Contractor Fined Over $8,500.00 and Placed on Probation for Two Years for Assisting Unlicensed Contractor

The fine and penalties arise from a complaint filed against a certified general contractor by Florida’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation for (1) performing and act which assisted a person or entity engaging in the prohibited uncertified and unregistered practice of contracting, and (2) obtaining a permit without having entered into a contract to perform the work specified in the permit.

In October 2015, an unlicensed LLC entered into a contract with a homeowner to perform renovations to the homeowner’s residence located in North Palm Beach, Florida. The homeowner was aware that the LLC was unlicensed. In December 2015, the above-mentioned certified general contractor obtained a permit from the Village of North Palm Beach Building Department for electric, HVAC, and plumbing work to be performed as part of the renovations at the homeowners’ residence.

Once the permit was pulled, the unlicensed LLC began performance of the work at the residence, including interior renovations. The general contractor who pulled the permit was aware that the LLC was unlicensed. Further, the general contractor had no contract with the homeowner regarding the renovation, did not supervise any of the work, and received no compensation for the work.

Based on these facts, the DBPR concluded that the general contractor assisted the unlicensed LLC in performing contracting and in obtaining a permit for work that the general contractor had not entered into a contract to perform. Both of these are violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, specifically 489.129(1)(d); and 489.129(1)(i) and 489.127(4)(c), Florida Statutes.

489.129(d), Florida Statutes, prohibits the following:

Performing any act which assists a person or entity in engaging in the prohibited uncertified and unregistered practice of contracting, if the certificateholder or registrant knows or has reasonable grounds to know that the person or entity was uncertified and unregistered.

489.127(4)(c), Florida Statutes, prohibits the following:

Failing in any material respect to comply with the provisions of this part or violating a rule or lawful order of the board.

The “part” that the DBPR determined was not complied with was 489.127(4)(c), Florida Statutes, which states:

A certified or registered contractor, or contractor authorized by a local construction regulation board to do contracting, may not apply for or obtain a building permit for construction work unless the certified or registered contractor, or contractor authorized by a local construction regulation board to do contracting, or business organization duly qualified by said contractor, has entered into a contract to make improvements to, or perform the contracting at, the real property specified in the application or permit. This paragraph does not prohibit a contractor from applying for or obtaining a building permit to allow the contractor to perform work for another person without compensation or to perform work on property that is owned by the contractor.

Based on this, the DBPR placed the general contractor on a two year probation, imposed a fine of $8,500.00, required him to complete 7 additional hours of live continuing education on Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and charged him $171.66 in costs.

There are a few takeaways from these penalties. The most obvious is don’t pull permits for unlicensed people with your license. Just don’t. It’s never worth it. The second is that the DBPR noted in its ruling that there was no evidence of any restitution owed to the homeowner. That can mean a lot of things, but what it may mean is that the work was performed satisfactorily, passed all it’s inspections, and the homeowner was pleased with it. Even if all of that is true, the general contractor was still penalized for violating Florida’s contractor licensing statutes. So you have to be mindful of licensing statutes and possible violations of them, even when projects are going well.

You can click here to view a full copy of the DBPR’s findings in this case.