The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the business of contracting without being registered or certified, in violation of Subsection 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2004),1 as charged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence in this proceeding, the following facts are found: Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints, pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 489, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against unlicensed persons or business organizations, who engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor without being registered or certified. At all times material hereto, Respondent, personally, was not licensed to engage in construction contracting in the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Rentaman or Rentaman Construction/Remodeling did not possess a certificate of authority to practice as a contractor qualified to do business in Florida. At all times material hereto, Timothy Lee Allen was not licensed to engage in construction contracting in the State of Florida. Beginning sometime in 2003 until September 30, 2005, Petitioner, doing business as Rentaman, operated as a sole proprietor under an occupation license in Seminole County. In October 2004, Timothy L. Allen entered into an agreement with Respondent to purchase her trailer, tools, and the right to use her business name in Polk County. Respondent was to receive a five percent commission on any job in which she assisted Allen, including bookkeeping, preparing invoices, and drafting contracts. Allen set up a business in Polk County, using the name Rentaman Construction and Remodeling in October 2004. In early November 2004, Allen negotiated with James and Diandria Mason to do repair/remodeling work on their home in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida. Respondent was contacted and brought in to negotiate the contract with the Masons. On or about November 11, 2004, Respondent, doing business as Rentaman Construction/Remodeling, contracted with James and Diandria Mason to, inter alia, frame the back door and replace the subflooring in the Mason's Mulberry, Florida, mobile home for $1,650.00. The entire second page of the contract was handwritten by Respondent. The first page included a handwritten workmanship warranty, written and initialed by Respondent. The contract included the sentence: "I[the owners] have reviewed and accept the terms and conditions of Sale as presented to me by Debi Gold, an agent of Rentaman." Mason paid Respondent $1,100 cash, as a deposit for the construction project. Allen was placed in charge of the work, but failed to complete the contract with the Masons. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor in November 2004, in Polk County, without being registered or certified. The total investigative costs to Petitioner, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, was $762.43.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered as follows: Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Subsection 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00. Assessing costs of investigation and prosecution to Respondent, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $762.43. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 2007.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensure and regulation of contractors and electrical contractors operating within the State of Florida. During the period at issue in this case, the Respondent was not licensed as a contractor or as an electrical contractor. Beginning in 2003, the Respondent provided home remodeling and repair services for houses owned by Ms. Enid Shaw. Ms. Shaw, a resident of New York who visits Florida regularly, apparently planned to permanently relocate to Florida at some time in the future. The Respondent met Ms. Shaw during one of Ms. Shaw's visits to Florida, when he was working on the house of an acquaintance of Ms. Shaw. Between 2003 and 2006, Ms. Shaw paid approximately $30,000.00 to the Respondent for the work he performed on her homes. Some of the work performed by the Respondent was outside the jurisdiction of the Petitioner. The Respondent submitted written estimates and invoices to her and, other than a $3,500.00 wire transfer referenced elsewhere herein, Ms. Shaw paid the Respondent by personal check. Ms. Shaw did not obtain receipts from the Respondent, but retained the estimates, invoices, and the processed checks. Ms. Shaw owned a house located at 3411 Silverwood Drive, Orlando, Florida (hereinafter "Silverwood"), and desired to have some repair work performed on the house. Ms. Shaw contacted the Respondent who agreed to meet her at the Silverwood house and tour the house. As they walked through the house, the Respondent made suggestions about how to remedy the deficiencies in the structure. They agreed that he would commence the repair work. Because she did not reside locally, Ms. Shaw was not always present at the home when the work was being done, and she provided a key to the Respondent so that he could enter in her absence. There were water stains on the family room ceiling, and Ms. Shaw knew that, when it rained, water came through the ceiling and would be collected in buckets. The Respondent advised Ms. Shaw that the roof was leaking and offered to repair the roof. Roof repairs were supposedly made, but the roof continued to leak during rain. The Respondent eventually called Ms. Shaw and told her that the entire roof needed to be replaced, that he had already ordered the materials required to replace the roof, that he had already secured the services of an assistant, and that the roof replacement would commence on the day following the telephone call. He informed Ms. Shaw that, because the work was commencing immediately, he needed to have payment by a wire transfer into his account. Ms. Shaw wired $3,500.00 to the Respondent's bank account as requested by the Respondent, but the Respondent did not replace the Silverwood roof on the next day, or on any other day. When the roof repair did not occur, Ms. Shaw began to ask for the return of the $3,500.00, but the Respondent failed to return the money. Though he did not explain his entitlement to retain the money, the Respondent told Ms. Shaw that someone to whom he had loaned his truck had abandoned the vehicle and that his tools had been stolen from the truck. There was no evidence to suggest that the Respondent was entitled to retain the $3,500.00 transfer from Ms. Shaw to his bank account. The Respondent did not replace Ms. Shaw's roof or return the funds to her. Additionally, the Respondent performed other work for Ms. Shaw at the Silverwood home. The Respondent installed a ceiling fan purchased by Ms. Shaw to replace one supposedly removed by previous residents from the Silverwood dining room. Ms. Shaw observed the Respondent turn off the power to the house and connect the fan to the existing electrical wiring. The Respondent also repaired a range hood ventilation fan and replaced a leaking faucet in the Silverwood kitchen. Ms. Shaw owned a house located at 6001 Denson Drive, Orlando, Florida (hereinafter "Denson"). She asked the Respondent to perform repairs on the Denson property, and, as they had done at the Silverwood house, they toured the home, and the Respondent made suggestions as to the work that needed to be done. The Denson roof was not functioning properly. The ceiling was water-stained in several rooms, and a wall in the screen porch was water-damaged. The Respondent repaired the roof deficiencies and the damage caused to the house by the water intrusion. Although Ms. Shaw was not always present at the time of these repairs, she observed the Respondent on one occasion taking a container of an otherwise unidentified black substance to the roof to patch one of the leaks. The interior water damage repaired by the Respondent included removal and reinstallation of ceiling fans and light fixtures in the rooms where the ceiling was repaired. The stove in the Denson kitchen was not functional, and Ms. Shaw purchased a replacement appliance. Although the stove purchased by Ms. Shaw apparently had an electrical plug incompatible with the existing outlet, Ms. Shaw observed the Respondent install the appliance by cutting into the stove's electrical cord and splicing the wiring into the existing outlet, after turning off the power to the house. Ms. Shaw was also present when the Respondent installed a jetted bathtub into an area previously occupied by a bathroom shower stall. The installation included turning off the water supply and the removal and replacement of plumbing lines. At the hearing, Ms. Shaw admitted that the tub she bought was incorrect for the installation location, apparently because the repair access area was on the wrong side of the tub and placed against a wall. She complained that the Respondent installed it nonetheless and that any repairs to the tub will require removal of a portion of a bedroom wall. Ms. Shaw also observed the Respondent remove and replace a bathroom toilet at the Denson house. The Petitioner asserted that the Respondent replaced a malfunctioning swimming pool "generator" at the Denson house, but the testimony presented on this issue was not sufficient to establish the actual nature of the pool equipment replaced, if any, by the Respondent. The Petitioner also asserted that the Respondent replaced an electric garage door opener at the Denson house, but the evidence failed to establish that the Respondent did anything other than replace an existing opener with a new opener and plug the power unit into an existing electrical outlet. Ms. Shaw owned a house located at 5006 Tam Drive, Orlando, Florida (hereinafter "Tam"). As at the other houses, Ms. Shaw asked the Respondent to tour the property and make the repairs on which they agreed. At the Tam house, the Respondent replaced a bathroom toilet and sink. As at the Denson house, the Petitioner asserted that the Respondent replaced an electric garage door opener at the Tam house, but the evidence again failed to establish that the Respondent did anything other than replace the existing opener with a new one and plug the power unit into an existing electrical outlet. There is no credible evidence that Ms. Shaw ever asked the Respondent whether he was licensed by the Petitioner; however, based on the Respondent's statements related to another customer, she believed he had some sort of license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding that Donald Whyte violated Subsection 489.126(1), Florida Statutes, and imposing a fine of $10,000.00, and, further, violated Subsection 489.531(1), Florida Statutes, and imposing a fine of $3,000.00, for a total administrative fine of $13,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Maura M. Bolivar, Esquire Leigh Matchett, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Donald Whyte 6811 Thousand Oaks Road Orlando, Florida 32818 Amy Toman, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit on the challenged examination for licensure.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, John R. Maroney, is a candidate for licensure as an electrical contractor low voltage applicant. He sat for examination in January 1999. His candidate number is 240024. Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Electrical Contractors, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of licensing applicants such as Petitioner. On the examination challenged, Petitioner received a score of 73.00, which was designated a failed status. In order to achieve a pass status Petitioner was required to obtain a score of 75.00. Petitioner timely challenged the results of two questions on the January 1999 examination. First, as to question 49, Petitioner maintained that his answer was reasonable as none of the answers given were correct. Question 49 required applicants to perform a mathematical computation and to select the best answer from those offered. The answer selected by Petitioner was $6.59 from the correct answer. The answer, the one that was given credit, was $4.77 or $1.47 from the correct answer, depending on whether the individual was paid for over-time at a higher rate. In either case the Department’s "correct" answer while not being mathematically accurate was the closer answer to a properly computed answer. The instructions on the examination directed applicants to choose the best answer to each question posed. Thus, while not mathematically accurate, Respondent’s answer to question 49 was the best from those offered. Choosing the best answer was also the issue in question 84 as none of the answers given on the examination accurately describes the cause of the problem. In making his selection, Petitioner admitted he had guessed, as he could not determine how any of the provided answers could decipher the problem he was to solve. Petitioner’s argument in this regard is well made since none of the answers given are attributable to the conditions described. Nevertheless, by process of elimination, an applicant could rule out the options offered by recognizing that two choices related to relay 1 could not contribute to the problem described. As Petitioner selected one of these clearly erroneous options, he cannot be given credit for the choice. As to the two remaining options, while inaccurate, the option that received credit was more likely related to the problem as the stop switch (stop 3) being faulty could cause the described problem if the circuit were to continue to be closed. Petitioner’s answer that described the problem on a relay unrelated to stop 3 would not be the best answer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors’ Licensing Board, enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s challenge to the examination for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John R. Maroney 9641 Northwest 39th Court Cooper City, Florida 33024 Ila Jones, Executive Director Board of Electrical Contractors Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondents each engaged in the unlicensed practice of contracting as defined in Sections 489.105(3) and 489.105(6), Florida Statutes (2006), in violation of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2006); (b) whether Respondents each engaged in the unlicensed practice of electrical contracting as defined by Sections 489.505(9) and 489.505(12), Florida Statutes (2006), in violation of Section 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2006); and (c) if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material here, Respondents were married and doing business together as "B and P Enterprises of Central Florida, Inc." The "B and P" stands for Brenda and Phillip. Respondents are not and never have been licensed to engage in contracting or electrical contracting in Florida. In March 2006, Carla Adams had recently purchased her first home and sought to refinance it. The lender required an inspection of the home. The lender also required that any work on the home be performed by a licensed person or entity. In March 2006, an inspector employed by Pillar to Post, Inc., conducted an inspection of Ms. Adams' home. The inspection report, dated March 10, 2006, listed a number of areas that needed work and made recommendations for correction of those problems. In July 2006, Ms. Adams saw an advertisement in a newspaper for the sale of a used car. Ms. Adams and Rev. Tracey Davis went to Respondents' property with the objective of purchasing a used vehicle. While on the property, Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis entered the Respondents' home. Because both women admired the home, Respondents gave them a tour. During the tour, Respondents stated that Henley had performed the work himself. While in Respondents' home, Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis told Respondents that Ms. Adams needed work done on her home. Ms. Adams also told Respondents that her lender required that the work be done by a licensee. Henley, both upon his own volition and after being asked, told Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis that he was a licensed contractor. Henley removed a picture-ID card from his wallet and stated this was his license to practice contracting. Respondent Carpenter condoned this statement. Ms. Adams showed Respondents the March 10, 2006, inspection report. Henley assured Ms. Adams that he could do everything on the report that needed to be done. Henley further stated that his license was issued by “DBPR” - the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Carpenter affirmatively agreed with this statement. Henley warned Ms. Adams that she should never have work done by anyone that was not licensed or certified and that she could check licensure status with DBPR. Respondent Carpenter affirmed this warning. Before speaking with Respondents, Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis had never heard of DBPR. It was only due to Henley’s reference to DBPR that Ms. Adams knew she could contact Petitioner regarding the issues in this case. Respondents advised Ms. Adams that they were willing to go to Ms. Adams’ home and give her an estimate of what they would charge to perform the needed work. Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis left Respondents' property expecting to see Respondents in the near future. In August 2006, Respondents went to Ms. Adams’ home in Tallahassee, Florida. Ms. Adams told Respondents she needed electrical, structural and plumbing work done as set forth in the Pillar-to-Post report. Respondents then inspected the home, took measurements, and made a verbal offer to perform the needed contracting work. Respondents returned to Ms. Adams’ home later in August 2006. At that time, Respondents presented Ms. Adams with a written estimate of what they would charge to do certain contracting work on her home. The proposal included, but was not limited to, structural, plumbing and electrical work. Respondents' proposal stated as follows in relevant part: REMOVE ALL OLD FLOOR COVERING Carpet Padding Lineoleum (sic) Square Stick tile Tack strip All of the above, but not limited to just above 1,470 Sq. Ft. @ $1.10 Sq. Ft. INSTALL NEW FLOOR COVERING 1,470 Sq. Ft. of tile on floor @ $1.75 Sq. Ft. and install Durarock (sic) or hardi (sic) backing board, if needed KITCHEN Remove wall and old 1/2 bathroom and put back to finished product Not including finishing drywall and painting drywall Remove all old plumbing and re-route Electrical wires HALL BATHROOM Remove bathtub, and tub walls Install durarock (sic) and new plumbing fixtures [a]s provided by homeowner Install 100 Sq. Ft. of wall tile around old tub area @ $1.75 Sq. Ft. [m]aking a new shower in the room Build a curbing, and drypack and install shower floor tile Install drain and rubber pan REMOVE OLD RAILING FROM FRONT PORCH The total price listed for the above referenced work was $5,234.50. Ms. Adams had received other estimates for the work. Therefore, Ms. Adams was pleased with the price and sought assurance that it would not increase. Respondents promised Ms. Adams that the cost would not increase. To further assure her, they both signed the contract in her presence. During the hearing, Henley admitted that he contracted with Ms. Adams to perform the labor as listed on this contract. In an attempt to ascertain Henley’s skill as a contractor, Ms. Adams decided to begin with the renovation of the bathroom located in the entrance way to the master bedroom. Ms. Adams agreed to buy the construction, plumbing, or electrical materials that Henley needed to do the work. Ms. Adams works two jobs and was not always home when Respondents performed the contracted work. As a result, Rev. Davis, who lived nearby, was present at the home to let Respondents in and observe the work. In order to enlarge the bathroom adjoining the master bedroom, Henley demolished a wall between the old bathroom and a walk-in closet. Henley also removed the door into the old bathroom and constructed a single wall with the entrance to the enlarged room through the door to the old closet. In the course of this alteration and expansion, Henley damaged the adjoining wall to the living room. He subsequently repaired the damage. In the enlarged bathroom, Henley removed a sink from the old bathroom area and installed it in the area that had been a closet. The area of the old closet had no plumbing. The removal and installation of the sink required Henley to remove old piping and replace it with larger pipes to increase the water flow. During the hearing, Henley admitted removing the sink and disconnecting the plumbing. Henley installed the custom-built shower as described in the contract in Ms. Adams’ bathroom. During the hearing, Henley admitted cutting a hole in the floor of Ms. Adams’ bathroom and installing a shower drain pan. Henley removed and replaced the toilet in Ms. Adams’ bathroom. Additionally, Henley, with Carpenter's help, removed the old bathtub. Henley admitted removing the bathtub and disconnecting the plumbing. Henley then installed a replacement Jacuzzi bathtub at the location of the previously-removed bathtub in Ms. Adams’ bathroom. Henley had to remove the old piping and replace it with larger pipes to increase the water flow for the replacement Jacuzzi. The toilet, sink, and bathtub removal and the shower- installation required plumbing work that made it necessary to turn off the water to the home. During the course of installing the Jacuzzi bathtub, Henley discovered that his work resulted in drainage problems he could not correct. For the first time, he told Ms. Adams that his license did not allow him to perform plumbing work. Henley then told Ms. Adams that, as the contractor on the job, he could subcontract the needed plumbing work. In early September 2006, Henley called Roto-Rooter as a plumbing subcontractor. Roto-Rooter performed the following plumbing work at Ms. Adams' home: Hooked up all the basic [drain] lines and the toilet in new bathroom to the m/l [main line]. Also ran water lines for the new sink, but found problem with shower valve. It was put in wrong and will not work until it's moved. Note: Everything else is working at this time. Price includes parts and labor. ( * * * out the tile and fix shower valve, not everything is working.) The Roto-Rooter invoice indicates a total cost in the amount of $1,432.78 for the work performed in Ms. Adams' home. Ms. Adams and Respondents had a financial dispute about which party had to pay Roto-Rooter. The dispute ultimately led to a falling out regarding the completion of the contracted work. Ms. Adams’ bathroom currently is inoperable because the toilet and Jacuzzi bathtub do not work. There is raw sewage underneath her home. In order to repair her bathroom, Ms. Adams received an estimate of approximately $5,000.00. Ms. Adams’ decision to begin with the renovation of her bathroom also involved ascertaining Henley’s skills as an electrical contractor. Based on his assurances that he could do the work, Ms. Adams allowed Henley to remove and relocate electrical light fixtures and switches in the bathroom, closet, and hallway. During the course of this work, Henley left hot wires exposed. On or about September 14, 2006, Carpenter came to Ms. Adams’ home and presented an invoice for $1,200.00 for the contracted work that had been performed pursuant to the initial contract. The invoice was on the letter head of “Brenda & Phillip, Phillip Henley, Inc." It stated as follows in relevant part: Remodel Master Bathroom Take out all fixtures-sink, cabinet, cast iron tub, toilet and replace with new Jacucci (sic) tub, new sink and cabinet, new shower and put back old toilet. Take out old tile on walls and drywall, take out two closets to enlarge bathroom. Re-wire and re-plumb all fixtures and installed durarock (sic) on floor, walls and wet areas and installed blueboard on balance of walls. Built a custom shower and installed custom tile design on walls and floor. Cost: $1,900.00 Less cash advances: 8/9 $100 8/16 $300 8/22 $300 $700 -700.00 $1,200.00 Plus: Materials & receipts: 8/11 $ 81.19 8/17 23.67 8/19 26.84 8/24 108.51 $240.21 +$240.21 Balance Due: $1,440.00 Other labor -240.00 $1,200.00 The invoice was signed by Henley and Carpenter and included the following statement: "Thank you for doing business with Brenda & Phillip!" The invoice stated that the check should be payable to Carpenter. Excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, Petitioner has expended $554 in total cost relative to the investigation and prosecution of DOAH Case No. 09-2541 against Carpenter and $1,005.67 in total cost relative to the investigation and prosecution of DOAH Case No. 09-2545 against Henley.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order finding that each Respondent violated Sections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes, imposing a total administrative fine in the amount of $11,000 against each Respondent, and assessing costs in the amount of $554 against Carpenter and $1,005.67 against Henley. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Maura M. Bolivar, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Brenda Carpenter Phillip Henley 5209 Southwest U.S. 221 Greenville, Florida 32331 Amy Toman, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent has committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of contractors in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 20.42 and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent is an officer and registered agent for GT Handy Solutions, Inc. Neither he nor his company is registered or certified to perform electrical contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent holds only an occupational license from the City of Palm Coast. On or about May 17, 2006, in DBPR Case No. 2006-005919, Respondent was issued a Notice to Cease directing Respondent to immediately cease and desist from all unlicensed electrical contracting work. Sometime after that point, the Jacksonville investigative office of DBPR received a tip from the City of Palm Coast that Respondent was still in the area engaging in unlicensed activity. The Department set up a sting operation with the assistance of the Volusia County State Attorney's Office and the Flagler County Sheriff's Office. Leslie Floyd Walker is employed as an investigator in the Volusia County State Attorney's Office. As part of the sting operation, Ms. Walker posed as a homeowner and called unlicensed people asking them to give estimates for electrical work to be performed at 11 Floyd Court, Palm Coast, Florida. The names of the unlicensed persons to be called were provided by the City of Palm Coast and were persons who advertised in the Palm Coast area or who had been cited previously for performing work without a license. Mr. Torres was one of the unlicensed persons called by Ms. Walker. On January 23, 2007, Mr. Torres was contacted at the telephone number contained in an advertisement in the Service Directory of the Flagler Pennysaver. In response to Ms. Walker's call, Mr. Torres came to the house at 11 Floyd Court, and Ms. Walker told him she wanted to replace three ceiling fans with new ones, and a light fixture, remove an existing light and add a light at the home. Mr. Torres and Ms. Walker's conversation was preserved via videotape. Mr. Torres was concerned about the wiring at the home, and asked to see the attic space. After doing so, he gave Ms. Walker an estimate of $800 to do the work, indicating that he would have to do some rewiring in order to put in the new ceiling fan she wanted. The estimate contemplated Ms. Walker providing the new ceiling fans. Ms. Walker asked Mr. Torres for a written proposal, which he started to prepare. However, he asked her if it was possible to mail it to her, because he needed to be able to make a copy for himself. He asked her about scheduling for the job, and indicated that he would be available the next week. He also stated that while the fans could be changed out in a few hours, the wiring would be more extensive and made the job a two-day job. Mr. Torres never provided the written proposal, and when Ms. Walker called and said he could do the work, he did not go back. At hearing, he said that he did not do so because he knew doing the electrical work was beyond the scope of what he was allowed to do. He claimed that he never actually offered to do the work, but instead had merely said that this type of work could be done for $800. The undersigned has viewed the videotape of Mr. Torres' conversation with Ms. Walker, and carefully listened to the conversation. At no time did he indicate to Ms. Walker that he was unable to perform the work she described. To the contrary, he discussed with her the aspects of the job that would make it more extensive, and what efforts he would have to make regarding the rewiring. While he may have ultimately determined not to perform the work, the evidence is clear that he provided a verbal proposal to perform the work at the time that he met with Ms. Walker at 11 Floyd Court. The Department has incurred investigative costs in the amount of $164.23.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Respondent has violated Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint, assessing an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 and imposing investigative costs in the amount of $164.23. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Sorin Ardelean, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 George Torres GT Handy Solution, Inc. 43 Russo Drive Palm Coast, Florida 32164 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether the Respondent failed to provide proof of workers' compensation coverage or exemption, and proof of having completed 14 hours of approved continuing education in response to an audit conducted by the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board for the biennium commencing September 1, 1996, and terminating on August 31, 1998, in violation of Subsection 489.533(1)(o), Florida Statutes, by violating Subsections 489.515(3) and 489.517(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G6- 9.011, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR), the state agency charged with regulating the practice of electrical contracting in Florida and those licensed under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, pursuant to Section 20.165, and Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is, and has been at all times material to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, an electrical contractor licensed by the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board. From 1987 until 2000, the Respondent was a registered electrical contractor, holding license number ER 0010816. Since August of 2000 the Respondent has been a certified electrical contractor holding license number EC 0002356. The Respondent's practice pursuant to his registered license was a prerequisite to issuance of his certified license. All insurance and continuing education requirements for renewal of a license issued by the ECLB are set forth in Sections 489.515 and 489.517, Florida Statutes, as well as Rule 61G6-9.004, Florida Administrative Code, and are identical for certified and registered electrical contractors. In March of 1999 the ECLB conducted a random audit of the insurance and continuing education requirements established in Rule 61G6-9.004, Florida Administrative Code, for the biennium commencing September 1, 1996, and terminating August 31, 1998. The Respondent was one of the licensees randomly chosen for this audit. In response to the initial audit letter sent to the Respondent on March 17, 1999, the Respondent submitted insurance and continuing education documentation. This documentation reflects: no evidence of workers' compensation coverage or exemption for the audit period; no evidence of approved continuing education for the audit period; and no evidence of required liability insurance for the audit period. The continuing education documentation submitted by the Respondent was for the prior biennium, in February 1996. On July 19, 1999, the ECLB forwarded the Respondent a follow-up letter, indicating that he was still lacking the documents enumerated in Finding of Fact Number 5. In response to this letter, the Respondent submitted documentation of the required liability insurance and of workers' compensation for May 1, 1997 through June 22, 1999. At hearing, the Respondent produced a document similar to those previously provided to the DBPR documenting his workmen's compensation insurance from March 1, 1995 to May 1, 1997. The date of this document was the same as the date on the materials previously furnished to DBPR. The Respondent testified that his insurance agent had faxed the requested documents to DBPR and sent copies to him. He received all of the documents substantiating his insurance from May 1, 1997 until June 22, 1999. His agent presumably forwarded or faxed the same documents to DBPR. DBPR produced all the documents except the one for the period of March 1, 1995 until May 1, 1997. The Respondent provided enough information to raise a genuine question whether this document was lost by DBPR. It is concluded that it is as likely DBPR lost the record as it is the record was not sent. There was no additional documentation of the required continuing education submitted at hearing. Subsequent to the completion of the audit, the ECLB initiated a complaint with the Bureau of Consumer Services at DBPR. This complaint alleges that the Respondent failed to document required workers' compensation coverage or exemption for the entire audit period and failed to document required continuing education within the audit period. The Respondent was initially issued citations for resolution of the alleged violations herein. Each of these citations provided for a $500 administrative fine. The continuing education violation was documented as DBPR case number 2000-08338 and the workers' compensation violation was documented as 2000-05654. The Respondent chose to dispute these citations, and as a result, this matter was handled pursuant to the provisions of Section 455.225, Florida Statutes. The Respondent has failed to document completion of hours of board approved continuing education between September 1, 1996 and August 31, 1998. The Respondent failed to obtain any board approved continuing education between September 1, 1996 and August 31, 1998. In DBPR case number 2000-08338, the Petitioner incurred non-legal costs in the amount of $31.70. In DBPR case number 2000-05654, the Petitioner incurred non-legal costs in the amount of $42.47. However, this cost may not be recovered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered imposing an administrative fine of $500 against the Respondent for Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Respondent be required to pay the non-legal costs incurred by the Petitioner in both agency cases totaling $31.70. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura P. Gaffney, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David Karably Post Office Box 12 Earleton, Florida 32631 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Claude Janson, is a registered electrical contractor. He holds license number ER005208 and is the qualifying agent for J.R. Electric, Inc., which is the firm under which he practices electrical contracting. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the licensure and practice standards embodied in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and related rules as they relate to electrical contractors. At all times material hereto Bob Sangelo was not licensed as an electrical contractor. The Respondent was aware that Sangelo was not so licensed. On or about April 27, 1984, the Respondent authorized Sangelo, who was then unlicensed, to obtain electrical contracting permits on behalf of the Respondent's firm, J.R. Electric, Inc., from the Cape Coral, Florida building department. On or about January 15, 1985, Sangelo, d/b/a Sangelo's Electric, submitted a written bid proposal to Mr. Bill Sutherland to perform electrical contracting at Sutherland's residence In Cape Coral, Florida. The two parties agreed to a contract price of $1750 for the work. Thereafter on February 28, 1985, Sangelo submitted a second written proposal containing revisions to the proposed contract, and work to be done, which provided for a contract price of $1875. All negotiations leading to the contract for the electrical work occurred between Sangelo and Sutherland. Sutherland had no contact with the Respondent, Claude Janson, and at the time did not even know him. The Respondent provided no assistance and had no part in the preparation of the estimate or bid involved in the performing of the electrical contracting work for Mr. Sutherland. The electrical work proposed to be performed by Sangelo required an electrical permit to be obtained by a licensed electrical contractor from the City of Cape Coral. On March 8, 1985, Sangelo obtained the electrical permit numbered 0329685 from the City of Cape Coral using the firm name J.R. Electric, and the contracting license number ER005208. The permit was for the electrical work to be performed by Sangelo for Mr. Sutherland at his residence, but the permit was issued because of Sangelo's representation that the contractor would be J.R. Electric, Inc., using the Respondent's license number. Sangelo Electric was never qualified by the Respondent as a business entity under which he practiced electrical contracting under his own license. Sangelo Electric was Bob Sangelo's independent business with no connection, other than friendship, with the Respondent or the Respondent's electrical contracting business. The Respondent and Sangelo had an informal friendly relationship in which Sangelo would help the Respondent with his electrical contracting jobs in exchange for the Respondent referring him electrical service work. Sangelo did not receive an hourly wage from the Respondent and the informal friendly relationship was never reduced to writing. Sangelo was not a regular employee of the Respondent, but rather functioned much like a subcontractor. The Respondent had previously authorized Sangelo to obtain electrical permits on the behalf of and in the name of the Respondent and J.R. Electric, Inc., the Respondent's firm. The Respondent was also aware that Sangelo did electrical contracting work on his own without being licensed.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found GUILTY of the violations as charged in the Administrative Complaint and that he be fined the sum of $1,000. DONE and ORDERED this 18th August, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esq. Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Claude Janson 925 Country Club Boulevard Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Pat Ard, Executive Director Board of Electrical Contractors Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings Slocum Benton General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
