim.
  ? Holes for lighting, cut too large, caused there to be “open” space once the lighting
  was installed
  ? Closet runners are slightly off in length. There is also damage that does not
  cause issues with function but are noticeable to the eye. That being said, there is
  a squeaking noise when opened and closed.
  ? There is one significant area of a wall being uneven where newly installed
  sheetrock met the existing wall.
  ¦ Perhaps a palm sander would have been more efficient than sanding by
  hand.
  Communication and “Tech Tools”:
  ? Communication
  ? Email communications between myself and the owner have been forwarded to
  the BBB. These email communications document anticipated completion dates,
  my growing concerns and photos of poor workmanship. At no time did I infer the
  owner’s anticipated completion date as a “rough” completion. At the start of the
  project, I had full anticipation of being satisfied with finished results. The crew’s
  limited skills, lack of care for the home, and installation of items that were
  scratched/chipped or installed poorly are included within the emails. Along with
  this there were safety issues. For example, one photo shows a closet light left
  hanging by wires. Lights hanging by wires during their time in my home was not
  unusual. In this particular instance, I believe that the wire was live.
  ? “Tech Tools”
  ? Video
  ¦ HMK’s reply mentioned Tech Tools being used on the premise. After
  documenting concerns through photos sent with emails, the owner asked
  to set up remote cameras so he could observe things. These remote
  cameras involved a “Hot Spot and three small mobile cameras. Each
  camera, including the small stand, can fit into the palm of a hand. On the
  second and last day of the owner using surveillance, he stated that his
  team worked through lunch and late into the day - neither of which is true.
  The TWO days of use of the surveillance produced faster work.
  ? Phone calls
  ¦ The owner’s reply spoke of communication with his foreman. The
  foreman held many of these calls while on speaker phone. On one
  occasion, the owner stated, “This is a shitshow… we’re going to end up in
  court.” If the owner received positive reports about workmanship and/or
  productivity, he was not receiving the full story. HMK is a locally operated
  business. On more than a few occasions, I requested the owner come to
  the home and look at the concerns. He did not accept these invitations.
  ¦
  ? New Hire:
  ? The HMK “new hire” that was subsequently fired worked on the premises for a
  total of TWO days. It is true that during those two days, the employee damaged
  items and was in an altercation with another crew member. The other days in the
  month of time at the home, this employee was not present.
  Personal items used by HMK Construction:
  ? My vacuum, stepladder, and broom are stored in a closet. There was no reason
  for anyone from the team to enter this area. Without asking, the crew went into
  my personal space, took out the stepladder, vacuum and broom and utilized
  these items. Both the vacuum and broom were used following demo. I requested
  that my items not be used. I made this request more than once. I found my
  broom in the garage and that is where it will remain. It is no longer in any shape
  to be used to sweep inside the home. My vacuum is a quality item but it is no
  longer in the almost new condition it was in, prior to the arrival of HMK
  Construction. My stepladder was used the entire time HMK was in my home.
  Upon leaving, it remained in one of the closets, covered with remnants of
  construction work. This stepladder was used from the inception of the project
  through their last day at my home. It is covered with construction debris such as
  mud and paint. I was never approached about using my quality “Gurilla” brand
  step ladder. Now that it has been utilized by HMK for a month of construction, it
  no longer looks like the steplader that I purchased.
  ? Hose: I did not have concerns about HMK using my garden hoss and nozzle.
  However, a HMK team member used the hose very roughly, leaving it unable to
  be used. It looks like friction caused the hole and damage to the nozzle. I have
  replaced the hose and nozzle.

   

  Example of sink/countertop being used as a work area. BTW, the step ladder is mine. It was
  used without my permission and is now covered with construction remnants. The two photos
  were taken on different days. These examples were days following the date the one crew
  member was fired. He had been off the premises for days, at this point.

   

  The following photos are examples of debris and issues left behind after HMK worked in the
  home.

   

  The new bathroom fan is amongst these items, in the larger box amongst the debris. This mess,
  inside my garage looked this way for much of the time HMK was on premise.

   

  In order to install the bathroom fan, a crew member went into the attic. The attic door was
  closed prior to this crew member going into the attic. After HMK left the premises, I noticed that
  the attic was not closed.

   

  The following photos were taken after HMK’s last day at *** ******. The photos show work
  that is sub-par and in need of correction along with areas of damage. It should be noted that
  there are many examples of this sub-par work. The photos below serve as an example of what
  I am left with.

   

  When HMK arrived at *** ****** Ln, the closet contained carpet that matched the room. Now,
  there is no carpet. I was told by the owner that the closet doors were hung and he requested
  that I pay for this portion of the project. These photos show poor install as well as damage.
  What can’t be shown in the photos is the squeaking the doors make as they go along the track.
  I spoke to the foreman about the squeaking over a week before I requested that HMK leave the
  premises. No change was made to mitigate the squeaking. It should be noted that the heat
  register for the bathroom is also “missing”. Note the one screw used to install the runner. There
  are a total of two screws used– one one each end of the runner. The holes for the other screws
  are visible in one photo.

   

  This photo shows the bathroom fan. The overcut has been patched but will need further prep
  work.

   

  In closing, I would like to address the following statement included in HMK’s reply: We offered
  to take whatever action was required to leave her satisfied, and are still working
  towards those resolutions in good faith, as this is an ongoing matter.
  Throughout this situation, HMK has responded with “fluffy” emails expressing their care
  and desire to provide an excellent product and my satisfaction. But, the situation did
  not improve sufficiently. At the close of their time on my property, I not only had no
  confidence but I felt uncomfortable with HMK in my home. HMK diminished my
  concerns about many issues. For example, the owner wanted his team to “fix” the new
  sink/countertop and bathtub with an over the counter kit. Perhaps this would have
  been an option if I had seen quality work from the team. With the limited quality
  control and skill, I could imagine the use of an over the counter kit in the hands of his
  team only making the situation worse. I believe that my request for a billing
  adjustment is more than fair. I have not requested financial compensation above the
  billing adjustment where I will not pay any further money to HMK. To be clear, I am not
  comfortable with HMK coming back into my home.

   

  ---------------------------------------------------------

  Additional email:

  It has been a week since HMK has been in my home. During this time I received an estimate to fix the tub and sink/countertop (previously provided) and have a painting company fixing the walls. Major issues with the drywall and the master bathroom area are not being addressed at this time. With what is being fixed, I’m looking at 3,000-4,000 dollars. Due to the cost of fixing issues caused by HMK Construction, I am requesting a refund in the amount of $5,000. This is a change from my original billing modification request. 
  The person currently painting is willing to speak with a representative of the BBB regarding the condition of the home, upon his arrival. 

  Another additional email (10/7):

  The company that installed the sink/countertop came to my house yesterday. I was hopeful that they would be able to repair the scratches and dulling. Unfortunately, they were not able to do this because the damage is deep and extensive. Documentation of this from the company is attached. 
  
  
  
  Respectfully,
  
  ****** ******** 
  
  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 10/30/2025

  The client’s frustration was initially triggered by delays in the project schedule and
  a breakdown in communication between our office and field team. While these
  early missteps understandably caused tension, her subsequent reaction escalated
  beyond what the circumstances reasonably warranted. Many of the issues raised
  in her complaint were either resolved promptly, stemmed from misunderstandings
  about work still in progress, or were portrayed in a misleading context that does
  not reflect the final outcome of the project.
  
  Summary of Position
  HMK Construction respectfully submits this summary to clarify our position
  regarding the client’s complaint and to provide factual context supported by
  documentation, photographs, and correspondence.
  1. Unfinished Work Is Not the Same as Damaged Work
  The client’s complaint frequently conflates unfinished items with damage. Our
  project records and photographic documentation clearly show that several
  items cited as “damaged” were, in fact, works in progress awaiting completion
  or touch-up.
  2. Client’s Review Presents Incomplete Work as Final Condition
  The images and descriptions submitted in the complaint include photos taken
  before the project was completed and before our final cleanup and closeout
  procedures were performed. This presentation is misleading, as it implies
  those photos reflect the final state of the project. Our dated field photos show
  significant progress and completion beyond the points represented in her
  materials.
  3. Evidence Shows That the Completed Result Would Have Been Satisfactory
  Internal project records, job logs, and inspection photos show steady progress
  toward completion and a clear path to a satisfactory final result. Had our team
  been allowed to complete the project as planned, we are confident that the
  finished product would have met both our standards and the client’s
  expectations.
  4. We Acknowledge Delays and Regret the Extended Project Duration
  It is true that the project took longer than initially projected, and we
  acknowledge that this caused frustration for the client. Delays are undesirable
  for all parties involved, including our company, which absorbs additional labor
  and overhead costs when a project runs long.
  The client’s initial frustration appears to have been triggered by delays in
  scheduling and a breakdown in communication between our field team and
  office. We acknowledge that both our team and the client were mutually
  frustrated by instances where our field team leader reported project
  readiness or projected completion dates that proved to be inaccurate or
  overly optimistic.
  5. Client’s Own Emails Show That We Responded Promptly and Constructively
  The client’s own correspondence, which she submitted as part of this
  complaint, demonstrates that we responded promptly to each concern raised,
  made necessary corrections, and improved performance as soon as additional
  supervision was implemented. Her emails even document her
  acknowledgment of improvements in both communication and quality once
  management became directly involved.
  6. We Acknowledge Imperfections but Reject Review Based on an Unfinished
  State
  We do not claim that the current condition of the project represents our
  finished result. We fully acknowledge that there were imperfections still in
  need of correction; however, those would have been addressed during the
  normal punch-list and project closeout process, had we been permitted to
  complete it.
  7. Client Demonstrated a Pattern of Overreaction That Was Resolved Through
  Communication
  Throughout the project, the client occasionally made strong or premature
  claims of failure, which were consistently resolved through clarification or
  simple corrections. Examples include the misunderstanding over the screen
  door, thermostat operation, basement entry cleanup, and driveway condition—
  all of which were resolved promptly once clarified.
  In several instances, the concerns raised by the client were either easily
  resolvable or non existent and simply based on misunderstandings about the
  construction process. The communication threads included in her own
  submission clearly show that our team responded promptly and effectively
  each time an issue was raised. While some of the issues she reported were
  legitimate and addressed in good faith, others show her reaction is
  disproportionate to the actual circumstances. In certain cases, the client’s
  overreaction was to matters that required only a brief clarification or simple
  correction. For example, she submitted a complaint about the “rough cut” of
  drywall, using a photo of an exposed drywall edge before taping or mudding
  had even begun. This was presented as evidence of poor workmanship, but in
  reality, it was simply an early construction stage, and we explained that the
  unfinished area would later be properly finished with tape and mud.
  Other examples include confusion about thermostat operation, the screen
  door installation, or the project’s progress at various stages—all of which were
  resolved quickly once the facts were clarified.
  Accusation of us going through the basement
  The client sent an accusatory complaint suggesting that our team was
  tracking dirt through the basement. In reality, dust had rained down the ceiling
  of the basement during demolition of the rooms above—something we were
  unaware of until she pointed it out, since we were not actively using the
  basement as a work or access area. Once notified, we immediately vacuumed
  the area.
  
  Example: The client claimed that we “broke” her thermostat, which was
  false, which she struggled to accept explanations from us until excessive
  follow up communication took place to indisputably demonstrate our
  position.
  Explanation: Thermostat removed daily to enable us access to the seam
  behind it where drywall finishing was required.
  
  Example: The client claimed that we “broke” her screen door, which was
  false.
  Screen door determined to not be broken but rather due to the age of the gas
  chamber and normal wear and tear some screws came loose and once
  tightened the item functioned properly.
  
  4:00 AM Text Messages:
  Client would send text after text resulting in 46 (literally) notifications between
  4:16-4:28 AM on 9/16/25
  
  ?? Regarding this “unevenly distributed shelf”, this was a design
  requirement due to there simply being an uneven amount of space
  between the top and bottom of the frame, so there was no way to
  have each shelf be exactly the same height.
  This was explained to the client by Matt in person, and did not merit
  a 4:00 AM text among 46 other notifications
  
  Clients emails will show a regular threat to “sue” and litigate as of there was
  some major claim here. The client did not act in good faith or with a spirit of
  collaboration and cooperation toward our mutual goal of a successful
  project completion. She presented with a hostile attitude and for lack of a
  better word, a dramatic over reaction that made the work environment for
  our team miserable.
  
  1. Claim: Vanity top and tub damage
  Response Summary:
  1. Response: at most, this is a case of heavy wear, but there is no actual
  damage. A full replacement would not be justified, and would not stand up
  if pursued formally through litigation or an insurance claim.
  2. Proposed resolution: reglazing or refinishing would resolve this, and even
  that would be going above and beyond what is called for in the case of
  heavy wear and tare.
  3. Clients position is that she wants a new tub and vanity. We believe this is
  similar to saying “you scratched my car door, so now I want a new car”,
  when a scratch repair is appropriate. However, we did offer to replace
  these items as needed if a repair was not possible and actual damage
  occurred.
  
  2. Claim: Use of outdated photos to misrepresent project status
  Response Summary:
  Client submitted photos from earlier stages of the project that do not reflect
  the final condition. We have photos from later dates showing the completed
  work. In the clients emails to BBB, several photos exist that are not showing
  the current condition, but are presented in a way that would lead one to
  believe that this was how the project was left after demobilization. Our job logs
  contain the same photos from this project phase, and also photos showing
  project progression after those dates.
  
  3. Claim:Improper use of dumpster and debris management
  Response Summary:
  The client’s contract permitted dumpster staging. One team member disposed
  of personal items, which did not impact project capacity or cost, as there was
  a lot of extra room in the dumpster for this. We would consider occasional
  access to a dumpster a job perk for our team, when to use one does not
  impact the projects needs or costs. Additionally, the dumpster was used to
  stage trash from another project where asphalt was used. This is economical
  and also did not impact the project or costs in any way.
  
  4. Claim: Failure to clean up deck repair debris
  Response Summary:
  Debris was left overnight unintentionally and was disposed of the following
  day after it was brought to our attention.
  5. Claim: Missing trim after removal
  Response Summary:
  Trim was mistakenly stored in the job trailer but was found and returned. Our
  team was instructed to leave the trim behind. The team claims to have felt
  rushed out the door, and in their haste, followed usual protocols instead of this
  nuanced instruction. Routines would be to pack and remove any tools, trash,
  and unused job supplies. The team was told to make an exception for the trim,
  as that belonged to the client and was to remain in place.
  Matt, the foreman, discovered the trim in our job trailer when unpacking later
  that night after demobilization.
  Matt informed our office that he would return the trim to the job site.
  It is our understanding that this trim was returned, as is evidenced by the
  report from Matt via screen shot below.
  If it is determined that Matt did not return the trim, we will make sure it is
  returned or replaced. We would be willing to have new trim delivered to the job
  site at our expense.
  
  6. Claim: Damage to newly installed mirror doors
  Response Summary:
  No visual evidence of damage exists in either client or company
  documentation. This information has not been presented to us before this
  review was posted.
  
  7. Claim: Damage to wall,ceiling,and transition strip
  Response Summary:
  These are not damages but areas of work in progress. It’s important to
  distinguish incomplete work from actual property damage. We believe using
  the proper terminology here is critical to accurately understanding the
  situation.
  Suggested resolution
  Client was not charged for several invoice milestones related to the work
  that was left incomplete.
  Client is offered the option to have us return, even if with a different crew,
  to finish the work and complete the contract.
  
  8. Claim: Poor workmanship
  Response Summary:
  Early cleanup quality was subpar, and corrective action was taken. Quality
  improved under direct supervision and documentation supports final
  conditions.
  Supporting Evidence:
  See client submitted email threads for identify her own statements
  documenting improvement of performance once office management took a
  more direct supervisory role.
  
  9. Claim: Use and effectiveness of tech tools
  Response Summary:
  With the clients permission, we installed cameras using a remote hot spot
  for wifi access. These were installed and removed at the start and finish of
  each shift. These recorded for several days, not Two, as the client states.
  These cameras were not possible to use constantly and were not always
  an effective management tool, because work was happening in several
  different environments, not always local to the camera.
  It became clear that the cameras only showed a small snapshot of the
  work, and that the most time efficient, and effective use of the various
  tech tools that we were using was personal direct supervision via video
  chats.
  I would personally call in via video chat several times per day, including
  once at the start and finish of every shift. I would kick off the project, help
  provide instructions at the end of the day, and check in as needed in
  between.
  This saved time by eliminating the set up and tare down of cameras, and
  provided better remote access for supervision.
  
  10. Claim: Use of client's ladder,broom,vacuum,and hose
  Response Summary:
  Team used these items early on without proper permission. One team member
  reported not realizing that these were the clients instead of our own items.
  Once reported, the team was corrected and use was discontinued
  Supporting Evidence:
  See clients own reports where she states that this improved after direction
  from the office.
  
  11.Response to Consumer’s Financial Demands
  Summary of Consumer's Position:
  The consumer is requesting that HMK Construction issue a refund or payment
  of several thousand dollars for alleged damages or incomplete work, despite
  no such charges being collected by us to cover that scope, and despite our
  continued willingness to complete the project.
  HMK Construction’s Response:
  We strongly dispute that any refund or payout is owed. To date, we have not
  billed or collected funds for the remaining incomplete work, despite
  contractually being able to, and we remain willing and able to complete that
  work at a lower cost than her claimed estimates. Therefore, no financial refund
  or damages payment is justified at this stage.
  While we are committed to resolving issues fairly and amicably, we must also
  be clear that our contract includes the following conditions:
  Contractual terms
  Clause 11: In the event of a termination after any deposits or invoices
  are paid, there will be no refunds due to Client.
  Company may still need to bill Client for additional time and
  materials expenses as well.
  Clause 10: Any signer may rescind this contract without penalty within
  3 business days of signing.
  This Contract cannot be cancelled once work is commenced
  except by mutual written agreement of the parties.
  Clause 12: In the event that the Client breaks contract by terminating
  early, for any reason, the Company may at its sole discretion call due
  the entire estimated project amount regardless of if the defined
  payment milestones have been reached.
  Company may also decide to bill for any additional administrative
  time required to settle any disputes over said early termination.
  Clause 13: The termination of contract voids all warranties.
  
  
  Clause 14: The Company reserves the right to terminate this
  Agreement at any time prior to project completion, at its sole
  discretion, by providing written notice to the Client. In the event of
  such termination, the Client shall be responsible for payment of all
  actual costs incurred by the Company up to the date of termination,
  plus an additional amount equal to thirty percent (30%) of those costs,
  representing overhead, administrative burden, and anticipated profit.
  The total of these amounts shall represent the value of work
  performed to date and will be either invoiced to the Client or, if
  applicable, credited against prior payments.
  The Company shall not be liable for any damages, delays, or
  consequential losses resulting from such termination, and this
  clause shall supersede any conflicting provisions related to
  termination or refunds.
  Right to Cure: We retain the right to cure issues under the contract,
  including completing remaining scope or resolving warranty concerns
  in house
  Clause 40: Client understands that construction dust is a normal risk at
  any construction job site. Company will commit to doing its best to
  reduce the dust hazard as much as possible but will not be able to
  completely eliminate the hazard. Therefore, Client will absolve
  Company of any and all liability relating to contamination by
  construction dust on or around the designated job site.
  Clause 59: During the course of the project, it may be necessary to
  park equipment, store tools, job supplies, and trash in the Client’s yard.
  Client grants Company this permission.
  Clause 60: Client shall provide and maintain water, electrical service,
  and heating utilities during the duration of the project. Client shall
  permit Company to use, at no cost, any utilities as necessary to carry
  out and complete the work.
  Clause 62: Client will allow free access to work areas for workers and
  vehicles and will allow areas for the storage of materials and debris.
  
  
  Clause 70: The Company shall not be liable to the Client for any
  indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including but not
  limited to lost profits, loss of use, or delays, arising from the
  performance of the work.
  Ethical and Practical Resolution Offer:
  Rather than escalate this matter any further, our company continues to offer
  to:
  Complete any remaining base scope at no additional cost beyond the
  agreed invoices.
  Repair minor damages or cosmetic issues reasonably and affordably.
  Collaborate with the consumer to fairly assess any remaining financial
  value based on third-party neutral assessments or material pricing
  benchmarks (e.g., Lowe’s or Home Depot).

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/30/2025

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
  
  
  I previously stated concerns and stand by the concerns and documented replacement costs for damaged incurred. I do not want to end up in small claims court but I also have the evidence and documentation to back me up. If HMK has a financial offer to propose, it should be provided. A financial proposal that involves me owning HMK money will not be accepted. 
  

  thank you for your time. 
  
  
  
  Regards,
  
  
  
  ****** ********