contest the factual allegations of the administrative complaint, the Department was still required to prove those facts with competent, substantial evidence before it could take action against his license. In making this argument, Nicks cites to Scott v. Dep't of Professional Regulation, 603 So.2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We reject Nicks’ argument. When a party waives the right to challenge the factual allegations of an administrative complaint, either by requesting an informal hearing pursuant to section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, or by failing to respond to the complaint at all, the facts of the complaint are deemed to be admitted. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.111(2) & (4); § 120.569(2)(c); Autoworld of America Corp. v. Dep’t of Highway Safety, 754 So.2d 76, 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (<HOLDING>); see also Hime v. Fla. Real Estate Comm’n, 61
holding that the proper standard to apply  is to assume that the facts have occurred as reported and then determine  whether those facts constitute a violation of law or rule adopted pursuant to law holding the supreme court was without jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the courts finding of facts conclusions of law and ruling until the court entered the decree that was contemplated by the finding of facts conclusions of law and ruling holding that a court is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged holding the record did not contain enough facts to determine whether the statute was constitutional as applied to the particular facts and circumstances of the case recognizing that when the facts alleged in the administrative complaint are not disputed this leaves only conclusions of law to be drawn as to whether the admitted facts constitute a violation of the statutes as charged and penalties to be imposed