Florida Statute 23.30 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title IV
EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Chapter 23
MISCELLANEOUS EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 23.30

23.30 Florida Customer Service Standards Act.—

(1) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the “Florida Customer Service Standards Act.”

(2) PURPOSE.—It is the purpose of this section to direct state departments to practice and employ all the measures set forth in this section.

(3) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section:

(a) “Customer” means any member of the public who uses or requests services or information provided by a state department or who is required by statute to interact with the department.

(b) “Department” means a principal administrative unit within the executive branch of state government, as set forth in chapter 20, and also includes the Public Service Commission.

(4) MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED.—State departments shall:

(a) Designate an employee or employees in the department who shall be responsible for facilitating the resolution of customer complaints, including any customer complaints regarding unsatisfactory treatment by department employees.

(b) Provide available information, except information which is confidential pursuant to any other state or federal law, and accurate responses to questions and requests for assistance in a prompt manner.

(d) Provide local or toll-free telephonic or electronic access either through a centralized complaint-intake call center or directly to a department employee or employees designated to resolve customer complaints.

(e) Develop a process for review by upper-level management of any customer complaints not resolved by the department employee or employees designated to resolve customer complaints. In evaluating the appropriateness of response time, management may consider periodic, high volume inquiries as a justifiable cause of delay.

(f) Develop customer satisfaction measures as part of the department’s performance measurement system.

(g) Employ a system by which customer complaints and resolutions of those complaints are tracked.

(h) Provide statistical data on customer complaints and resolutions of those complaints, and on customer satisfaction measures in annual reports or other performance publications, and use this data when conducting management and budget planning activities.

(i) Provide training to employees on improving customer service and on the role of the department employee or employees designated to resolve customer complaints.

(j) Include in the departmental strategic plan a program outline or goal regarding customer service.

(k) Conduct interdepartmental discussions on methods of providing and improving customer service.

(5) OPERATING HOURS.—Departments shall be staffed and open to the public for business on all regular business days.

(6) FUNDING.—Departments shall use available resources to achieve the purposes of this section.

(7) FAILURE TO COMPLY.—No cause of action shall arise in favor of any person due to a department’s failure to comply with any provision of this section.

(8) EXCEPTIONS.—This section does not apply to a person who uses or requests services or information from a department when such service or information is related to that person’s:

(a) Pending or current criminal prosecution;

(b) Current incarceration;

(d) Current lawful state or local government custody.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2001-80.

F.S. 23.30 on Google Scholar

F.S. 23.30 on Casetext

Amendments to 23.30

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 23.30

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 23.30.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 23.30

Total Results: 20

UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A/S/O VIRGILIO PEREZ Y. PEREZ AND A/S/O SIRKKA v. LAGUNA RIVIERA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-05-17

Snippet: (quoting Williams v. Am. Optical Corp., 985 So. 2d 23, 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)); cf. R.A.M., 869 So. 2d at

UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A/S/O VIRGILIO PEREZ Y. PEREZ AND A/S/O SIRKKA PEREZ v. LAGUNA RIVIERA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-03-01

Snippet: (quoting Williams v. Am. Optical Corp., 985 So. 2d 23, 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)); cf. R.A.M., 869 So. 2d at

Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Corporation a/s/o Delores Senko v. Grove Isle at Vero Beach Condominium Association, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-02-28

Snippet: (quoting Williams v. Am. Optical Corp., 985 So. 2d 23, 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)). As a result, and contrary

In Re: Amendments to Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms 12.980(a), 12.980(f), 12.980(n), 12.980(q), and 12.980(t)

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-08-24

Snippet: Dating Violence (08/23) -30- UNDERSTAND THAT THE

JOSE R. FONSECA v. REGIONS BANK

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-07-05

Snippet: novo review. Pino v. Bank of N.Y., 121 So. 3d 23, 30–31 (Fla. 2013).

Arnold Jerome Knight v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-02-19

Citation: 267 So. 3d 38

Snippet: requires intent to kill. Williams v. State, 123 So. 3d 23, 30 (Fla. 2013). In spite of these developments

National Auto Service Centers, Inc. v. F/R 550, LLC

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2016-03-30

Citation: 192 So. 3d 498, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 4820, 2016 WL 1238265

Snippet: review is de novo. Pino v. Bank of N.Y, 121 So.3d 23, 30-31 (Fla.2013). We conclude that section 726.110(1)

Cottrell v. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2016-01-08

Citation: 198 So. 3d 688, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 350, 2016 WL 97337

Snippet: See Pino v. Bank of N.Y., 121 So.3d 23, 30-31 (Fla.2013). The supreme court has held

The Bank of New York Mellon, etc. v. Condominium Association of La Mer Estates, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2015-09-17

Citation: 175 So. 3d 282, 40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 480, 2015 Fla. LEXIS 1975, 2015 WL 5445645

Snippet: de novo review. Pino v. Bank of N.Y., 121 So.3d 23, 30-31 (Fla.2013). We agree with the Fourth District

Roberts v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2015-06-18

Citation: 168 So. 3d 252, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 9277, 2015 WL 3777705

Snippet: included offense); Williams v. State, 123 So.3d 23, 30 (Fla.2013) (reiterating that attempted manslaughter

Fenster v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-06-04

Citation: 141 So. 3d 232, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8639, 2014 WL 2480561

Snippet: opinion in Williams I. Williams v. State, 123 So.3d 23, 30 (Fla.2013) (“Williams II”). The Court held: *233[A]

Advanced Chiropractic and Rehabilitation Center, Corp. v. United Automobile Insurance Co.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-05-29

Citation: 140 So. 3d 529, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 360, 2014 WL 2208895, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 1743

Snippet: review de novo. See Pino v. Bank of N.Y., 121 So.3d 23, 30-31 (Fla.2013). Applicability of Appellate Rule

Antoine v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-05-07

Citation: 138 So. 3d 1064, 2014 WL 1796099, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 6716

Snippet: fundamental error. See Williams v. State, 123 So.3d 23, 30 (Fla.2013). “If the trial court determines that

Davis v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-04-16

Citation: 138 So. 3d 489, 2014 WL 1464785, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 5616

Snippet: opinion in Williams I. Williams v. State, 123 So.3d 23, 30 (Fla.2013) (“Williams II”). The Court held: [A]

Lopez v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-04-16

Citation: 138 So. 3d 488, 2014 WL 1464789, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 5558

Snippet: opinion in Williams I. Williams v. State, 123 So.3d 23, 30 (Fla.2013) (“Williams II”). The Court held: [A]

Sessions v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-04-09

Citation: 137 So. 3d 1167, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 5150, 2014 WL 1374033

Snippet: opinion in Williams I. Williams v. State, 123 So.3d 23, 30 (Fla.2013) (“Williams II”). The Court held: [A]

Coriolan v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-03-26

Citation: 137 So. 3d 1080, 2014 WL 1225296, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 4357

Snippet: opinion in Williams I. Williams v. State, 123 So.3d 23, 30 (Fla.2013) (“Williams II”). The Court held: [A]

Cunningham v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-02-26

Citation: 162 So. 3d 1, 2014 WL 714714, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2577

Snippet: in Williams I. See Williams v. State, 123 So.3d 23, 30 (Fla.2013) (“Williams II”). The court held: [A]

Raphael v. Shecter

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2009-09-23

Citation: 18 So. 3d 1152, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14084, 2009 WL 3018157

Snippet: prospectively." Williams v. Am. Optical Corp., 985 So.2d 23, 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); see also Clausell v. Hobart

Paey v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2006-12-06

Citation: 943 So. 2d 919, 2006 WL 3498319

Snippet: not grossly disproportionate to the crime. Id. at 23-30, 123 S.Ct. 1179. Justices Scalia and Thomas concurred