ALJDEC

00F-H0250-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-01-16

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|SHARON M. WILLCOX, |§| | | |§|CASE NO.: H00-0250 | |Complainant, |§| | | |§|DOCKET NO.: 00F-H0250-ROC | |-v- |§| | | |§| | |License No. 090905, Class B of |§|RECOMMENDED | |Sam Dale Porter and |§|DECISION AND ORDER | |Bob Milton Garringer, d.b.a. |§| | |DESIGN HOMES (PTR), |§| | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| | | |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: Monday, January 8th, 2001; 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The complainant, Ms. Sharon Willcox, appeared and represented herself. The respondent appeared through the owner, Mr. Bob Garringer. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Grant Winston.

This matter was brought on for administrative hearing in the Office of Administrative Hearings. Testimony was heard and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The respondent Design Homes is, and during all times material hereto was, a contractor, licensed by and doing business in the State of Arizona, holding Class B License number 090905. 2. The complainant, Ms. Sharon M. Willcox, contracted with the respondent on or about May 5th, 1999, for the latter to install new carpet in two bedrooms of her Bullhead City, Arizona home. 3. Upon completion of the installation of the new carpet, the complainant had to rearrange the furniture. It was not until then she noticed that the respondent’s installer had broken a floor tile at the entrance to her master bedroom. 4. Complainant also discovered that the carpet installed in one of her bedrooms is of two different colors. 5. Complainant was also dissatisfied with the carpet installation in her master bedroom. She disliked what appeared to her as a miscut of the carpet and an effort to fill the miscut by plugging with another piece of carpet. Also, she felt the carpet in the master bedroom needed to be restretched along one of the interior walls of that room. In her hearing testimony complainant expressed her position that the room ought to be recarpeted. 6. Complainant’s initial efforts to have all her issues resolved by the respondent were unsuccessful. 7. Complainant filed the instant complaint with the Registrar of Contractors on or about May 3rd, 2000. The case was assigned to Registrar of Contractors Inspector Bill Redman, and he conducted a job- site inspection on May 17th, 2000. 8. Following the job-site inspection, Inspector Redman issued a Corrective Work Order to the respondent on June 7th, 2000. The inspector ordered the respondent to make three corrections to the job within 15 calendar days of the date of the CWO, which were: “1. Replace cracked or loose tile by enterance [sic] to master bedroom. 2. Replace carpet in bedroom #2. 3. Restretch carpet in master bedroom.” 9. Inspector Redman also testified at the administrative hearing. He was unable to have performed a prehearing inspection due to the recent holidays and some difficulty he encountered with the complainant’s restrictive schedule. 10. However, the inspector did testify that he did not consider the area of the master bedroom where complainant saw a “miscut” and “plugged” area to be a defect. He noted that this was a seam line naturally occurring because carpet is manufactured in 12-feet lengths and this is where the carpet ended. Inspector Redman also reaffirmed his positions given in the CWO that the carpet in bedroom #2 needed replacement, and that the carpet in the master bedroom along the interior wall needed to be restretched. 11. Respondent gave evidence in the form of testimony by the owner, Mr. Bob Garringer. He also noted that carpet comes in 12-feet rolls, and the only option to having the seam line in the master bedroom where it was placed, was to have placed it all along the length of the room, which would have been more noticeable. 12. Mr. Garringer expressed his willingness to replace the carpet in bedroom #2, and to restretch the carpet in the master bedroom along the interior wall. Further, Mr. Garringer conceded that the seam line at the area in the master bedroom which is the subject of complainant’s complaint was, in fact, a poorly installed seam line, and he offered to correct that. 13. The parties agree that the respondent has replaced the broken tile. 14. Respondent made reasonable efforts to comply with the inspector’s CWO within the 15 calendar days of its allowance, but those efforts were frustrated by the complainant’s unavailability. 15. Notice is taken of the respondent’s prior license record with the Registrar of Contractors. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This administrative hearing was held under authority of and pursuant to A.R.S. §32-1156, and A.R.S. §41-1092. 2. The respondent is charged in the instant Citation and Complaint with possible violations of A.R.S. §32-1154.A.7., 23., and 3. 3. A.R.S. §32-1154.A.3. prohibits a licensed contractor from violating any rule adopted by the registrar. The rule referenced in the Citation and Complaint is A.A.C. R4-9-108, Workmanship Standards. The evidence supports a conclusion that the respondent’s workmanship in the installation of the carpet (mismatched colors, poor stretching and poor seam line) were below workmanship and industry standards. Respondent violated A.R.S. §32-1154.A.3. 4. A.R.S. §32-1154.A.23. prohibits a licensed contractor from failing to take appropriate corrective action to comply with the Arizona contractor laws without valid justification, within a reasonable period of time, after receiving a written directive from the registrar. The written directive in this case is the inspector’s CWO. Although respondent did not make the corrections within the 15-day time period allowed by the CWO, he had valid justification in that the complainant’s schedule was not amenable to his having access to make the corrections, despite his good efforts. Respondent did not violate A.R.S. §32-1154.A.23. 5. A.R.S. §32-1154.A.7. prohibits a licensed contractor from committing any wrongful or fraudulent act, as a contractor, that results in another person being substantially injured. There is no evidence that the respondent committed any fraud, and no evidence of any violation of this section independent of the violation of A.R.S. §32-1154.A.3, already concluded. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the respondent’s Class B License number 090905 shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives proof that the respondent has properly accomplished the corrective work listed in paragraphs numbered 2 and 3 of the Corrective Work Order, and has reseamed the carpet in the master bedroom to within minimum workmanship and industry standards. It is further recommended that if the respondent properly accomplishes the above described corrective action, on or before the effective date of this order, then the above provided license suspension shall not take place and Citation No. H00-0250 shall be closed. Done this day, January 18th, 2001.

________________________________ GRANT WINSTON Administrative Law Judge

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

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

By _______________________________

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 100 N. Stone Ave., Suite 704 Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 628-5488