Based on the actions of the contractor and the responses from the county I can only shrug and say, "I guess not always?"

Some backstory - we selected this contractor in part because permit records for the county indicated he had done a number of jobs of similar scope and we assumed he knew the ins-and-outs. Reviews were almost all positive and no evidence of disciplinary actions were on file with the state. But things have not gone exactly according to plan.

This seemingly odd request regarding those permits has us concerned that "something" has happened and this is perhaps part of his way of trying to cover it.

I would absolutely not sign this, based on two things: at the very beginning, it says this is a form to be signed when the party doing the work is "not....a contractor....", and also because the country itself encourages the homeowner to have the contractor pull the permits. Did your contract with the contractor require him to get permits? If so, tell him it's his responsibility, and you've "been advised" not to sign this affidavit.

Thanks for the replies so far..

Yep, the contract does specify that they are responsible for all necessary permits, however he's a small business and we do not want to be unreasonable nor unsympathetic to things out of his control eg. his only licensed electrician left. However the likelihood of both electrical and plumbing trades departing is a bit of a stretch, but still inside the realm of possibility. And this is our first time in the renovation arena so we have no idea if this is something fairly common or not, thus the posting.

We have a query out to him as to why this is necessary and why this is being presented now instead of at the outset when he presented his proposal with all permits being covered

The first thing that popped into my head -- immediately after, "hmmm, that seems fishy" -- was how would signing this impact your homeowners insurance? I know they can refuse to pay claims if you don't get permits or use unlicensed contractors. By assuming responsibility for the work, are you opening yourself up to a similar situation?

This is highly irregular and completely illegal in Florida. Your GC hasn't budgeted for hiring licensed and insured trades. He wants to have his brother-in-law finish up the electrical when he's not working at the Jeep plant.

Tell him to hire licensed and insured trades that can pull their own permits. Do not budge.

Permits should be pulled prior to the work being done. By the contractor responsible for doing the work. That is the electrician for the electrical and the plumber for the plumbing. Small jobs, a GC may do a faucet replacement or a new ceiling fixture under his general permit. Depends on the location as to whether that's allowed. But on a job of this scope, nah.

Thanks again all.

There is definitely a gap in our understanding of what is required vs. what we would prefer. We would prefer that all work being performed be done so by licensed trades, who will pull their own permits and assume the risks of faulty installations that might cause damage in the future. This in fact is exactly what was done for the mechanical - that particular sub took care of everything.

The county and contractor are both telling us this exercise of completing this affidavit is standard procedure and at the same time assuring us that no additional liability attaches to us because of it. Both seem to feel this fulfils any and all requirements, but these verbal assurances are completely at odds with what the (county supplied) affidavit says. Since he's effectively stating he is using an unlicensed electrician and plumber I'm even more confused by the county's "could care less" attitude.

The need for this affidavit appears to mean that your general contractor is not licensed and that you would be acting as the general contractor. You need to ask if a licensed electrician and plumber are still required. If so you would not be taking substantially more risk. So ask your contractor who will do the work, why work has been performed without a permit and why his his actions should not be considered a breach of contract. Perhaps he can find a licensed contractor to take responsibility for the job and leave you out of it.

Yeah, that's our interpretation as well - we would then assume all of the contractor's risk stemming from faults with the plumbing or electrical installations.

The contractor has now all but explicitly stated that the work was not performed by people who were licensed and has really shattered his credibility by offering to cover the cost of a few hundred dollars worth of finish work if we sign it. He did present the option of retaining licensed trades to pull the permits but phrased it as something that will cause weeks of additional delay for a project he's already late on.

At this point it is unlikely we will sign this and we'll deal with his claim of delaying the job completion later.

Thanks everyone, very much appreciate the suggestions and guidance.

In Florida, an unlicensed contractor's contract is unenforceable regardless of the quality. You too may have no legal obligation to pay even for proper work. I'd check.

Same in Virginia, but the wrinkle as we see it is that he is a licensed builder, he just does not have any of the other licensed trades on his staff. He attempted to skirt that requirement by having us take responsibility for the permits and that failed. He's been informed that obtaining permits is his responsibility, not ours, and we do not consider his time to do these tasks properly sufficient justification for any further delays.

There may be no legal obligation but we do feel a moral obligation to pay fairly for services rendered thus far. The work of his crew has been mostly good and it's not their fault he's apparently kind of an idiot, possibly unethical. We're not looking for more than we contracted for, but we're not going to accept anything less either.

I'd be really kind of worried that he cant maintain a good enough telationship with the trades that no one licensed will work for him. I'd also insist that all work stop until the unlicensed and unpermitted plumbing or electrical that has been done to this point is immediately inspected. Look up a local licensed master electrician and master plumber and pay them to come out and look at what has been done. And then have your GC employ them and their journeymen to do the remaining work. They may not want to assume responsibility for unlicenes and upermitted work though. Who can blame them? The work done may need to be ripped out in order to move forward.

If you became the GC anyone working as a sub would be responsible to you for the work and I assume you would even pay them directly. The important issue is the absence of licensed subs.

The fix is simple but you should anticipate the builder having financial problems after hiring licensed subs and possibly walking away from the project. Get familiar with the contract termination clause and figure out how much the that might cost you and how much time it will cost you too.

I understand--and I share your concern.

In the municipalities in which we work (coastal VA), permits are required to be pulled before work is performed. Contractors pulling permits are required to be licensed in the particular trade. A GC, for example, can't pull a plumbing or electrical permit unless he has those licenses. It is illegal for unlicensed contractors to perform contracting. I suggest you consult with a local attorney with construction law as part of their practice.

He has a couple of licenses besides his Builder's license but is lacking the electrical, plumbing, and mechanical trades. Mechanical was subbed out. I'm currently of the opinion that he was trying to sneak one by in his attempt to get us to provide coverage for the two licenses he lacked via the affidavit.

I probably wouldn't be so concerned if this were a couple of outlets or freshening up an old bath but the job in question is a multistory addition that we plan to live in for the next couple of decades

But, he's been reminded of his obligations under the contract he provided and informed that this is not an acceptable delay in delivering this project to us. We didn't dicker with him on his middle-of-the-pack contract price and have also accepted his prices on change orders related to both upgrades and unseen contingencies. If he's still looking at losing money on having to redo the roughins with licensed trades then IMO it's best he's gone now and give us back the bulk of the last payment before things are sealed up and he starts on finishes.

And I do have DPOR's website bookmarked if it comes to that. Thanks for the insight,

With respect to permits being required before work starts the answer appears to be - it depends. Va 2012 Uniform Statewide Construction Code says, in part:

108.1 "..a permit...shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any
of the following activities. ...the building official may authorize work
to commence pending the receipt of an application or the issuance of a
permit"

but it doesn't describe what form this potential authorization might take. This process has been, amongst a collection of expletive-laced negatives I could write, also remarkably educational.

Whether permits should have been pulled before work started or not is really a moot point now. The remedy is the same either way, pull the permits. To be fair, I have mixed emotions about permits, the extent to which some communities requires permitting and licensing is just silly. I am not big fan of requiring a licensed electrician and a permit to change a light fixture to a ceiling fan. I am not advising you not to do it, just roll your eyes a lot as you do it.

The biggest problem with you pulling the permits is that you are giving him permission to perform the work unlicensed. Your risk doesn't substantially change whether he pulls the permits or you do, assuming he is willing to be responsible for any fines without a fight. Just because you tell the municipality that you will be fully responsible to them for the work, doesn't change the fact that he is fully responsible to you for the work. In essence this will only really cause you a problem if you are fined and the G.C. goes bankrupt or refuses to pay his obligation.

The fact that municipalities allow homeowners to pull permits to perform certain work recognizes that some tasks are fairly straightforward and that some homeowners will have the necessary skill set(s) to complete it. Work homeowners perform under a permit in the municipalities we work in (coastal VA) is subject to the same inspections as work performed by trade professionals.

The ability of homeowners to pull permits is not intended to facilitate work performed by unlicensed contractors, although it often does just that.

In my view, a homeowner hires a licensed GC to coordinate the work of multiple trade professionals; to ensure work is done right the first time; that it complies with the applicable codes and regulations, and that it is performed with appropriate safeguards in place (e.g., insurance and supervision) to minimize risk to the homeowner. That didn't happen in this case and it "smells funny" to me.

I would not award the GC a "get out of jail free" card. I would insist that licensed trade professionals be brought in to complete the work. They can inspect the work in progress and let you know whether they will accept it as it is or whether it needs to be redone. They can pull the required permits and can guarantee the completed work or some portion of it mutually agreed upon in advance.

Oh, yes, certainly. That's the only option on the table for him - contract says permits are his responsibility, not ours, and the only (legal) way he can fulfil his contractual obligation is with properly licensed trades. And I agree - it does smell off but some thanks to some earlier attempted profit padding we're on guard and question things that don't sound right. Like this.

The major point isn't the licensing of the GC but the insurance ! As a GC who hires subcontractors he has to carry the liability insurance for those subs and verify said subs also have insurance. I'd be checking his insurance policy real fast. He should give you his insurance agent's phone number so you can verify his current insurance. Agents regularly print out a fresh copy of proof of insurance. Its part of their job and NOT a special request. You can do this for every contractor who walks into your front door.

The major point isn't the licensing of the GC but the insurance! - This is not the point at all. A contractor wanting to save money and complete tasks that can pass inspection without using properly licensed subs is a problem. It is not, in and of itself, a reason to assume that everything else is wrong, if you did your due diligence in the beginning, that may still be your best source of protection. This may well be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and causes you to really dig into the contract or add some assurances. But, in the scheme of things he was not trying to sneak work by without a permit, something that is all too common. This is probably a great time to adopt a trust but verify attitude.

Your position - risk exposure - is not substantially different if you pull the permit or he does. However, if what you say above is correct, then YOU SHOULDN'T SIGN THIS AFFIDAVIT - Not because of anything at the bottom of the page but because of this at the top - This affidavit certifies that the party listed, who is not a lessee, licensed architect, engineer, or
contractor has been granted authorization to obtain a permit(s) on behalf of a property owner. If you know or even believe he is a contractor you shouldn't sign something saying he is not.

Yep, your GC needs to go hire a licensed electrician who will inspect and sign off on the work he has done. It may cost him a few hundred bucks. That's his fault, for assuming he could get away with doing the work with unlicensed people.

As an aside, in our city/county, homeowners can do any work within the existing footprint of their homes without permits or inspections. No limits.

The person doing the work is the one who should pull the permits.

Electrical gets pulled by the electrician. The plumbing by the plumber.

If you pull the permit? Your GC or his laborers could do the electrical work themselves, even if none of them are licensed electricians. Or apprentices/journeymen. And you'd be liable for their work.

Remember, in a court of law, and in the eyes (and more importantly the purse strings) of an insurance company, the written words of a signed document trump "things that were said".

Since, according to your GC, "it's no big deal"? Then have the people who are doing the permitted work pull the permits; the licensed electrician and the licensed plumber.

Your GC or his laborers could do the electrical work themselves, even if none of them are licensed electricians. Or apprentices/journeymen. And you'd be liable for their work. - To whom would you be liable? The only additional exposure which I can see is fines from the local building department. And since fines from building departments are exceedingly rare for inspected work, they are really a non-issue. There is no one else you would have additional liability to. You have the same liability to every other party that I can think of. Which is to say you are liable for the damages your property does to others regardless of whether the damage is a result of licensed or unlicensed improvement. You then have the right to recover from your contractor if appropriate (which you still do.)

Remember, in a court of law, and in the eyes (and more importantly the purse strings) of an insurance company, the written words of a signed document trump "things that were said". - First, insurance will always pay for faulty work done by someone else (assuming the damage is covered to begin with). Second, insurance will pay for faulty work done by you and inspected by another who licensed to do so. Third, while people often quote the idea that your insurance will not pay if the work was not permitted, most policies will actually pay for unpermitted and faulty work (you can read your policy to find out - both named peril and all peril policies will state specifically whether or not they cover it.) Finally, the custom contract that you and the builder signed is going to supersede the government form. In a court of law hand written > custom contract > standard contract > verbal.

@bry911 there may be other liabilities if a homeowner pulls permits under which others will be performing work. According to the Virginia Board for Contractors:

"The permit holder becomes the general contractor and assumes responsibility for the overall job--which may include taxes, workers' compensation, and other legal liabilities." Most homeowners don't realize that they may be putting their personal wealth at risk in the event of a work-related injury unless they've purchase a workers' compensation policy which covers everyone on site.

The bottom line, borrowing again from the Virginia Board for Contractors, is that "Anyone who tries to talk you into getting your own building permit is not doing you any favors. Licensed contractors should obtain all building permits, not the consumer."

@ Charles Ross Homes

This is absolutely true, but you still have the right of recovery. In fact, your exposure to many of these things already exist, but are subordinate to the builder. If someone gets hurt working on your house and your builder disappears then you have exposure.

Virginia can't override your legal contract with the builder. If your contract says that those items must be covered by him then you might be liable in the eyes of state officials but he will be responsible in a court of law. No third party contract can terminate a contract they are not a party to. Neither can they override the contract. This is not a strange thing, for many commercial projects all permits are pulled by the company and they simply indemnify themselves with the G.C.'s contract.

Edit: I have never said the OP should pull the permits. I am just saying that this is not a sign that your contractor is trying to screw you over. He is trying to save some money and while I agree that you shouldn't let him, it is not a sign that he is the Antichrist.

End of the story - based on information from the county website his necessary "a few weeks to find an electrician and a plumber" turned into three days after he was presented with our outright refusal to accept any responsibility for the permits or any further delays. Thanks all,

"This is absolutely true, but you still have the right of recovery."

If you hire an unlicensed contractor or pull your own permits in Florida, you have no access to the Florida Homeowner's Contractor Recovery Fund.

Sure, you can sue. Good luck with that. I'm betting that a guy who can't invest 4K in a license doesn't have any recoverable assets.

Joseph, I think you misunderstood. The exposure already exists. All of the things listed are already liabilities of the homeowner, you are protected by your contract. If your contract states that the General Contractor must provide workers compensation - then he must provide it. If he does provide it, then it will always kick in before your responsibility. If he agrees to provide it and doesn't, then you are already on the hook, whether he pulled the permit or you did. In fact, even if he has workers compensation, you and the contractor can still be sued joint and several. There really is no additional exposure other than fines, sure you may have recovery trouble if he is judgement proof, but you already do!

He is a licensed contractor and while many states don't have a recovery fund, in Florida there is nothing about pulling permits that would preclude recovery from the fund. I just read all of the code sections. As far as suing, to recover from the fund you must sue. Not to mention the fact that it is broke, so good luck with that.

While this is an exciting conversation - it has nothing to do with pulling the permits. There is absolutely no evidence that he isn't going to have insurance and frankly, as I said before, your due diligence at the beginning is still probably your best defense against legal exposure. Without knowing the scope of the work, it is hard to know anything else about how reasonable the request was.

Edit: This whole thing is getting silly, we are arguing the finer points but missing the message. My only point was that: this is not necessarily a sign of the apocalypse for your project. While not something I would allow, neither is it something I would automatically get excited about. The idea, in and of itself, is not a sign that he was trying to screw you over, he was cutting a corner. Without knowing the particular work, we have no way of knowing how big a corner he was cutting. A contractor asking to move a toilet 14" sans license, is different than asking to plumb an entire house.

Bry,

Regarding scope, it's effectively plumbing and wiring an entire house. We're planning on being here for 20 years or so, so it's not a flip.

When thinking about potential risk down the road I had to also consider what had gone before such as (just one example) him directing his electrician to outfit the subpanel feed with 6ga copper feeder and a 90A double pole breaker in the main panel, with a plan to power two AC units off of that in addition to the rest of the load.

Does it matter to me that he's either ignorant or corner cutting to that degree? Nope - at that point all I care about is someone with a nominally vested interest (keeping their license) takes responsibility for making sure things are done correctly and don't try to put a fusible link in my walls because he happened to have some cable left over that he wants to use up. If I'd signed that form and agreed to take responsibility for the entirety of the electrical (and plumbing) contracting I'd have had little recourse if something did happen.

When we renovated our kitchen in Alexandria, VA I hired a licensed contractor to do the work. When they started talking about all the extra cost and time for the permits I told them I would pull the permits. It seemed to me at the time that they were charging me for admin work, and I could just do it myself. It worked out fine, but at the time I did not really understand the process. However, I'll offer my feedback.

- Having the homeowner pull the permits and a licensed contractor do the work was apparently very non-standard. Although I had to put the contractor's name on all the paperwork as a licensed contractor, it still really confused the city permit office that I was submitting the application. Next time I will just have the contractor do it.

- Once work had started and we had inspectors coming in I did not see much difference in the process. The inspectors talked to the contractor and I was either not there, or was there just watching.

The only unusual part of our renovation was the replacement of a load bearing wall with a manufactured LVL beam. The other work was a direct upgrade (plumbing & fixtures) and new electrical circuits for code compliance. For the LVL beam the city required sign-off by a licensed engineer, so even then the oversight of the city was just administrative (they checked for the right PE stamp). Bottom line - I'm not sure the city inspector looked deep enough to find anything other than what was needed for compliance. If you don't trust your contractor to do good work, getting it inspected by the city will not solve all the issues.

Bruce

'' If you don't trust your contractor to do good work, getting it inspected by the city will not solve all the issues.''

Amen!

In my case, the GC is pulling all the permits. In part because this is a town of maybe 600 people (on a busy day) and everyone in the town responsible for signing off on them is on duty one or two days a week -- while I'm living two hours away and at work. In part, too -- he (the GC) simply expected to do this, anyway. He knows better what this process is all about than I would, anyway!

If I'd signed that form and agreed to take responsibility for the entirety of the electrical (and plumbing) contracting I'd have had little recourse if something did happen. - You have the same recourse. The exact same recourse! This is the entirety of what I have been trying to say over and over.

The municipality building department has two and only two actions against you.

1. It can require correction - while corrections will fall on the contractor, they are always ultimately the responsibility of the property owner. If the contractor fails to remedy then the property owner must remedy, regardless of who pulled the permit. If you have a contract with the contractor he is already on the hook for those corrections, even if you pull the permits.
2. The municipality can fine you. While this is a real problem unless you get the contractor to sign an addendum, it is also pretty rare for building departments to fine people for permitted work. They may require a remedy if they feel the work was not properly performed but that remedy is back to number 1 above. There is also a fair chance that even if they fined someone, it would be the builder and not you. He is the one who has a duty to get licensed installers. Additionally, unless your contract is pretty unusual he probably even has to cover any fines without an addendum.

An affidavit is a statement of fact. It is not a contract, and any affidavit that you fill out will not supersede your contract in a court of law in any state in the U.S. at any time. It may be used to clear vagaries in the contract when there are conflicting paragraphs, other than that it is worthless. It holds less weight in a court of law than witness testimony. Affidavits are generally considered one of the weakest kinds of evidence. This is compounded by it being a standard form affidavit - the weakest kind of affidavit. While a contract is one of the strongest. If you admit to signing it, then I doubt it would ever even be produced, as your admission to signing it, is actually stronger than the affidavit itself.

I really have no idea why there is all this information that makes it sound like an affidavit is a contract with the state and suddenly your entire contract is out the window because you pulled a permit. The fact of the matter is, for most of these items that you will have to be fully responsible for, you already are. Maybe there are contractors who are getting over on unsavvy consumers with weird contracts and the building department wants to protect you. I suspect they just want to keep track of which contractors are doing which work.

Bry911 makes good points. The city seems to overstate the risk, perhaps to protect the city. The real issue is why should you allow an unlicensed electrician or plumber work on your house? Why the city would allow it is strange but not important.

If you hire an unlicensed contractor in Florida, there is no contract, I don't care what you have in writing.

If I give you herbal tea and it cures your toothache, I can't bill you for being a dentist. Same here.

First, the OP states clearly that the contractor is licensed so this is irrelevant, "the wrinkle as we see it is that he is a licensed builder, he just does not have any of the other licensed trades on his staff."

Next, from Florida statute 489.128- As a matter of public policy, contracts entered into on or after October 1, 1990, by an unlicensed contractor shall be unenforceable in law or in equity by the unlicensed contractor.

Then later we have,This section shall not affect the rights of parties other than the unlicensed contractor to enforce contract, lien, or bond remedies. This section shall not affect the obligations of a surety that has provided a bond on behalf of an unlicensed contractor. It shall not be a defense to any claim on a bond or indemnity agreement that the principal or indemnitor is unlicensed for purposes of this section.

In short your contract is unenforceable by an unlicensed contractor and is fully enforceable for a consumer.

A licensed builder cannot have a licensed tradesperson on staff. A licensed tradesperson can only work for a contractor licensed in his trade. A licensed tradesperson has to be employed by a licensed plumbing contractor, electrical contractor, etc., not a General or Building contractor. Since this licensed builder is apparently not a licensed plumbing or electrical contractor, it is completely relevant.

Your whole point is irrelevant as the OP could enforce the contract even in Florida. Public good and consumer protection type laws are meant to protect consumers from bad business practices, even in the most pro-business states it is hard to find laws that protect unsavory businesses from consumers.

A licensed builder can have a licensed trade on staff, as that is the whole point of a design build firm. A licensed architect, working for a licensed builder. For that matter my father's old business partner had a master plumbers license before becoming a licensed builder and keeps a licensed plumber on staff. Mechanical contractors carry both licensed plumbers, HVAC and we are seeing licensed electricians emerge in the mix. Many of the nations largest homebuilders profit from backwards verticle integration and have all trades licenses on staff. You just have to have a license holder as supervisor, they don't have to own the company.

Edit: It doesn't matter if the OP understands the in and outs of licensure or not. The G.C. is licensed, the rest doesn't matter, even in Florida he has reciprocal enforcement.

Edit 2: The problem with these types of consumer protection laws is that the government is really bad at managing unintended consequences. The problem with the Florida law is that actually the best thing for a consumer, is to hire an unlicensed contractor, if you can manage to get the permitting and inspections done (which would be hard). Since the consumer has a fully enforceable contract and the unlicensed contractor has no reciprocal enforcement, you can simply get the work done and then not pay him.

In the OP's situation we are all assuming that the contractor will not be using licensed subs which is probably a violation of the original contract. This, of course, assumes that standard of care is not disclaimed (which would be incredibly rare). So if he were to do the work without using licensed people, he would be in violation of the contract and the OP could end up with permitted and inspected work without an enforceable legal obligation to pay. Now to see that through to fruition you are probably talking the inside of a courtroom and to me it would not be worth it. Additionally, the judge may decide against an unfair enrichment and make you pay a reduced amount.

One other reason I'd recommend a homeowner not pull the permits for electrical, plumbing, etc, on behalf of a sub or a GC.

"Open permits".

The following mayor may not apply. And yes, the points can be parsed to death. And no, the AHJ may not choose to use their leverage to help out a homeowner. I'm just telling a story.

Let's say for whatever reason, the job fell apart. In my area, if the homeowner pulled the permit and the job languished and for whatever reason the job was never fully signed off and the permit was never closed by the AHJ, the homeowner is on the hook for getting the work complete, the final inspections done, and closing the permit.

If an electrician pulled the permit and the job fell apart and the permit was never closed and the permit remained open for an extraordinary length of time, the town has the leverage to not issue any more permits in the electrician's name until the languishing permit was closed. That gives the electrician incentive to get the work done, get the permit closed, and to move on.

No, it's not binding.
Yes, there are ways around it. As there are with everything.
But it's a small way for the AHJ, if they choose to do so, to act on behalf of a homeowner if things go awry.

Some people use "open permits" as a way of vetting subcontractors. They'll call the building office and ask if Joe Blow has any permits that have been open longer than X months. If someone has a string of them, it may be prudent to ask them why prior to hiring them.

Again, it's not true protection. It's just another thing to have in your hip pocket. Just in case.

In most states (including Virginia and Florida) closing permits are the responsibility of the homeowner. I know in Florida an open, unrenewed permit can generate a fine, but that fine never goes to the contractor, it is always to the homeowner.

Here's an out take from my town:

"The legal responsibility for compliance with the all code requirements
falls on the permittee whose name and signature appears on the building
permit application. Acceptance of this responsibility requires this
person to have adequate knowledge in the construction field and the
ability to supervise the proposed work for a specific building permit."

Different strokes...

Interesting.

@ MongoCT

On the surface the text you linked seems to support what you are saying. But it doesn't specifically say anything about responsibility for closing the permit. In some parts of Connecticut, for example, many building departments have similar verbiage yet state regulations require the closing of building permits to be the responsibility of the homeowner. I can assume this is an attempt to protect the homeowner's right to terminate a contract, but I really don't know. I do know that in Stamford, Connecticut the building department sent out postcards threatening to charge current home owners up to $1,000 for investigations unless they closed open permits, many of which were issued to contractors, and as Joseph's article pointed out, some were even previous homeowners.

In your particular city they don't make the responsibility of permit closure easy to find. I dug through a bit of the code but not that much. That little thing they put up as a FAQ or warning is not really part of the code. It is just a warning, you actually have to find the specific verbiage in the municipal code itself to know if it disclaims the state standard. It may well, but it is certainly in the minority. By and large homeowners are responsible for oversight of permitting.

Yikes! This all sounds like a terrible situation. I know someone, who does very good work, but doesn't have the money to be bonded, so he works for other GCs.

I would not want anything to do with this mess. While I'm not sure this pertains to your situation, it is sometimes better to hire the guy who is NOT the cheapest. It costs money to be licensed, bonded and insured. And good/quality work should speak for itself.

Maybe off topic, but it always amazes me that people want the absolute best finishes in their home and talk constantly about quality....but some don't consider that same quality when they hire the person/crew to install those features.

A property owner has a direct relationship with the local municipality and is responsible for compliance with all municipal rules and regulations. A contractor is hired by the property owner and is responsible directly to the owner for the performance of the work in compliance with all applicable regulations and is empowered to act as the owner's agent for the limited purpose of dealing with the local authorities.

These relationships are sometimes misunderstood or unappreciated even by the authors of building department regulations and procedures so it is not unusual to find wording that sounds like a contractor is directly responsible to the municipality for the work at the owner's property. Contractors only have an indirect relationship with a municipality by virtue of a state or local license and when acting as the owner's agent for permitting and inspections

This pretty much substantiates what Sanford W. is saying.

I am not following your logic Joseph. Are you saying that the permit office is wrong because repairing siding and refinishing a floor don't, in fact, need permits?

Edit: Florida is a very hard to state to compare other areas to. In the 90's Lennar absolutely bought Florida. The lobby for some of those large home builders just made Florida a very rough state to remodel in.

bry911:

No, I'm saying my link demonstrates what Sanford W. said. Maintenance does not require a permit in Florida. Apparently inspection decided that this siding job wasn't maintenance.

The condo associations and their crazy security gates, codes, guards, and notifications have made remodeling much more expensive than Lenar ever did. I'll wait by the elevator for the guard to buzz me in all day; I'm billing you hourly.