ALJDEC

00F-T0241-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2000-04-14

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: April 12, 2000, at 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on his own behalf and the Respondent appeared on his own behalf. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas _____________________________________________________________________

This matter came on for hearing on April 12, 2000. The Complainant appeared on his own behalf and the Respondent appeared on his own behalf. Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent is the holder of a Class C-61 License issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. This is a residential matter where the Respondent entered into an oral agreement to remodel the Complainant’s existing covered patio into an “Arizona” room for a sum of money that was undisputedly more than $750.00. Since the parties were personal friends no written agreement was utilized. 3. After the Respondent started construction of the addition, the parties began to have repeated sharp personal confrontations at the job-site as to what items were to be included in the agreement and what items were to be extras. 4. The parties personal relationship deteriorated rapidly to the point where both parties demonstrated an inability to effectively communicate with each other. 5. The parties were unable to agree as to what items required completion under their oral agreement and the Complainant filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors. 6. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection. The assigned agency inspector was unable to decide which version of the oral agreement was valid. However, the assigned agency inspector issued a written corrective work order directing the Respondent to properly complete or correct items that had been started on the Complainant’s residence. 7. The Respondent did not comply with the terms and conditions of the written corrective work order within the time period set forth in the corrective work order. 8. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, did establish that the Respondent did offer to perform the directed corrective action after the time period had expired and that the Complainant denied access to the Respondent. 9. There was no credible evidence presented to establish which version of the parties’ oral agreement was correct. However, the following items were shown to have been either started or caused to be started by, and to require proper completion or correction by, the Respondent. j) The Respondent shall obtain a permit, inspection and final approval of the local building authority for the enclosure of the back porch into a habitable room. The Respondent should not have started the construction project until he ensured that a permit had been obtained. k) The Respondent shall properly complete the alcove where a window was removed. l) The Respondent, utilizing a properly licensed contractor, shall cause the electrical installation to be properly corrected and completed so that it functions properly. m) The Respondent shall properly correct the small dent in the sliding door. n) The Respondent shall properly complete all caulking on the project. 15. The instant record failed to establish any grounds to justify a departure from a long-standing policy of the Registrar of Contractors to allow a contractor a reasonable opportunity, after a hearing, to correct any determined deficiencies in his work. The Complainant is admonished that any unreasonable denial of access may be treated as the substantial equivalence of compliance. 16. The Respondent’s actions in failing to utilize a written agreement for a construction project over $750.00 are found to be in violation of A.R.S. §32-1158 and to constitute a wrongful act. 17. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior License record with the Registrar of Contractors. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The credible evidence of record established violations by the Respondent of the provisions of A.R.S. (32-1154 (A) (7) (Wrongful Act), (23) and (3); namely, Rule R4-9-108. 2. A.R.S. (32-1158(A) provides, in part as follows: “From and after December 31, 1992, any contract in an amount of more than seven hundred fifty dollars and less than one hundred fifty thousand dollars entered into between a contractor and the owner of a property to be improved shall contain in writing at least the following information…” (See A.R.S. (32-1158(A)(1 through 8). RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class C-61 License shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives proof that the Respondent has properly caused the accomplishment of the corrective action set forth above in Finding of Fact Nos. 9(a) through 9(e), inclusive. 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. T00-0241 shall be closed. . . . . . . Done this day, April 20, 2000.

______________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of April, 2000, 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