Bad Contractors Licensing Information

Beware of bad contractors licensing information!

Isn’t everything on the internet true??   But seriously, you have to beware of bad contractors licensing information on the www.

I came across this webpage: https://generalcontractorlicenseguide.com/california-contractors-license/ and as I read through it, I kept finding bad, incorrect, erroneous information.  I started to make a list but when I got to about half of the article I gave up.  Just too many mistakes/errors, etc.

Bad Contractors Licensing InformationHere is some of the misinformation I found:

1) (CLSB) should be CSLB
2) “Applicants may be exempted from the exam if they have been actively working in the construction trades continuously for at least the past five years.” This is basically incorrect, but appears it might be referring to a specific exemption with specific conditions. Doing more research or talking to a licensing professional will let you know if you qualify for any type of waiver.
3) Experience must be “…certified by an individual who can speak to the quality of the applicant’s work.” Incorrect. The law only states that the certifier must have first hand knowledge of the experience being provided.  The certifier has nothing to do with the quality of the applicants work.
4) “The applicant’s experience must also be able to be verified via an official document, such as payroll slips, contracts, or something similar.” This is only true if the application is randomly pulled for a secondary review.
5) “Fee payments may be made by mailing a check or money order. In-person payments may also be made at the licensing headquarters by cash (exact amount only), check, money order, and credit card.”  The CSLB will not accept a credit card for application fees. The CSLB will accept credit/debit payments for license renewals, but not license apps.  And this can only take place at specific CSLB offices.

So, when researching information on how to obtain your contractors license, no matter what state you’re in, be careful of sites that were only created to make someone money by ad clicks placed throughout the page.  Their goal is not to provide you with accurate information, in fact, that goal may not even be on their list.  They just want you to click on ads and make them $$.

Please follow and like us:
error

CSLB Changing the Rules

CSLB Changing the RulesThe CSLB is changing the rules again!

I spoke to an applicant today who’s application was voided by the CSLB.

After months of back and forth with the Contractors State License Board where they continued to ask for more and more documentation, they voided his application without offering the “options” letter. The “options” letter is something they’ve sent to countless other applicants. The letter gives the applicant the option of withdrawing the app, using someone else as a qualifier, or sending the app to a formal investigation. As you’ll see below, this applicant to not get the “options” letter. My question is why???

Did they change the rules again? And without any notification to anyone?

This particular applicant has an over abundance of experience, plus a college degree that should have given him at least up to two years of experience credit. With his experience and the overwhelming experience documentation he provided that covered more than 10 years (when only two years was required), why did they void his app?

Granted, there were some issues with the experience outline on the application (something I could have helped him avoid with my app review service), but the fact remains that he was not given the “options” letter. I firmly believe that if he’d been given the option of having a formal investigation he could have dealt with an investigator that actually has some construction experience… unlike those who work in the application unit of the CSLB who have none. The same people who were reviewing his application and made the determination to void his app.

We all know that the federal and state governments play by their own rules, but why can’t there be some consistency? How can anyone play the game when the rules are constantly changing?

Another issue I have with this particular application is that they granted an extended void date on January 8th. Did they grant a 30 days extension as is standard? No. If they had, the app would have been voided on February 8th. But they voided the app on January 26th! What the %*&# is going on here!!!

I gave the applicant some options, all of which we will pursue… bottom line… This kind of government abuse is unacceptable, and we as a society have to stand up and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!

Application is void

  • 08/24/2015 – APPLICATION RECEIVED
  • 08/31/2015 – PRINTED ACKNLDGMNT LTTR TO APPLCNT
  • 09/10/2015 – APPLICATION RETURNED FOR CORRECTION
  • 09/10/2015 – WORK EXPERIENCE BLANK/PROBLEM
  • 09/10/2015 – CRITICAL CLASS DUTIES NOT SPECIFIC
  • 09/10/2015 – CERTIFIER RELATIONSHIP DISCREPANCY
  • 09/10/2015 – SPEC PROJ – EXPERIENCE VERIFICATION
  • 09/10/2015 – ADD’L SELF EMPLOYMNT INFO REQUESTED
  • 10/16/2015 – RETURNED APP RECEIVED BACK AT CSLB
  • 10/23/2015 – CORRECTIONS SENT TO BE SCANNED
  • 10/23/2015 – APPLICATION RETURNED FOR CORRECTION
  • 10/23/2015 – WORK EXPERIENCE BLANK/PROBLEM
  • 10/23/2015 – CERT DUTIES STILL NOT ACCEPTABLE
  • 10/23/2015 – SPEC PROJ – EXPERIENCE VERIFICATION
  • 10/23/2015 – ADD’L SELF EMPLOYMNT INFO REQUESTED
  • 12/09/2015 – RETURNED APP RECEIVED BACK AT CSLB
  • 12/24/2015 – CORRECTIONS SENT TO BE SCANNED
  • 12/24/2015 – APPLICATION RETURNED FOR CORRECTION
  • 12/24/2015 – WORK EXPERIENCE BLANK/PROBLEM
  • 12/24/2015 – CERT INCOMPLETE
  • 12/24/2015 – CRITICAL CLASS DUTIES NOT SPECIFIC
  • 12/24/2015 – EMAILED CERTS FOR ADDL CORRECTION.
  • 01/08/2016 – EXTENDED VOID DATE
  • 01/08/2016 – RETURNED APP RECEIVED BACK AT CSLB
  • 01/08/2016 – CORRECTIONS SENT TO BE SCANNED
  • 01/13/2016 – APP SENT TO SUPERVISOR FOR REVIEW
  • 01/25/2016 – ROUTED TO EXP ANALYST FOR REVIEW
  • 01/26/2016 – APPLICATION RETURNED TO PROGRM TECH
  • 01/26/2016 – DOCS INSUFF – EXPER NOT VERIFIED
  • 01/26/2016 – APP VOID – APP NOT PROCESSED
  • 01/26/2016 – APPLICATION IS VOID
  • 01/26/2016 – VOID LETTER SENT

Don’t put yourself in this position where you’re dealing with the CSLB changing the rules on you! Let me help you!!

Please follow and like us:
error

Critical Classification Application Under Review

Critical Classification Application Under ReviewI’m often asked, pretty much daily, what should an applicant do when they are dealing with a critical classification application under review.

If you are applying for the C10 Electrical, B General Building, A General Engineering, C20 HVAC, etc. and your application is under review, this email Q&A and I had with a C10 applicant might also help you or somebody you know.

Q. Based on my application you looked at, what are the odds of them accepting it without requiring more documentation?

A. Slim to none. They’ve been asking all applicants with a critical classification for additional documents.

Q. If the odds are very low they accept as is then what do they increase by if I include documentation (1099s, permits, materials receipts, tax returns) with the application on the first submittal or should I wait for them to ask?

A. You should submit any/all documents you have with the app. If they find it acceptable, they’ll schedule you for the exam. If not, they’ll ask for more documentation.

Q. I have lots of different documentation but not a fully complete timeline record of EVERYTHING. Do they show any leniency to applicants who include lots of information from the start?

A. Not that I’ve experienced.

Q. I do have enough documented experience over the last ten years to get a B but would only consider that if it was a stepping stone which made it easier to get the C-10 later. Do you think this would help me to get the C-10 if I put off applying for 2 to 3 years? Could having a B potentially work against me getting a C-10 in two to three years?

A. To get either you’ll have to provide the written documentation. The B requires experience in framing and at least two unrelated trades. The C10 could be easier to get if your experience is directly and solely related to the c10. If you were to get the B and then apply for a c10 in a couple three years, it might be harder to show at least 4 yrs of c10 experience. Also, if you have the B you cannot bid on or sign contracts for a single trade like the c10.

Q. Would it help to get sign offs on shorter term experience from more B contractors who I have done electrical for?  This goes back to the more information included with the original submittal, does it decrease the odds of them requiring more documentation / increase the chances they accept the application as is.

A. Submitting more work experience forms does not generally help or hurt. They’ve made the certifier a moot point because of the documentation requirement.

Q. Does it carry any weight if I include some projects done for homeowners and include their permits, check written to me, materials receipts, and invoice?

A. That would help. But the permit would have to be in your name in order for you to get “credit” for it.

Q. Do you think submitting a 1099 for experience where the employer box is checked is a red flag and should be used as self-employment experience instead? I know that the experience with the C-10 i work for definitely is an employee relationship rather than a contract type, I show up when he tells me to show up and act on his direction under his supervision.

A. How does the CSLB look at 1099s in this regard? As a 1099 “employee” you are working as self-employed. Only if you are on payroll for the company would you be considered an employee.

Q. Based on the letter you attached in your previous email showing request for more info to that applicant,  if I were to get a similar letter and respond with not enough documentation then would that void my application or would there be another opportunity to submit more? When does the application usually drop dead?

A. If you did not submit enough documentation to satisfy the licensing department they would send you an “options letter.” This letter gives you the option to withdraw the app, use some other qualified individual to act as the qualifier on your license, or go to a formal investigation. If you choose the formal investigation, they will send you to the exams and an investigator will be assigned. That investigator will ask you for more/the same documentation that the licensing unit asked for. The investigator will also contact your certifiers to verify your experience. If the investigator does not approve of your experience you can either withdraw the app or they will deny your app. A denial means you’d have to wait a year before reapplying, and you’d have a denial flag on your name in their system.

Q. If I do submit my application and it ultimately gets tossed then can I re apply later with other documentation? Does the CSLB keep a copy of previous applications on file and refer back to those in this sort of scenario?

A. As answered in Q6, a denial has a one year waiting period. If you withdraw the app on your own, you can reapply at any time. The new app would be subjected to the same documentation and you’d have to re-submit everything plus any new documentation.

Q. The above question sorta relates to if it helps to apply for a B first and what experience is submitted with that. I would hate to shoot myself in the foot.

A. The issue is… when you apply for an additional classification, they will not accept experience that you submitted previously for the original classification. If your contracts are only for C10 work, you’ll want to apply for the C10 with the initial license.

Q. If I do include lots of documentation with the application before they ask then could this tick off the reviewer by being overwhelmed with paperwork or does it make me look more serious and more well prepared? (sort of already asked this question above)

A. Better to send everything with the initial submittal. Saves them from having to send you a letter requesting the docs and having to sit on the application until you reply to their letter.

Q. How would you approach this if you were in my shoes?

A. Create a chronological binder with all the documentation I had, submit it with the application, cross my fingers.

Q. Do you think I should just suck it up and do another year working for the C-10 guy (1099) or would you suggest a different route to document experience if you think I should wait to have a better documented history?

A. This all depends on the documentation you have now. If you feel it shows a solid four years (minimum) of experience, I’d say apply now. If you went thru the app process and the cslb said you needed one more year, withdraw your app work another year, then resubmit everything.

Q. Guessing you have seen others in my same predicament so what has made the biggest differences for them being able to get their applications accepted?

A. How well prepared your documentation is.

Q. The C-10 guy I work for has mentioned partnering with me a few times. Would there be some mid-term benefits to going this route and getting on his license then applying for my own later? I am not sure how this works but have heard of others getting brought in that way. The guy is a bit hard to work for / with so this would be a last resort but good to know the answers if it comes to that.

A. This scenario is included in the cslb “options” letter. You could use someone else to be your qualifier. After X amount of years, you could apply to replace that qualifier on the license.

So if you find yourself with a critical classification application under review, let me know and we can discuss your specific circumstances. I offer a very affordable consultation service. Click here if you’d like to discuss what you can do.

Please follow and like us:
error

CSLB Application Processing in Action

CSLB application processing in actionHere is an example of the CSLB application processing in action.

04/21/2014 – APPLICATION RECEIVED
04/25/2014 – PRINTED ACKNLDGMNT LTTR TO APPLCNT
05/12/2014 – APP TO CASE MGMT FOR FLAG REVIEW
05/30/2014 – INSTRUCTIONS RETURNED FRM CASE MGMT
05/30/2014 – AIU REQUESTED APP TO BE POSTED
06/03/2014 – APPLICATION REJECTED FOR CORRECTION
06/03/2014 – REJECT – CONFIRM LEGAL NAME
06/03/2014 – CRITICAL CLASS DUTIES NOT SPECIFIC
06/20/2014 – REJECTED APP RECEIVED BACK AT CSLB
06/20/2014 – CORRECTIONS SENT TO BE SCANNED
06/20/2014 – ADD’L REJECT TO APPLICNT TO CORRECT
07/24/2014 – REJECTED APP RECEIVED BACK AT CSLB
07/24/2014 – CORRECTIONS SENT TO BE SCANNED
07/24/2014 – APPLICATION REJECTED FOR CORRECTION
07/24/2014 – NEED TRADE WORK DESCRIBED
07/25/2014 – APPLICATION POSTED
07/25/2014 – REFERRED TO EXAM SCHEDULING – BOTH
07/28/2014 – NOTICE TO APPEAR FOR EXM 08/18/2014
08/18/2014 – EXAM SCHEDULED FOR BOTH LAW & TRADE
08/18/2014 – PASSED BOTH LAW AND TRADE EXAM
09/18/2014 – APP SENT TO SUPERVISOR FOR REVIEW
09/18/2014 – APPLICATION RETURNED TO PROGRM TECH
09/23/2014 – APP TO AIU FOR INVESTIGATION

Rejected not once, not twice, but three times. Then, after providing the corrections requested and passing both exams, they sent this app to the AIU. Which, from what the CSLB has said, no longer exists.

Government, by definition, is a cluster…. But the CSLB has taken ineptitude to a whole new level.

Let’s break it down:

5/12 the app is sent to Case Management. Probably because the applicants name is the same or similar to someone else’s. There is 2+ weeks wasted.

5/30 AIU requests the app to be posted. Wait… AIU? I thought the app was in Case Management? One would think the app was good to go since the AIU said it could be posted. (Posted means accepted and that the applicant can proceed to testing)

6/3 Rejected for correction. On 5/30 the AIU said it could be posted. Now it’s being rejected for correction?

6/20 Corrections received and sent to be scanned… AND rejected again! My assumption here is that they didn’t get back what they requested, or they are playing with the applicant in the hopes that he’ll withdraw the app.

7/24 Corrections received, sent to be scanned… AND rejected again!! “Need Trade Work Description” Was this not included in the original reject? Did the applicant not provide this with the original reject? Or is the CSLB just rejecting it again because they didn’t bother to include it in the original rejection?

7/25 App posted and exam date scheduled. This would suggest that everything the applicant submitted was accepted. That is how any logical person would view this comment.

8/18 Exams passed. Bonding and insurance purchased, business cards ordered, ready to move forward… but wait…

9/18 One month later.. the app is sent to the supervisor for review. Review of what? The supervisor sends it back to the tech with instructions to send the app to AIU. Again, I thought the AIU was no longer?

9/23 5 days later the app is sent to the AIU, where the investigator will ask for all of the same documents the tech would have asked for months ago and 5 months after the app was submitted.

So there you have it. The utterly inept CSLB application processing in action.

Will this applicant get his license? I hope so! He proved his knowledge by passing the State mandated, CSLB created exams.

 

Please follow and like us:
error

Whats New in California Contractors Licensing

Whats New in California Contractors Licensing?

Well, there doesn’t appear to be much new happening in the world of California contractors licensing. I haven’t heard from anyone new about their license application struggles.

Could everything be going smoothly at the CSLB? I highly doubt that. They haven’t been able to get their act together over the last 15 years.

Are you, or someone you know, in need of application advise? Do you need an application prepared or reviewed? Are you looking for high quality, low cost exam study materials? If so, please feel free to contact me. I reply to emails even after business hours, so don’t hesitate in dropping me a line.

 

Please follow and like us:
error

CSLB Streamlines License Experience Review Process

Industry Bulletin released today: CSLB Streamlines License Experience Review Process

CSLB streamlines application process“SACRAMENTO — The Contractors State License Board (CSLB) is the government agency that oversees California’s construction industry and protects consumers by ensuring that license applicants have the minimum qualifications required by law. An important part of this process is verifying and investigating the experience claimed by an applicant. CSLB has a legal mandate to investigate a minimum of 3 percent of applications received for the claimed experience.

Previously, applications and experience claims were reviewed and processed by CSLB’s Licensing division and the formal experience investigations were conducted by CSLB’s Enforcement division. In some cases, this divided process resulted in a duplication of efforts and longer processing times.

To streamline the process and provide more efficient services to license applicants, the experience investigation program now has been transferred to CSLB’s Licensing division.

The transfer will not change CSLB’s policy as it relates to the experience qualifications required of applicants. As mandated by law, CSLB will continue to require four years of journey-level experience within the last 10 years immediately preceding the submission of the application. In the case of experience verification and investigation, the applicant still must provide documentation to substantiate the experience claimed on his or her application.”

Where do I begin?

Why does the CSLB continue to stick with this 3% mandate nonsense. First they created their list of “critical classifications” (not approved by the legislature), then they claim that by REQUIRING those applicants to provide documentation, they are part of the minimum of 3% of all apps received?

Let’s get Real CSLB!

The 3% law is meant to be a sampling of all apps received. REQUIRING certain applicants to provide experience documentation is NOT a sampling. Your REQUIREMENT to have applicants that are applying for one of your illegal “critical classifications” is, in itself, ILLEGAL! 3% minimum and mandatory are two completely separate things.

No Need for the Law!

It’s more than obvious that the rule of law does not pertain to the CSLB! There is a legal process that they must go through if they are going to change what is already written into law. It just floors me that they think they can just make up the rules whenever it suits them!

Smoke and Mirrors? Or a Dog and Pony Show?

I’m not sure which one we’re dealing with here. Smoke and Mirrors? The bulletin could be meant as a smoke screen of… We ARE the CSLB, this is what WE do! Or it could be a Dog and Pony show because they have no clue what they’re doing and they want us to think they do. Either way… what they’re doing is illegal. Plain and simple!

What are the qualifications of the people reviewing the applications?

That’s what I want to know. I know for a fact that one of their “investigators” has a background in marketing. The other investigator? Who knows. Unless and until they bring in people who have ACTUAL construction experience, the applicants will be paying the price.

 Experience investigation program now has been transferred to CSLB’s Licensing division

How many apps have been “reviewed” by licensing, only to be transferred to Enforcement because the “investigator” had no clue what they were reviewing? Far too many!! Who is going to back them up now?

CSLB Streamlines License Experience Review Process?

I can tell you right now, that this decision will NOT streamline the process. They are going to generate such a backlog, it’s going to be mind boggling.

Darkest before the Dawn

It’s been said that it gets darkest before the dawn, well folks, we may be approaching dawn and I fear it’s going to be a very ugly day now that the fox is in charge of the hen house.

Please follow and like us:
error

CSLB Applications must be notarized

I was told today that CSLB applications must be notarized if you are applying from out-of-state.

notary publicOr at least the work experience form must be notarized. The reason given: it’s the only way they can verify signatures of out-of-state applicants and/or certifiers.

This would suggest that they verify ALL signatures, wouldn’t it? And how would they do that? Call, send a letter, or an email? Perhaps they use smoke signals, or two cups and a string?

One thing we know for a fact… they certainly don’t verify all signatures in person of in-state applicants! Does the CSLB think that out-of-state applicants don’t have phones, mailing addresses, or email accounts?

This is a new low for the Contractors State License Board. And another example of they make up the rules as they go along. Seriously, the only way to verify signatures of out-of-state applicants?

What this really looks like is another off the cuff decision by a CSLB employee in some bizarre attempt to profile, harass, classify, sectionalize, and deter out-of-state applicants.

So not only have they trivialized the State mandated exams by making you prove your experience on paper, but now you have to get your certifier to notarize his signature.

Good luck finding this requirement in the application instructions or in any California law or regulation!

Please follow and like us:
error

Contractors State License Board Exams

Email exchange I had with Betsy Figueira on 3/28/2014 regarding the Contractors State License Board exams.

Basically, I wanted to know how and why the CSLB is allowing applicants to take the CSLB exams when they are sending the applications to the investigation unit. The conversation went as follows:

Update at the bottom. 4/4/14

License Guru: Can you provide me with the rule, regulation, or law that gives the CSLB the authority to allow an applicant to take the exams, but still send their application to enforcement for investigation?

Ms. Figueira: Hello Phil,

California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 825 (a) requires the qualifier to have 4 years of journey-level work experience within the last 10 years in the relevant classification.

Business and Professions Code (BPC) Section 7065, CCR Section 825 (e), and CCR Section 840 require the qualifier is to take the examination.

CCR Section 824 requires a comprehensive field audit of a minimum of 3% of the applications.

There is nothing in the law that specifically dictates the order in which the exam must be taken and the experience must be verified.  As a service to the applicant, CSLB allows the consecutive processing of the examination and the experience investigation in order to save time, as opposed to making the applicant wait until his/her experience has been verified before taking the examination, which can take months.

Passed examinations remain valid for 5 years after the exam date, as provided in BPC Section 7065 (d).  Therefore, even if an applicant’s experience is not verified under a particular application, the applicant may be able to make use of that passed exam to qualify for licensure on a subsequent application when he/she is able to sufficiently document his/her work experience.

Thanks,

Betsy Figueira
CSLB, Licensing Division Manager
916-255-3369

License Guru: Thank you for the reply.

So I understand this correctly… since the law does not “specifically” dictate the order in which the exam must be taken, a CSLB staff member has decided to allow applicants to take the exams, even though their application hasn’t been accepted and/or approved. I know the CSLB has different definitions for “accepted” and “approved” and uses either word when it best fits the situation.

The CSLB website states the following:
http://www.cslb.ca.gov/applicants/ContractorsLicense/ExamApplication/ApplicationAccepted.asp

What can I expect when my exam application has been accepted?

This step will outline some of the procedures you can expect when your exam application is accepted.

  • You will receive a Fingerprinting Live Scan packet (see step 6 for further information.)
  • You will receive a Notice to Appear for Examination. You should receive your examination notice at least three weeks prior to the examination date.

The above statement on the website is misleading and does not fall in line with your statement.

I’ve talked to many applicants who are confused as to why they’re being allowed to take the exams when their application is being sent to investigation. At the very least, the CSLB is sending mixed messages.

From what I have been told, most applicants find it more stressful to take the exams not knowing if their application is going to be processed/accepted/approved etc., or not. So from my experience, you are not doing them any favors.

Then there is this page on the website. Note the last line of the third bullet point.

http://www.cslb.ca.gov/Applicants/ContractorsLicense/NoExamApplication/ApplyingForLicense.asp

Under what circumstances am I not required to take the examination?

You are not required to take the examination if the qualifying individual meets one of the following requirements:

  • You are currently a qualifier on a license in good standing in the same classification(s) for which you are applying;
  • You have been a qualifier within the past five years in the same classification(s) for which you are applying;
  • Within the last five years, you have passed both the Law and Business Examination and the trade examination in the same classification for which you are applying, and the license for which you took the examinations was not denied due to lack of work experience.

I have research the B&P Code and the CCR and can not find any rule, regulation, or law that gives the CSLB the authority to have an applicant re-take exams that he/she has passed within the prior five years because of a prior denied application. This statement on the website also differs from your statement regarding 7065.

Applicants are being put through the wringer when it comes to providing paper documentation when the law clearly states that the “registrar shall investigate, classify, and qualify applicants for contractors’ licenses by written examination.” 7065 (a)

Regarding Section 824. It does not specifically dictate the creation of a list of “critical classifications.” Therefore, those applying for one of the “critical classifications” should not be considered part of the 3% minimum. Those applicants are being required to provide additional documentation based solely on the classification they are applying for. Therefore, Section 824 does not apply.

At the very least, the CSLB should be putting out a consistent message that follows the law as written, not as interpreted by CSLB staff.

Thank you again.

End

I haven’t received a response to my reply, but it was yesterday (Friday) so I may or may not hear back from her until next week… if at all. It seems that whenever I ask for information regarding their licensing processes, they always give me Section 824, 825, 840 and 7065. None of which actually give them the authority to do what their doing if they followed the letter of the law.

The bottom line is… the Contractors State License Board Exam unit does whatever they want and they always seem to manipulate the law to fit their needs or to justify their whims.

Update: 4/4/14

Below is a portion of a reject letter that was sent in March. You will notice the last paragraph states the following:

Inline image 1

If this is true, then why are these applicants being sent to investigation? The fact that they are being sent to the exams suggests that licensing has verified the minimum experience required.

Continue reading the discussion at Contractors State License Board Exams Part 2.

Please follow and like us:
error

CSLB Waiver Application

  • Q. Under what law or regulation does the CSLB have the authority to state the last line of the third bullet point?

  • A. None!

Under what circumstances am I not required to take the examination?

You are not required to take the examination if the qualifying individual meets one of the following requirements:

  • You are currently a qualifier on a license in good standing in the same classification(s) for which you are applying;
  • You have been a qualifier within the past five years in the same classification(s) for which you are applying;
  • Within the last five years, you have passed both the Law and Business Examination and the trade examination in the same classification for which you are applying, and the license for which you took the examinations was not denied due to lack of work experience.

CSLB Applying for a license waiver

The webpage above is located here: http://www.cslb.ca.gov/Applicants/ContractorsLicense/NoExamApplication/ApplyingForLicense.asp

What they are saying is that if you pass your exams and the application that you submitted to take those exams was denied due to lack of work experience, those passing exam scores then become invalid.

Exam waivers fall under Business and Professions Code 7065. There is nothing in that regulation that states “and the license for which you took the examinations was not denied due to lack of work experience.” So for the CSLB to put this on their website is overstepping at the least, a violation of law at the most.

  • Q. So why have they been posting applications and scheduling them for the exams, then referring them to enforcement (AIU) for investigation of experience?
  • A. So that they can come back later and tell you that your passing test scores are no longer valid when you reapply for your license.

Once again, it shows the CSLB has no regard for the rule of law. They are akin to the POTUS, as he said in the Rose Garden the other day… “I do what I want!”

It’s time for the Contractors State License Board to wake up and realize that they don’t get to make arbitrary laws, rules, and regulations.

Please follow and like us:
error

CSLB Application Denials and the Appeals Process

Let’s take a minute to discuss CSLB Application Denials and the Appeals Process.

application denialIt’s a boring subject I know, but it’s good information to have if you find yourself stuck in the AIU vortex.

If your application is denied by the Application Investigation Unit, Section 485 kicks in.

§ 485. Procedure upon denial

Upon denial of an application for a license under this chapter or Section 496, the board shall do either of the following:

  • (a) File and serve a statement of issues in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
  • (b) Notify the applicant that the application is denied, stating (1) the reason for the denial, and (2) that the applicant has the right to a hearing under Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code if written request for hearing is made within 60 days after service of the notice of denial. Unless written request for hearing is made within the 60-day period, the applicant’s right to a hearing is deemed waived. Service of the notice of denial may be made in the manner authorized for service of summons in civil actions, or by registered mail addressed to the applicant at the latest address filed by the applicant in writing with the board in his or her application or otherwise. Service by mail is complete on the date of mailing.

Added Stats 1972 ch 903 § 1. Amended Stats 1997 ch 758 §

The key here is that 60 day deadline to file your appeal request. I would suggest filing your appeal as soon as possible to get the appeal process started.

From here Section 487 applies and it outlines the Hearing process.

§ 487. Hearing; Time

If a hearing is requested by the applicant, the board shall conduct such hearing within 90 days from the date the hearing is requested unless the applicant shall request or agree in writing to a postponement or continuance of the hearing. Notwithstanding the above, the Office of Administrative Hearings may order, or on a showing of good cause, grant a request for, up to 45 additional days within which to conduct a hearing, except in cases involving alleged examination or licensing fraud, in which cases the period may be up to 180 days. In no case shall more than two such orders be made or requests be granted.

Added Stats 1972 ch 903 § 1. Amended Stats 1974 ch 1321 § 10; Stats 1986 ch 220 § 1, effective June 30, 1986.

The important part in this section is that the hearing shall be conducted within 90 days of the hearing being requested. Unless you, the applicant, request or agree to a continuance. I wouldn’t agree to a continuance because I wouldn’t want to give the board the ability to delay the process any further. If the OAH grants a request for extension, you’re stuck with it. The CSLB likes to say that the process can take 4-6 months, but I think this is a scare tactic. Section 487 suggests that a hearing could take place in as little as 3 months.

After a hearing request is submitted, Section 488 comes in to play.

§ 488. Hearing request

Except as otherwise provided by law, following a hearing requested by an applicant pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 485, the board may take any of the following actions:

  • (a) Grant the license effective upon completion of all licensing requirements by the applicant.
  • (b) Grant the license effective upon completion of all licensing requirements by the applicant, immediately revoke the license, stay the revocation, and impose probationary conditions on the license, which may include suspension.
  • (c) Deny the license.
  • (d) Take other action in relation to denying or granting the license as the board in its discretion may deem proper.

Added Stats 2000 ch 568 § 2 (AB 2888).

This one is interesting because of item (c). This suggests that the CSLB could deny the license… again. What’s curious is that it was a denial that led you down the appeal/hearing path in the first place.

So there you have it, some interesting facts about CSLB application denials and the appeals process.

Please follow and like us:
error