A 40 year pool contractor was disciplined for disconnecting, replacing, and reconnecting pool lights, after the DBPR determined that a portion of the work should have been performed by a licensed electrical contractor.
Background
In September 2014, a pool contractor, entered into a contract to replace four pool light fixtures, a booster pump, and perform other services for the homeowner. As part of the work, the pool contractor did not pool an electrical permit or subcontract any of the electrical work.
During the course of the work, an employee of the pool contractor was electrocuted, but not fatally so. The cause of the electrocution was not clear, but presumably was related to the replacement of the pool lights. Several days later, the employee returned to the home and put the bulb in the light fixture, and left. The wiring of the new fixture was subsequently completed by another employee of the pool contractor.
While the pool contractor had contracted to be paid about $4,600.00 for this work, did not seek payment and was not paid, due to the issues surrounding the performance of the work. Ultimately, a complaint was filed with the DBPR.
The Case Before the DBPR
The DBPR ultimately filed two charges against the pool contractor, one for performing work without appropriate local permits and the second for performing work outside the scope allowed by his license. Both charges stemmed from the electrical work performed, specifically, the replacement of the pool lights and the replacement of a breaker related to the pool.
The pool contractor testified that over the course of his 40-year career he had replaced thousands of pool lights and pool pumps, and believed this to be within the scope of his license. He denied replacing the circuit breaker at the homeowner’s residence, acknowledging that such work required and electrical contractor’s license.
As part of the evidence of the case, photographs were introduced showing hat at some point, a circuit breaker serving the pool have been replaced. Specifically, the GFCI breaker in the box in September 2014 was replaced with an AFCI breaker. According to the building inspector who testified at the proceedings, this would not have passed inspection.
The evidence also indicated that the pool lights at issue were sealed units, with the pool light and power cord coming as a single unit. This required turning the main circuit breaker for the pool sub-panel off, disconnecting the old light at the circuit breaker, and connecting the new one directly to that same breaker.
In addition, the DBPR took testimony from multiple building officials and construction experts. First, the building official for the county where the work was performed testified that both pool light replacement and circuit breaker replacement required a licensed electrician and an electrical permit.
One former member of the Construction Industry Licensing Board testified that his opinion was that pool lights were merely accessories, because not all pools have them, and that pool contractors can contract for the entire pool construction, but cannot self perform the electrical work.
Another former CILB member testified that pool contractor’s can contract for the pool light replacement by itself, but cannot perform the work due to the dangerous proximity of electricity to water. Accordingly, a pool contractor must subcontractor this work out to an electrical contractor
A third former CILB member testified that disconnecting and reconnecting pool lights was similar to an HVAC contractor switching out equipment or a plumbing replacing a hot water heater.
These experts, and three others, all agreed that disconnecting and reconnecting pool lights and other equipment at the load side of the breaker does not constitute electrical contracting and that pool contractors throughout the state regularly engage in this conduct. Further, some counties in the state do not require permits of any kind to replace pool lights. There was also substantial testimony regarding the fact that 5% of the pool contractor’s certification exam and certain CEUs cover electrical work for pool contractors.
The DBPR’s Conclusions
After evaluating this evidence, the DBPR ultimately concluded that the pool contract had committed two licensing violations. First, the DBPR determined that the pool contract had violated section 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, which prohibits
Proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable local building department permits and inspections.
In reaching this conclusion, the DBPR determined that the evidence was clear that the county where the work was performed required a permit for changing out pool lights, and that the pool contractor had failed to pull one.
Next the DBPR determined that the pool contractor had violated section 455.227(1)(o), Florida Statutes, which prohibits
Practicing or offering to practice beyond the scope permitted by law or accepting and performing professional responsibilities the licensee knows, or has reason to know, the licensee is not competent to perform.
In reaching its decision, the DBPR looked to Class A and Class B air conditioning contractor definitions, which expressly allows those contractors to “replace, disconnect, or reconnect power wiring on the load side of the dedicated existing electrical disconnect switch.” This language is not in the commercial or residential pool/spa contractor definition. Accordingly, the DBPR concluded that such conduct was not allowed within the scope of an pool/spa contractor’s license.
The DBPR determined based on the evidence before it that the pool contractor had performed work outside the scope of his license in replacing the pool lights. Critically though, the DBPR did not find that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the pool contractor had changed out the breaker related to the pool equipment.
Based on these violations, the DBPR imposed $5,000 in fines and an additional seven hours of CEU credit to be performed by the pool contractor. Critically, the DBPR considered imposing a 90 day suspension, but decided not to.
Takeaways
There are quite a few takeaways from this decision. One of the first is that construction permitting requirements can change from county to county and city to city. Always be aware of the requirements for the specific municipality where you are working.
Another is that contractor’s must always be careful when performing work they consider to be incidental to their main license. It is always better to confirm whether your license covers the work upfront, or engage an appropriate subcontractor, or refer the customer to the appropriate contractor.
Finally, it bears noting that the work was done in 2014. The pool contractor litigated against the DBPR in 2016, and ultimately had a formal hearing, requiring him to hire multiple experts, and an attorney to help protect his license. Whatever the cost of a licensed electrical contractor, it would have been far cheaper than the cost of going through the licensing dispute with the DBPR.