How the Nevada Contractors Board Handles a Complaint

A consumer’s complaint against a licensed contractor triggers a set Nevada State Contractors Board sequence rather than an ad hoc review. First comes an acknowledgement, then an investigator’s review of the allegations. Where the investigator decides a jobsite visit is warranted, and later finds corrective action necessary, a Notice to Correct goes to the contractor before any disciplinary step is reached.

Acknowledgement and the investigator’s review

The Board sets out that sequence on its own Contractor Complaints page, beginning with what happens once a complaint reaches it:

A letter of acknowledgement is sent to the consumer. An investigator employed by the Board will examine the alleged violations and decide if there are workmanship issues that require a jobsite visit. The contractor is mailed a copy of the consumer’s complaint. If a jobsite visit is necessary, the investigator will advise the contractor and the consumer within 10 days of the scheduled date and time.

The letter of acknowledgement goes to the consumer first. The contractor is brought in at the same stage: a copy of the complaint itself is mailed over, ahead of any decision on whether a jobsite visit follows. That decision belongs to the investigator, made from a review of the allegations rather than from the complaint’s having been filed at all. Where a visit is scheduled, both the contractor and the consumer are notified of the date and time in advance.

The jobsite visit

On the visit itself, the same page continues:

The jobsite visit is conducted with the consumer and contractor present. The investigator will research and evaluate all information gathered through the jobsite visit, building codes, plans and specifications, industry standards and other information furnished by the consumer and the contractor. The investigator will make a decision based upon this investigation as to the validity of each allegation made.

Both parties attend the jobsite visit. The investigator’s finding is drawn from what is gathered there — building codes, plans and specifications, industry standards, and whatever the consumer and the contractor each furnish — weighed together rather than any one of them taken alone. It is that finding, not the complaint as filed, that decides whether an allegation holds up.

Where the allegations do not hold up

Not every jobsite visit produces a finding against the contractor. Where it does not, the Contractor Complaints page says:

If the investigator concludes that the allegations have no merit, the consumer and the contractor will be notified in writing.

Both the consumer and the contractor are told of that finding in writing, and the sequence described on this page has no further Board step once the allegations are found to have no merit.

The Notice to Correct

Where the visit instead supports the complaint, the Board’s material continues:

If the investigator establishes that corrective action is required by the contractor, a Notice to Correct is sent to the contractor enumerating the items requiring resolution or correction. A Notice to Correct is usually sent within five (5) working days following the jobsite visit. A copy of the notice is also sent to the consumer. The contractor is generally allowed 20 to 30 days to comply with the Notice to Correct.

A Notice to Correct lists what the investigator found needs resolving. A copy reaches the consumer as well as the contractor. Both figures attached to the Notice to Correct are the Board’s own usual practice, not a fixed rule. It is usually sent within five working days of the jobsite visit. A contractor is then generally allowed 20 to 30 days to comply with it — hedged language the Board’s own page chose, describing what it typically does rather than a deadline it has fixed.

Follow-up and access to the property

Once the time allowed to comply has run, the same page describes what happens next:

The investigator will contact the consumer following expiration of the time allowed the contractor to comply with the Notice to Correct to determine if the contractor has completed the required corrections. The Board recommends that the contractor be permitted access to the property in order to perform the recommended repairs identified by the investigator.

The investigator checks back with the consumer once the time allowed for the Notice to Correct has passed. That call establishes whether the required corrections were made. The Board’s material recommends, without requiring, that the contractor be given access to the property to carry out the repairs the investigator identified.

Resolution or formal disciplinary proceedings

The same page states the two ways a complaint against a licensed contractor ends:

Many complaints are resolved without disciplinary action. If disciplinary action is recommended, formal disciplinary proceedings will be initiated.

Most complaints close at that point without any disciplinary step. Where the investigator instead recommends discipline, the file moves into formal disciplinary proceedings — a separate process from the investigation described above. The letter of acknowledgement, the jobsite visit, the Notice to Correct and the follow-up are each described in these same terms on the Board’s own site. That is what makes the sequence knowable before a given complaint reaches it.

This page describes the Board’s process for a complaint against a contractor who already holds a license. A contractor who never held a license raises a different question, covered separately. Whether a given license is active and the classification a license covers are both part of the same public record the Board maintains. How Nevada contractor licensing works is the wider context this page sits inside.