# City/County not issuing contractor permits when contractor owes fees on other permits



## joetheinspector (Dec 29, 2015)

Question:

Are there any municipalities out there that do not allow a contractor to pull a permit (will not issue permit) because the contractor owes fees on a different address?

examples: contractor applies for a permit for emergency work. Contractor competes work never pays for or picks up the permit. Now contractor applies for a permit for a different job at a different address. (also same scenario for non-emergency work). Are there any municipalities that do not issue any permits to the contractor until his fees are paid for other work?

Is it in your ordinance?


----------



## Sifu (Dec 29, 2015)

If the permit was not paid for how was it issued?  If it is not issued he has done work without a permit.  Would you not then pursue him in the same way you do other contractors for doing work without a permit, which would be through the attorney?  I would be careful holding work hostage to other work without advice from AHJ attorney.


----------



## ICE (Dec 29, 2015)

> I would be careful holding work hostage to other work without advice from AHJ attorney.


I have heard that often enough that I think it is BS.  Consider who it is that you are dealing with.  It is usually some reprobate that has plenty of trouble in every direction.  And he is the big bad wolf that's going to cow the jurisdiction?

I have been threatened with a lawsuit for slapping around contractors.(metaphorically of course)  Each time I said, "Wonderful, it'll be an opportunity to have a judge declare you to be a no good, lousy bandit.  So when can we do this?  I'll set time aside next month if that works for you."

Another threat is the petition.  I am told that there will be a petition given to the elected officials to have me fired.  I tell them to please present it in person.  Then I give them a knowing look and a chuckle.  I mean you would have to meet some of these guys to get the full impact.  What works in my favor is that they know what they are.....they just need to be reminded now and then.


----------



## ICE (Dec 29, 2015)

joetheinspector said:
			
		

> Question:Are there any municipalities out there that do not allow a contractor to pull a permit (will not issue permit) because the contractor owes fees on a different address?
> 
> examples: contractor applies for a permit for emergency work. Contractor competes work never pays for or picks up the permit. Now contractor applies for a permit for a different job at a different address. (also same scenario for non-emergency work). Are there any municipalities that do not issue any permits to the contractor until his fees are paid for other work?
> 
> Is it in your ordinance?


Are there license requirements where you are.  Hit him where it hurts.


----------



## conarb (Dec 29, 2015)

I'd check with your counsel but it sounds like a bad idea, when you are dealing with real property you are dealing _*in rem*_* law* as opposed to _in personam_ law, the individual you are dealing with is irrelevant, he is acting in the interest of the real property that goes on in perpetuity as long as the earth lasts going through many ownerships and agencies, if your withholding of the permit harms the real property that property has a cause of action for damages against you independent of any cause held by owners or their agents.


----------



## ICE (Dec 29, 2015)

Withholding a permit from a particular contractor isn't directed at the property.  Let the property send in a different contractor and all is okay.  Denying a permit to a particular contractor is a safeguard protecting the property owner's interest.

The contractor's gripe is that you are depriving him of his livelihood.  He's free to pull a ripoff elsewhere.


----------



## steveray (Dec 30, 2015)

Here the permits belong to the property owner, we cannot hold them hostage but for unpaid property tax bills...And we hold no sway over licenses...


----------



## Mark K (Dec 30, 2015)

The property owner owns the permit, not the contractor.


----------



## TJacobs (Dec 31, 2015)

> I have heard that often enough that I think it is BS. Consider who it is that you are dealing with. It is usually some reprobate that has plenty of trouble in every direction. And he is the big bad wolf that's going to cow the jurisdiction?
> 
> I have been threatened with a lawsuit for slapping around contractors.(metaphorically of course) Each time I said, "Wonderful, it'll be an opportunity to have a judge declare you to be a no good, lousy bandit. So when can we do this? I'll set time aside next month if that works for you."
> 
> Another threat is the petition. I am told that there will be a petition given to the elected officials to have me fired. I tell them to please present it in person. Then I give them a knowing look and a chuckle. I mean you would have to meet some of these guys to get the full impact. What works in my favor is that they know what they are.....they just need to be reminded now and then.


When threatened I give them my business card and tell them to make sure to spell my name correctly.

:wink:


----------



## my250r11 (Dec 31, 2015)

I agree with Sifu, Permit wasn't paid for, that's work w/o permit, Red tag and write citation and let the judge decide. But as for not issuing the next one don't know if you can do that legally. If he does the work and don't pay hit that one with citation as well. Not issuing one for none payment of another one is something that I would most definitely talk to your attorney about.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 31, 2015)

> The property owner owns the permit' date=' not the contractor.[/quote']My City Attorney tells me the permit is owned by the person that pulled the permit.
> 
> Change in contractor, New permit.
> 
> Plans are owned by the Architect, engineer or designer.


----------



## Mark K (Dec 31, 2015)

You need to separate the person who personally pulled the permit from who the permit was being pulled for.  When the contractor pulls the permit he is doing so as an agent of his client the building owner.

If the contractor owns the permit it leads to so many bad results.  For example if the contractor owns the permit and quits the job how do you issue a new permit when there is already a valid one?  If there is a new contractor and you need a new permit then the owner would have to pay new permit fees and you would need a new plan check especially if the codes had changed.

When the owner obtains a permit and has committed resources based on that permit he has certain vested rights in the property.  Do those vested rights go away if there is no permit because the original contractor has left the job?  The City Attorney's interpretation has the potential to make a number of attorneys rich and to cause a lot of mischief.

If there was a new contractor the City would have to verify that he had workman compensation insurance.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 31, 2015)

When the contractor pulls the permit it is in his/her name .

If the contractor owns the permit, and he/she leaves. the new contractor shall get new permits.

We do not get involved in the contract.

In the State of CA the Contractors license board requires the contractor to get all permits required.

Contractors license board, not the cities get involved in owner contractor disputes

We check All contractors workman compensation insurance. And all contractors shall have a city business license.

CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD

Building permits are required by law as a public safety measure. Permits ensure that construction is performed in compliance with state and local codes, including safety standards. On June 11, 2009, the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) voted unanimously to place a high priority on enforcing building permit requirements, and an Industry Bulletin was subsequently issued on November 30, 2009, to alert licensees that CSLB would be accelerating building permit enforcement efforts, beginning January 2010. Failure to obtain a building permit is a violation of Contractors License Law. Further, construction performed without a permit can expose a homeowner to additional liability and costs. When a contractor performs a work improvement that requires a permit without that permit, it is a violation of Business and Professions (B&P) Code Sections 7110 and 7090. Contractors who violate the law are subject to disciplinary action by CSLB, including assessment of civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation, an order of correction to pay the cost of permit fees as well as any assessed penalties imposed by the local building department, and suspension or revocation of the license.


----------



## Mark K (Jan 1, 2016)

The CSLB may discipline a contractor for violations of the law but the CLSB does not define who can obtain a building permit and what must be stated on the application.  The relevant Statutes are Business and Professions Code Section7031.5 and the Labor Code Section 38000.

The Civil courts not the CLSB adjudicate owner contractor disagreements.

While the City is not normally involved in owner contractor disputes the City can adopt policies that make things worse.

If the Contractor truly owns the permit then he, not the owner, is responsible for compliance with the code.  Thus if the completed work is not in compliance the City would take legal action against the Contractor to comply.  Is the City willing to do this?

This would also mean that if the contractor was bought by another contractor during the project that they would need to get a new permit.

The only interpretation that makes sense is that the contractor is applying for the permit as an agent of the owner and if there is a change in contractors then work is suspended until the new contractor provides proof of workers compensation insurance


----------



## conarb (Jan 1, 2016)

\ said:
			
		

> My City Attorney tells me the permit is owned by the person that pulled the permit.Change in contractor, New permit.


You're City Attorney is wrong, the permit attaches to and runs with the land, in effect the land owns the permit.



			
				\ said:
			
		

> Plans are owned by the Architect, engineer or designer.


That may have been true in the past, but design professionals long complained that they didn't have mechanics' lien rights like tradesmen and material suppliers, about 30 or 40 years ago lobbyists for design professional groups got legislation passed in California giving design professionals special lien rights, design professionals gave up ownership rights in favor of lien rights, rights that attach to and run with the land, in effect the land now owns the plans, the remedy is now a lien.

It took several attempts to post this continually getting "Invalid Server Response" popups, losing everything having to start over.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 1, 2016)

> It took several attempts to post this continually getting "Invalid Server Response" popups, losing everything having to start over.


Please clear your browser cookies for this site


----------



## Mark K (Jan 1, 2016)

"Please clear your browser cookies for this site"

Not clear how to clear browser cookies for individual site.

The message suggests that there is a bug in the new system.  When will this bug be fixed?


----------



## jar546 (Jan 1, 2016)

> "Please clear your browser cookies for this site"Not clear how to clear browser cookies for individual site.
> 
> The message suggests that there is a bug in the new system. When will this bug be fixed?


Yeah, no.  Not a bug in the system but a problem with cookies that get stored for individual sites.  It is a browser thing that is controlled by the browser you use.  Start fresh with a new browser and most problems go away. This is a fully functional site now but like all software, there will be little potholes along the way that need to be fixed.

What I have learned the most in the last 6+ years of running this forum is that 99% of the time there is a problem, the problem is on the user's side and 90% of that time, it is an issue with the browser or computer they are using.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 2, 2016)

I disagree with the previous posts, but Back to the original post, Ownership is a different thread. We would issue a permit to the contractor. We would, after the permit on the original expires issue a notice of expiration to the contractor and owner. It is then up to the owner to deal with the contractor. I would, if the owner asked , give the Owner a contractor complaint form to file with the Board.


----------



## David Henderson (Jan 7, 2016)

Agree with conarb permit stays with property


----------



## mark handler (Jan 8, 2016)

> ... permit stays with property


So now the owner brings in unlicensed individuals to do work because he/she has a active permit.

Makes perfect sense, to someone.


----------



## steveray (Jan 8, 2016)

> So now the owner brings in unlicensed individuals to do work because he/she has a active permit.
> 
> Makes perfect sense, to someone.


Yes....but...Are you the license police in CA?  Here, all we can care about is the work is done to code. ANY property owner can pull ANY permit without even naming a license holder....Your state laws may be different...


----------



## tmurray (Jan 8, 2016)

> Yes....but...Are you the license police in CA? Here, all we can care about is the work is done to code. ANY property owner can pull ANY permit without even naming a license holder....Your state laws may be different...


Same here, Evaluate the work, not the individual completing it. We've had occasions where the owner has changed contractors midway through a project, but kept the same scope. No new permit required because the work is what is permitted.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 8, 2016)

Do we "police" who pulls the permits, in short, Yes.

Building permits are required by law as a public safety measure. Permits ensure that construction is performed in compliance with state and local codes, including safety standards. Contractors State License Board (CSLB) voted unanimously to place a high priority on enforcing building permit requirements, and an Industry Bulletin was subsequently issued on November 30, 2009, to alert licensees that CSLB would be accelerating building permit enforcement efforts, beginning January 2010.

Failure of Contractors to obtain building permits is a violation of Contractors License Law. Further, construction performed without a permit can expose a homeowner to liability and costs. When a contractor performs a work improvement that requires a permit without that permit, it is a violation of Business and Professions (B&P) Code Sections 7110 and 7090. Contractors who violate the law are subject to disciplinary action by CSLB, including assessment of civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation, an order of correction to pay the cost of permit fees as well as any assessed penalties imposed by the local building department, and suspension or revocation of the license.

Can a Homeowner pull a owner-builder permit, yes.

But if the contractor pulls the permit, per state code, The contractor is responsible for the work. It does not go "with the property".


----------



## Mark K (Jan 8, 2016)

In California the situation is complicated by several state statutes that require the applicant for a permit being a Contractor.  These statutes do not explicitly say who the owner of the permit is.  The primary reason for the statutes is to assure that the contractor has workers compensation insurance for his employees.  This has the secondary benefit of verifying whether the contractor is licensed.  The trick is then to resolve these two realities.

I propose that you start by interpreting the statutes to mean that the contractor is acting as the agent of the owner when applying for the permit.  When a new contractor takes over the job you would then require a supplement to the permit application that is used to verify that the contractor has workers compensation insurance.  There would be a temporary suspension of the permit when the original contractor is no longer associated with the project..  There would be a nominal administrative charge for processing the supplement but there would be no break in the validity or ownership of the permit.

This strategy recognizes that the permit and the associated rights are owned by the property owner but it is also respectful of the state statutes related to contractors applying for building permits.


----------

