Even More Clarification

And now having spoken with the individual who suggests that he was in fact the author of the Licensing regulation and the "Handyman exemption" in the Arizona statutes, I want to examine it still further.

It was explained to me that the element of "part of a larger project" is indeed part of the statute, but a major element in the enforcement and prosecution of that part has to be knowledge aforethought and intent. Of course, there might be the lack of knowledge on the part of the unlicensed contractor as in the case of a carpet tuck. The carpet person may be unaware that the project is recent and he was actually a part of it UNLESS he was hired by the person who did the tile job. Or the homeowner.

Of course the homeowner would know that tucking the carpet was a part of the project, at least for him. So if it was the intention of the homeowner to hire an unlicensed contractor prior to the installation, knowing he intended to hire someone unlicensed, then he would be guilty of the perpetration of a crime.

And too, if any individual contracts to perform a task where the materials AND labor equal or exceed that $1000 threshold, they would be considered guilty of that crime. So, of course, ANY flooring company who hires installers who provide him with a fixed price for installation where the product AND installation exceed $1000, and NOT possessing a license, is guilty of that crime as well. In fact, not only the installer but also the flooring company who knowingly hire the installer.

License Update

A Director from the ROC told me that as regards my Residential License, the ceiling is now $1000, materials and labor combined. BUT other inspectors have suggested that if the work was part of a project $1000 or greater, than even a "contract" for $1 will exceed the threshold and be punishable as a Class 1 Misdemeanor. Maximum penalty: $2500 fine and 6 months in jail.

This Director suggested that since the statute DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY suggest that business of "a much larger project", it is not prosecutable. He suggested that it is specific for the project the unlicensed contractor is doing specifically.

But since many inspectors from that Agency want to enforce that business of within a larger project, I would suggest approaching it with caution.

Unfortunately the State Legislature, I have come to discover, have made statutes very ambiguous and in much need for clarification and refinement. In some sense, that is why I have found the need for creating still one more blog. My blog, Tile News. I will dedicate a good deal of that blog in that interest.