CSLB Continues to Disregard the Law

Here we go again, more evidence that the CSLB continues to disregard the law as written.

I know, you’ve heard this from me before (just last month), but the business naming issue and the CSLB’s blatant disregard for the law has to stop. It’s time for them to put on their big boy/girl pants and stop playing in the land of make believe.

B&P Code 7059.1 clearly states:

§ 7059.1. Misleading or incompatible use of name styles

  • A licensee shall not use any business name that indicates the licensee is qualified to perform work in classifications other than those issued for that license, or any business name that is incompatible with the type of business entity licensed.

Look at this letter that was recently sent by application technician Gloria Sagario.  In her letter she states that the word “Services” cannot be used as part of their fictitious business name.  Does the word “Services” denote any classification?  I mean it must if it’s in violation of 7059.1.  If “Services” denotes a classification that is different than what the applicant was applying for (C-10 Electrical), then what is that classification? Enquiring minds want to know!

Click here to see what Dictionary.com outlines as the definition of “Services.”  I don’t see anything in there that suggests or denotes any specific California contractors license classification.  Perhaps Ms. Sagario is using the special CSLB version of a dictionary.  We already know they make up every other rule as they go, so why would we be shocked if they made up their own definitions for words in the English language.

CSLB 7059.1 Guide to Business Naming Rules
How the CSLB rolls!

Obviously, she’s stating as a matter of fact that the word “Services” specifically describes contractors.  I guess everyone else who provides “Services” should look for a different word.  There are internet services, catering services, dog walking services, dry cleaning services, package delivery services.  Someone needs to tell them that the CSLB has determined that that word refers to a yet-to-be-disclosed contractor’s license classification and that they are no longer allowed to use that word.

Obviously the CSLB is continuing to create, modify, make-up, pull out of thin air their own special rules and regulations… and now word definitions.

Perhaps the Great and Powerful CSLB Oracle will step out from behind the curtain, grace us with their presence and bestow upon us their galactic wisdom and consciousness. They obviously think that everyone outside the walls of their building are complete morons, buffoons, idiots and are beneath them. And how dare we question their perspicacity of wisdom?!

We The People are in charge here!  Not the government, and certainly not the CSLB!

Update…

During the writing of this blog post I heard from another applicant who is being told he needs a DBA. He’s applying for the C-54 and has Tile and Stone in his corp name. The CSLB says no… need a DBA because he can’t use Tile and Stone in the corp name. Even though Tile and Stone are specifically cited in their own description of the classification.

Please follow and like us:
error

Comments

  1. Yes, THIS is my mind: please read it Californians! And what little I have left of it after weathering these MBE type rulings by people who have for the most part never built anything in their limited existences! I have worked all over the USA and have handled disputes in seven countries and the answer is NOT in contacting State Reps who don’t want to rock the vote!

    I just finished a License fracas with a local building department in another state that showed the level of ineptitude of their own employees.! And please be aware if you are not already aware of the law suit now in process between the ICC and the UP Code people, the crux of which is that the ICC (an alleged ‘non-profit’ entity, the CEO of which receives a salary of approximately 3/4 of a million dollars a year) and also attempts to place at least some of their codes under the Criminal statutes of the jurisdictions whom they inveigle into adopting their crass foolishness into “the Building Code” of any/all whom they are able to sell, and are then able to place contractors who make a simple mistake under the guise of criminality. And, about the ICC Code books? Try a sale price of between $100.00 and $150.00 for their Code Book which are about a ream of poorly bound paper and which they out date every few years in order to sell more ‘Code Books.’ Then try to complete their tests on any of their Code book in the allocated time which requires an examinee to go through the books to find the answers for answers to examination questions only to find that due to the awkwardness of their format and long inadequate indexing, such answers are impossible to quickly locate. All this clearly rises to the level of rank violations of our Civil Rights.

    The answers to these dilemmas are quite simply Cl;ass Action Law Suits and those of us who are abused by this sort of conduct need to get our Construction Boots on and start kicking!

  2. Anthony Randazzo says

    I know what you mean. I have 40 years in the electrical field. The last 10 employed by a corporation at a Data Center. Spent a thousand dollars at a contractors license school only to be denied for lack of provable experience. They said it “must be experience acquired under a licensed C10 contractor or approved apprenticeship” All this after scoring in the 93% range in pretesting.

    • That is ABSOLUTE BS!!!!! There is NOTHING in the license law that states that requirement! As I replied to Patrick, contact your State Rep. You should also contact the following people and ask them to provide you with the license law, regulation, or published CSLB rule that allows them to make that BS requirement! ARGH!!! This really sets my drawers on fire!!

      Did you submit the experience as an employee, provide a duty statement and/or year end pay stubs? Were you working with 110/220v or only low voltage? I’d love to see a copy of that letter. Can you email it to me? contractorslicenseguru@gmail.com

      Registrar
      916-255-3947
      David.Fogt@cslb.ca.gov

      Licensing Deputy Chief
      916-255-3939
      Justin.Paddock@cslb.ca.gov

      Licensing Manager
      916-255-1533
      Charlotte.Allison@cslb.ca.gov

  3. Patrick martin says

    That was the case worker I had I presented 4 years of invoices about 1800 to be exact 16lbs of paper work one form per invoice and she denied me due to lack of experiance and void my app

    • Sorry to hear that. Typical Contractors State Anti-License Board. Take your money then give you the finger. You could file a complaint with your State Representative. He/she may or may not get you a better resolution, but if every body filed complaints with their State Rep… the cslb would be up to their you know what in political pressure.

Speak Your Mind

*

%d bloggers like this: