# multiple Business & Professions Code violations



## mark handler (Dec 24, 2013)

What would you do?

A contractor comes into your building department. Submits plans. His name is on the plans.

Corrections to plans made. He tries to pull permits. Your staff checks his license status with the state.

He has multiple Business & Professions Code violations and his license is currently not valid. You tell him he cannot pull the permit. He sends in the owner, do you tell the owner you cannot allow him pull the permit as owner builder because the plans have the non-licensed contractors name on them?

Allow the owner to pull the permit or ?

It is a no brainer to notify the license board of the illegal activity: But, Do you tell the owner, the contractor’s violations?


----------



## ICE (Dec 24, 2013)

It is hard to tell an owner that he can't pull permits with a set of plans that he paid for.  I would certainly make the owner aware of why the contractor isn't allowed to obtain a permit.  Plus the workman's comp drill.


----------



## Mark K (Dec 24, 2013)

Do not believe who's name is on the drawings is directly relevant unless the design requires that it be performed by a licensed individual.  By this I mean a professional engineer or architect.  Similarly if we are dealing with work that can be designed by an electrical or mechanical contractor if he does the work.  If these situations exist you do not issue the permit.

You tell the Owner that the contractor is not licensed.  You let the Owner know of the liability he takes on if he pulls the permit.  Problems with IRS if taxes are not withheld and liability if workmen get injured and do not have workman compensation insurance.  You also let the Owner know that if he takes out the permit as the Owner builder but an unlicensed individual acts as a general contractor that he may be guilty of a crime.

I know that the city is required to ask contractors for proof of workman compensation insurance.  Do you not also have the obligation to ask the homeowner for similar evidence if there are other individuals performing work on the project?

You also let the Owner know that the inspectors are on the lookout for situations where an unlicensed individual is acting as a contractor and that such suspicions will be reported to the state licensing board for investigation and prosecution.  You let the homeowner know that your inspectors will pay special attention to owner builder projects.

You may also want to offer the Owner contact information to the licensing board and the individual in the district attorney's office who deals with consumer problems.

You may want to check with the City attorney but if the Owner insists on taking out the permit you may be compelled to issue the permit but when you follow through on enforcement he cannot say he wasn't warned.


----------



## north star (Dec 24, 2013)

*= & = & =*

IMO, the homeowner could obtain the permit.

It is not my professional or even ethical place

to inform the homeowner of anything about

the contractor......If the plans are not

compliant, I can inform the homeowner of

the non-compliant parts and request for 

compliant parts to be resubmitted for

review......I have been down this VERY

SLIPPERY slope before........Be very, very

careful on any and everything that you

state to anyone.

The homeowner is the one responsible

for performing their own "Due Diligence".

If I were to submit comments on any

contractor; other than what is physically

presented to me [  i.e. - the plans  ], I could

potentially be exposing myself, and the

employer to liable / slander charges.....A

contractor could not only sue my employer,

but also me for comments.

*As a general statement and recommendation*

*to** all** persons obtaining a permit*, I could

recommend that the homeowner contact the

entity in charge of their license(s) to check

their status.......We have done this before

without any legal repercussions.

As long as you are consistent and fair with any

comments that are code based, or that will apply

generally to any contractor,   ...then, IMO,  you

will not be opening yourself or your employer to

a lawsuit............That said, ...anyone can sue anyone

for anything and still be in trouble........These days,

it doesn't seem to be about being [ legally "right

or wrong" ],  but more about someone's perception

of being slighted.

Again,  ...be very, very careful on what is stated to

any and everyone !   

Coverest Thy Arse [ C T A ] at all times !



*= & = & =*


----------



## steveray (Dec 24, 2013)

Similar to NS....I can inform them of what laws they might be breaking, and what those consequences might be, and do my job to the utmost....But that is where I have to stop....


----------



## Daddy-0- (Dec 24, 2013)

The home owner ca certainly pull his own permit and hire who he wants to do the work as a subcontractor. The legality at least here falls with the fact that an unlicensed subcontractor can only do a little bit of the work due to tax limits. Not a building code issue however.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 24, 2013)

So you allow the unlicensed contractor's name and contact information on the construction documents, as the contractor and owner of the plans....

And you allow that unlicensed contractor to work on the "owner-builder" project.

Would you also take code advice from the "unlicensed contractor"?


----------



## mark handler (Dec 24, 2013)

Daddy-0- said:
			
		

> The home owner ca certainly pull his own permit and hire An owner-builder is exempt from licensure, but there are limitations.A license is not required if:
> 
> The owner-builder does the work himself or herself or through his or her own employees with wages as their sole compensation and the structure(s) is/are not intended for sale.
> 
> ...


In California, a homeowner cannot "hire who he wants"

An owner-builder is exempt from licensure, but there are limitations.

A license is not required if:

The owner-builder does the work himself or herself or through his or her own employees with wages as their sole compensation and the structure(s) is/are not intended for sale.

The owner-builder contracts with properly licensed subcontractor(s).

(This exemption applies to the construction of a single-family residential structure and limits the number of structures intended or offered for sale to four or fewer in a calendar year.)

The owner-builder contracts with a General Building ("B") contractor. (The number of structures is then unlimited.)


----------



## Mark K (Dec 24, 2013)

Who you take code advice from should be a reflection of whether you believe they have superior knowledge.  This is not a function of whether they are licensed.

If an unlicensed individual makes a claim that the code requires/allows something you should at least consider whether this is true.

Do you have the same problem with the name of a drafting service being listed on drawings for work that does not require an architect or professional engineer?

You might ask the homeowner about the name on the drawings and the contractors involvement in the project.  If the homeowner indicates that the contractor will be doing the work you would be justified in refusing the permit.  My understanding is that the owner builder permit assumes the homeowner will be doing the work himself.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 24, 2013)

How many of you check for licensure, prior to issuing a permit?


----------



## Architect1281 (Dec 25, 2013)

We check for license / registration on all contractors / subcontractors designers and registered professionals who must also have a valid COA (certificate of Authorization) and find approximately 20% are missing something, suspended, expired, or working through violations. If an owner hires an unregistered party to construct that contractor working without proper registration if fined by nearby cubicle mates $5,000.00 1st / 10,000 2nd which is sometomes reduced if the registration board sees fit. A recent Big Box construction company from way out of state had a properly registered General and 16 of 17 improperly / unregistered sub-contractors... Cha Ching. and with the nations second highest unemployment rate its not hard to find properly registered firms, just doesnt fit the business plan


----------



## Jobsaver (Dec 26, 2013)

We will allow the owner to pull the permit. I personally would not hesitate to suggest to the owner that they might wish to contact the licensing board to help form for themselves an accurate assessment before finalizing a contract with the proposed "contractor". This action is partly motivated out of concern for the owner. There are many people who are happy to give others third and fourth chances to redeem themselves, but my experience tells me that a bad report on the front end does indeed increase the likelihood of trouble on the back end . . . but not always. We encourage contractor pulled permits and will explain to an owner the benefits and protections offered by selecting a bondable licensed contractor, but respect the owners ability to make their own legal decisions.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 26, 2013)

There are no licensing requirements in the municipalities that we work in and we have NO legal authority to withhold a permit from an applicant whether it is a contractor or homeowner.

Recently I had a homeowner pull a permit and was using a contractor that we always have trouble with and was awaiting sentencing on a drug conviction.  It is not my place to warn her without potential litigation against me.


----------



## Min&Max (Dec 31, 2013)

I inform the potential owner/builder that I will hold them solely responsible for maintaining minimum code requirements. If they wish to accept that responsibility I look forward to working with them on their project and will do my best to answer their questions as the project progresses. As far as workmens comp and OSHA issues, I am totally ignorant of those issues(by choice) and will remain so.


----------



## Mark K (Dec 31, 2013)

In California the building department does not have the luxury of being ignorant about workman compensation insurance.  Reference Morris v. County of Marin.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 31, 2013)

Mark K said:
			
		

> In California the building department does not have the luxury of being ignorant about workman compensation insurance.  Reference Morris v. County of Marin.


I know that.  We are required to check all the contractors and subs


----------



## High Desert (Dec 31, 2013)

Oregon requires verification of license for contractors. Homeowner's are not required to be licensed. Have had problems with homeowner taking out permits and hiring unlicensed contractors.


----------



## ICE (Jan 1, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> I know that.  We are required to check all the contractors and subs


If the applicant states (under penalty of perjury) that they will not have employees, we issue a permit without requiring workman's comp insurance. Then I show up and those phantom employees are all over the site.  Subcontractors never get checked.

We don't enforce workman's comp regulations so I am not allowed to do anything when I find employees with no insurance.  The thinking is that we are covered by the declaration so why create a problem where none exists.  It's more about laziness than anything else.  We also don't enforce OSHA regs, there again my hands are tied....or so they think.


----------



## ICE (Jan 1, 2014)

High Desert said:
			
		

> homeowner taking out permits and hiring unlicensed contractors.


That's the majority here.


----------



## conarb (Jan 1, 2014)

Mark said:
			
		

> I know that.  We are required to check all the contractors and subs


Mark, have you gone over to the dark side?


----------



## mark handler (Jan 1, 2014)

I do both sides

I have my Architectural business and do 30 to 35 hours a week as a BUILDING OFFICAL/PLAN Checker/Inspector

And for another city Iam Chairman of the city's Planning Commission


----------



## jwilly3879 (Jan 1, 2014)

I second Ice's posts #18 and #19. Happens here all the time, it makes it hard for those contractors who have Worker's Comp and liability insurance to compete, it's one of the reasons I folded my contracting business. Worker's comp costs become unbearable, hire a sole proprietor sub to install a heating system and at audit time I would have to pay comp on him even though by state law he wasn't required to carry comp on himself but the insurance company considered him my employee, same for solo electricians. The only way around it was to hire a firm that had comp or have the client pay the sub direct which wasn't how I did business so I'm back to working solo.


----------

