ALJDEC

00F-C990234-BFS · Department of Building and Fire Safety · 2000-04-03

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: April 3, 2000 APPEARANCES: Michael Craig, Complainant, in his own behalf ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Allen Reed _____________________________________________________________________ Findings of Fact 1. The Complainant purchased his manufactured home from the Respondent in September, 1998. 2. As part of the purchase, the Complainant was given a Factory Service Information Sheet which represented the Respondent would repair items loosened or damaged in transit and repair any drywall damage from delivery or installation. 3. The home was delivered to the Complainant’s property outside of Seligman, Arizona in October, 1998. 4. The Complainant noted a number of problems after the home was delivered and notified the Respondent. 5. The Respondent did corrective work but failed to satisfactorily correct various drywall cracks. 6. The Complainant filed his complaint with the Department of Building and Fire Safety (Department). 7. On October 28, 1999, Department Inspector Vern Fass (Fass) inspected the home. 8. Fass issued a Verified Complaint and Sign Off Form (Verified Complaint) which required the Respondent to correct the several drywall cracks in the kitchen, drywall cracks in the two bedrooms, cracked drywall seams and loose tape, and patching which did not match or adhere. 9. The Respondent did no corrective work. Conclusions of Law The Complaint was verified in this case under A.R.S.41-2153(B)(9) and notice of the verified complaint was served on the Respondent as required by A.R.S.§41-2153(B)(10). In summary, the Citation and Complaint allege violation of A.R.S.§41- 2186.1, failure to comply with the provisions of articles 2 or 4 of the chapter, .12, failure to respond to a verified complaint after notice, .19, Failure to provide all agreed on goods and services, and .20, failure to install in a workmanlike manner. 1. No good cause was shown for the Respondent’s failure to appear at the hearing. 2. Absent an appearance by the Respondent, no evidence was presented which would rebut the Complainant’s evidence. 3. Based on the evidence, the violations are established. There is no explanation to mitigate the violations. Recommended Order In view of the foregoing it is recommended, commencing on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, that Class D-8 License No. 7061 of the Respondent shall be suspended until the Assistant Director has received written proof that the Respondent has accomplished appropriate and effective remedial work as required by the Verified Complaint in this case.

It is further recommended that if the Respondent accomplishes the above described corrective work, on or before the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, then the aforementioned suspension shall not take place and the Citation and Complaint upon which it is based shall be closed;

Done this day, April 3, 2000

______________________________________ Allen Reed Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2000, to:

Department of Building and Fire Safety N. Eric Borg ATTN: Michelle M. Castaneda East Virginia, Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85004

By ___________________________

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

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