Ventura County (Calif.) District Attorney Gregory Totten reported that the office’s Consumer and Environmental Protection Division recently obtained two convictions for violation of the California Contractors State Licensing Laws.
On Dec. 13, 2005, Manuel Francisco Galan (DOB 09/05/55) was placed on probation and ordered by Judge Roland Purnell of the Ventura County Superior Court to pay $161,578 in restitution to seven Ventura County families. Galan was also ordered to pay $19,589 in fines and fees and was further ordered to serve 30 days in the Ventura County jail.
The charges and conviction were based upon investigations conducted by the California Contractors State Licensing Board (CSLB) in 2003 and 2004. The complaint alleged that Galan had undertaken eight home improvement jobs in Ventura County without possessing a contractor’s license authorizing him to do so. All contractors doing business in California, on jobs costing $500 or more, are required to be licensed by the CSLB. Each violation of the licensing law is a misdemeanor, subject to a sentence of jail, substantial fines, and restitution.
The CSLB’s investigation reportedly revealed numerous instances of Galan demanding excessive down payments from the homeowners; performing work well below industry standards; performing work without obtaining required county permits, bonds or insurance; and of ultimately abandoning jobs before the work had been completed.
In the second case, on December 20, 2005, Ram Gaon (DOB 7-10-70) was ordered by Judge Ken Riley of the Ventura County Superior Court to pay $18,000 in restitution to a Ventura County family. Gaon was also ordered to serve 60 days in the Ventura County jail, to be suspended for one year, pending full payment of restitution.
The charges and conviction were based upon investigations conducted by the California Contractors State Licensing Board (CSLB) in 2004. The complaint alleged that Gaon had undertaken a home improvement project in Ventura County , without possessing a contractor’s license authorizing him to do so.
The investigation reportedly revealed the contractor had used a license not belonging to him; had performed contracting work well below industry standards; had done construction without the required county permits, bond or insurance; and had ultimately abandoned the job without completing it.
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.