• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

what if false license # used by contractor?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

yogaatcindys

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? CA

Hello,

After a dispute with my contractor about progress payments, I have found out that the license # on the estimate does not belong to this construction company. The license # on the estimate is cancelled and no longer valid. Also, the license number on the owner's business card is on hold due to a workers comp suspension, in addition to the fact that it(the lic #) does not belong to him, but rather his brother who is listed as the sole proprietor of the company according to the Better Business Bureau. The owner of the company does not have a current license. I know this is a bit confusing. My question is: Is the estimate that I signed, that listed the description of work that was going to be done and the cost, legit? The final bid/contract that I signed was identical to the estimate, except that the sentence, "This is just an estimate.", was whited out. Is it legal for them to use a licensce # that belongs to another company? Also, what is the law concerning work done by a contractor whose license is suspended due to failure to comply with workers comp?

I already paid 68% during the first few days of construction. They have been asking me for a progress payment that would bring me to about 87% paid. I do not feel comfortable paying this amount. On the contract/bid it says that I am to pay 90% of job upon delivery of materials. I do not feel like this has been reached. The job is about 4 days from completion. The job is already overdue by 2.5 weeks. It was supposed to be only a 2 week job. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
 
Last edited:


pojo2

Senior Member
Since this is all so shady I suggest you get yourself an inspector to go over the work tooth and nail.

Do not be surprised if in the future you happen to find yourself with mechanics liens coming out of your ears.

If you signed a contract to pay at certain intervals then that is NORMALLY what is required.

Then to be fair these workman's comp isues may have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of work performed nor you responsibility to pay for that work.
 

yogaatcindys

Junior Member
but is the contract that i signed even valid/legit since the license # on it does not belong to the company, and on top of that is expired?

the reason i did not check into his license is bc he was a referral from two people and he does do good quality work. i think the company does good quality work and usually provides good service for the very reason that they do not have a legit contractor's license. should i just let them finish the job and be at risk for mechanics liens in the future or should i bust this company for portraying to be a legit contractor? Any suggetions/advice is much appreciated.
 

garrula lingua

Senior Member
The Contractor's State License Board (it's a sub-groupof Consumer Affairs) governs the potential 'contracting without a license" - it's also covered in the California Business & Profession Code.

Basically, if your contractor is unlicensed, he cannot sue in court for any unpaid balance - he cannot make any claim for monies on a job in which he was working w/o license. He cannot place a lien for unpaid work. CSLB also goes after those working under someone else's license #.
 

garrula lingua

Senior Member
Busness & Prosession Code:
CHAPTER 9. CONTRACTORS
Article 1. Administration **********************************************************************.. 7000-7020
Article 2. Application of Chapter ********************************************************. 7025-7034
Article 3. Exemptions **********************************************************************.... 7040-7054.5
Article 4. Classifications ********************************************************...... 7055-7059.1
Article 5. Licensing ************************************************************************************ 7065-7077
Article 6. Records ************************************************************************************ 7080.5-7084
Article 6.2. Arbitration **********************************************************************. 7085-7085.9
Article 7. Disciplinary Proceedings ******************************************.... 7090-7124.6
Article 7.5. Workers' Compensation Insurance Reports **************... 7125-7126
Article 8. Revenue ************************************************************************************ 7135-7138.1
Go to leginfo.ca.gov & click on ca law & then click on business & prof and hit search. Go to 7000 et seq

Good luck.
If the work was done & per specs, an unlicensed man is due his money. However, the law won't allow him to sue for it if he isn't properly licensed (if required).
 

pojo2

Senior Member
yogaatcindys said:
no. no permits were obtained.
Then down the road you ARE looking at trouble if you decide to sell the property. What kind of work are we talking about?

In my neck of the woods they come out and tell you to remove whatever has been done to the house without proper permits.

Let me back up a smidge and let someone else chime in here perhaps permits are not necessary in Ca.

I think you are in for some major discoveries as time passes.

I am sorry.
 

dcatz

Senior Member
With apologies for reviving a thread that is almost a month old, I just happened to run across it. If permits weren't pulled and the OP did not read Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code §7000 et seq. and is still interested, the following statement omits a significant fact, because failure to pull permits can result in significant problems:

Originally Posted by garrula lingua
If the work was done & per specs, an unlicensed man is due his money. However, the law won't allow him to sue for it if he isn't properly licensed (if required).
The OP may want to read the Code sections, see if there has been substantial compliance with licensing requirements, and decide whether it's appropriate to try to recover payments and get the job done right. California's contractor licensing law is basically a consumer protection statute, and it's application is more harsh than the foregoing statement would suggest, in my opinion.

See especially:
7027.3. Any person, licensed or unlicensed, who willfully and
intentionally uses, with intent to defraud, a contractor's license
number that does not correspond to the number on a currently valid
contractor's license held by that person, is punishable by a fine not
exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in
state prison, or in county jail for not more than one year, or by
both that fine and imprisonment. The penalty provided by this
section is cumulative to the penalties available under all other laws
of this state. If, upon investigation, the registrar has probable
cause to believe that an unlicensed individual is in violation of
this section, the registrar may issue a citation pursuant to Section 7028.7.

7031.
(b) Except as provided in subdivision (e), a person who utilizes
the services of an unlicensed contractor may bring an action in any
court of competent jurisdiction in this state to recover all
compensation paid to the unlicensed contractor for performance of any
act or contract.

(e) The judicial doctrine of substantial compliance shall not
apply under this section where the person who engaged in the business
or acted in the capacity of a contractor has never been a duly
licensed contractor in this state. However, notwithstanding
subdivision (b) of Section 143, the court may determine that there
has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements under
this section if it is shown at an evidentiary hearing that the person
who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor
(1) had been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to
the performance of the act or contract, (2) acted reasonably and in
good faith to maintain proper licensure, (3) did not know or
reasonably should not have known that he or she was not duly licensed
when performance of the act or contract commenced, and (4) acted
promptly and in good faith to reinstate his or her license upon
learning it was invalid.
 
dcatz said:
With apologies for reviving a thread that is almost a month old, I just happened to run across it. If permits weren't pulled and the OP did not read Calif. Bus. & Prof. Code §7000 et seq. and is still interested, the following statement omits a significant fact, because failure to pull permits can result in significant problems:


The OP may want to read the Code sections, see if there has been substantial compliance with licensing requirements, and decide whether it's appropriate to try to recover payments and get the job done right. California's contractor licensing law is basically a consumer protection statute, and it's application is more harsh than the foregoing statement would suggest, in my opinion.

See especially:
7027.3. Any person, licensed or unlicensed, who willfully and
intentionally uses, with intent to defraud, a contractor's license
number that does not correspond to the number on a currently valid
contractor's license held by that person, is punishable by a fine not
exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in
state prison, or in county jail for not more than one year, or by
both that fine and imprisonment. The penalty provided by this
section is cumulative to the penalties available under all other laws
of this state. If, upon investigation, the registrar has probable
cause to believe that an unlicensed individual is in violation of
this section, the registrar may issue a citation pursuant to Section 7028.7.

7031.
(b) Except as provided in subdivision (e), a person who utilizes
the services of an unlicensed contractor may bring an action in any
court of competent jurisdiction in this state to recover all
compensation paid to the unlicensed contractor for performance of any
act or contract.

(e) The judicial doctrine of substantial compliance shall not
apply under this section where the person who engaged in the business
or acted in the capacity of a contractor has never been a duly
licensed contractor in this state. However, notwithstanding
subdivision (b) of Section 143, the court may determine that there
has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements under
this section if it is shown at an evidentiary hearing that the person
who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor
(1) had been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to
the performance of the act or contract, (2) acted reasonably and in
good faith to maintain proper licensure, (3) did not know or
reasonably should not have known that he or she was not duly licensed
when performance of the act or contract commenced, and (4) acted
promptly and in good faith to reinstate his or her license upon
learning it was invalid.
Good catch.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top