Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contractor Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident says contractor left doors unfinished after $60,000 purchase; magistrate orders repairs and permit closure before mitigation
Summary
At a Royal Palm Beach special magistrate hearing, a homeowner said Storm Tight (contractor) failed to finish double-French doors and windows after about $60,000 in work; magistrate told the homeowner to secure repairs, close the open permit and return for a fine-reduction hearing.
A Royal Palm Beach homeowner told the special magistrate on July 2 that a contractor, identified in the hearing record as Storm Tight, repeatedly failed to return calls and misrepresented the status of ordered doors and windows, leaving gaps and installation defects that prevented final inspection.
The homeowner said they had filed complaints with the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, the Better Business Bureau and other agencies and that the contractor had changed ownership. The homeowner also described family and medical hardships that affected their ability to attend earlier hearings and to pursue remedies outside the village process.
A contractor at the hearing, who identified himself as a licensed general contractor, confirmed the doors had not been installed correctly and said inspectors would not pass them until properly corrected. Village staff and the magistrate reiterated that code enforcement requires permit closure by inspection before the magistrate will consider a fine reduction; administrative complaints or consumer-protection filings do not substitute for closing a permit.
The magistrate ordered the homeowner to have the doors fixed and inspected and to return with evidence of the repairs and of the administrative complaints if they wish to pursue fine mitigation. The magistrate continued the matter and said an order would be mailed. "Get your doors fixed, get them inspected after you get your change of owner or your change of contractor form in, and then come in for a fine reduction hearing and we'll talk about that then," the magistrate said.
The homeowner reported substantial out-of-pocket expense: "We spent nearly $60,000 on doors and windows," a claim entered on the record. The magistrate did not adjudicate the consumer dispute with the contractor at the hearing and confined the order to code-enforcement steps: repair, inspection and permit closure, followed by scheduling for mitigation if warranted.
Next steps: the homeowner should complete repairs, secure an inspection to close the permit, and then seek a fine-mitigation hearing with the village. The magistrate noted service would be by mailed order and posting as appropriate.
