ALJDEC

00F-0524-ROC-res · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-02-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 24, 2001. APPEARANCES: Complainants Kevin and Renee Sacco appeared representing themselves. David Tilson appeared representing Respondent The Renaissance Group, Inc. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay A. Abramsohn _____________________________________________________________________ The hearing in this above captioned matter was scheduled to be held for the purpose of determining whether Respondent was in violation of statute as alleged by the Complainant and as Cited by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. Based upon review of the entire record, including the documents provided by the Registrar, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent is the holder of a Class B license issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar). Respondent was the contractor for a new home for Complainants in Scottsdale, Arizona. 2. In August 1999, Complainants filed a formal complaint with the Registrar alleging complaints against Respondent regarding certain specified problems at the site. 3. As a result of receiving the complaint, Registrar’s Inspector (Inspector) Mechsner scheduled a site inspection. On October 22, 1999, the Inspector issued a Corrective Work Order, advising Respondent to make certain repairs to take care of the matter. Six items were noted on the CWO, and five of those items were noted for correction or repair. Number 2 dealt with the concrete driveway and unsightly repairs. 4. Respondent’s subcontractor made attempts at additional repairs, which were unsatisfactory to Complainants. The matter was not resolved informally, and was referred to hearing. 5. On March 28, 2000, the Registrar issued its Citation and Complaint against Respondent alleging violations of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§32-1154.A.7, 32-1154.A.23, and 32-1154.A.3 naming Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R4-9-108. 6. Respondent filed a written answer, indicating certain items were taken care of. Respondent indicated that the repairs made to the concrete driveway were unacceptable to Complainants and that Respondent was working with the Complainants to come to an acceptable repair. 7. The matter was noticed for hearing and then continued while the parties made arrangements for a final attempt at repairs and to accommodate their schedules. 8. On September 21, 2000, Complainants notified this Tribunal that they had come to an agreement with Respondent on the repairs and that no hearing was necessary the next day. 9. The hearing scheduled for September 22, 2000, was vacated, and the Registrar closed the case. 10. In November 2000, Registrar reopened the case on the request of Complainants, who were alleging breach of settlement by Respondent. 11. At the hearing, Complainants testified and presented photographic evidence of the condition of the driveway, the cracks and attempted repairs. Complainants argued that Respondent should replace the entire driveway as the repairs were not acceptable. 12. The Registrar’s Inspector Mechsner testified regarding his site inspection, the CWO and the hearing re-inspection (the day before the hearing convened). Inspector Mechsner testified that the concrete repairs which had been made were not acceptable given the composition of the drive (exposed aggregate) and the repairs had made the situation worse. Inspector Mechsner testified that, in his opinion, section replacement was not a solution to make corrective repairs, and that the only way to correct the numerous problems with this exposed aggregate driveway and to bring it within industry standards is to remove and reinstall the driveway. 13. Respondent testified that they had attempted repairs and had felt that would take care of the problems being experienced. Respondent agreed that the photographic evidence showed the existing condition of the driveway. Respondent indicated that it appeared that the whole driveway needed to be replaced, and indicated that if that were the Order received, that Respondent would take care of it in that manner. THE APPLICABLE LAW

A.R.S. §32-1154.A. provides, in the following relevant portions, that a holder of a license or a person listed on a license shall not commit the following: 3. Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar.[1] xxx 7. The doing of a wrongful or fraudulent act by the licensee as a contractor resulting in another person being substantially injured. xxx 23. Failure to take corrective action to comply with this chapter or with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter without valid justification within a reasonable period of time after receiving written directive from the Registrar... .

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Complainants have shown the exposed aggregate concrete driveway to be unacceptable per industry standards. The Registrar’s Inspector determined there were workmanship problems with various portions of the concrete. Respondent’s attempted repairs failed to correct to industry standards. The solution to the workmanship problems in this case is the removal and reinstallation of the exposed aggregate concrete driveway. The record supports a finding that Respondent has violated A.R.S. §§32- 1154.A.7, 32-1154.A.23, 32-1154.A.3 and A.A.C. R4-9-108. RECOMMENDED ORDER 1. Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that Registrar prepare an ORDER that Respondent’s license be suspended unless the Registrar receives written proof that Respondent has completed the corrective work required at this time, the removal and reinstallation of the exposed aggregate concrete driveway at Complainants’ home. 2. It is further recommended that if Respondent accomplishes the above corrective action, on or before the effective date of the Registrar’s ORDER, then the above recommended temporary license suspension shall not take place and Registrar’s Citation No. 00-0524 shall be closed. RECOMMENDED this day, February 14, 2001.

______________________________________ Kay A. Abramsohn Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of February, 2001, to:

Registrar of Contractors Michael P. Goldwater ATTN: Joyce Armijo 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By ___________________________ ----------------------- [1] Specifically, A.A.C. R4-9-108 provides that all work shall be done in a workmanlike manner which is described to be in compliance with local building codes of express application to the types of work done and complained of.

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 PH(602) 542-9826/ FAX 542-9827