Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contractor Fraud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Survivors urge stronger enforcement, press board to back ADU payment protections
Summary
Survivors of contractor fraud told the Contractors State License Board that licensing sanctions alone often leave homeowners unpaid and urged the board and legislature to close gaps for factory‑built accessory dwelling units and strengthen criminal restitution paths.
Survivors of alleged contractor fraud pressed the Contractors State License Board on Friday to push for stronger remedies that deliver restitution and criminal accountability, not only license sanctions.
Andrea Montano, founder and executive director of a California nonprofit serving housing‑justice clients, told the board she represents hundreds of homeowners and unpaid subcontractors who lost money to contractors who later continued operating under different names. Montano said existing administrative remedies—license suspensions and revocations—rarely lead to victim restitution and asked the board to advocate reactivation of Assembly Bill 559, which would tie milestone payment protections to the inspection milestones used by the Department of Housing and Community Development for factory‑built accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
"We are here for three things any fair system should already provide: criminal punishment, victims' restitution and standardized enforcement," Montano said. Her organization has worked with more than 300 victims she described as suffering millions in aggregate losses.
A wildfire survivor who identified himself as Greg described losing his home and then hiring a contractor who, he said, took large deposits and failed to perform. He told the board that only a criminal conviction that carries restitution would deter future predatory contractors.
"A licensing board complaint that takes you years to resolve and a civil referral with no public record of outcome fell short when I needed protection," Greg said, urging the board to press for remedies that produce restitution orders enforceable across entities.
Board members and staff discussed legislative options and enforcement limits. Staff noted that some bills that would expand payment protections (including AB 559) are in two‑year status and that implementing changes for factory‑built housing could be done by tying payment draws to the existing inspection milestones administered by HCD.
Why it matters: Victims and advocates described a recurring pattern—contractors collect large down payments, deliver little work, then reappear under new corporate names or different license numbers. That pattern creates both a consumer‑protection challenge and heavy casework for CSLB enforcement staff, which said its pending caseload and complaint volumes have grown substantially in 2026.
Board response: The board heard the public commenters’ requests and staff’s explanation of the bill’s status. Staff said they would continue to work with authors and stakeholders; no formal legislative position on AB 559 was changed during the public‑comment segment. Several board members urged that any statutory change be coupled with clearer permit and inspection triggers and better consumer education so homeowners understand milestone payment protections before hiring.
The matter remains before staff and counsel for possible future board action and legislative advocacy.
