ALJDEC

00F-T1024-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-04-11

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: April 10, 2001; at 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainants appeared through Elaine Bastardo. The Respondent appeared on his own behalf. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas _____________________________________________________________________ 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 K-05 License issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. This is a residential matter where the Respondent installed an artificial turf putting green in the Complainants’ rear yard. The Complainants were dissatisfied with the appearance and utility of the new putting green and requested the Respondent to correct it to their satisfaction. 3. When the Respondent failed to correct the putting green to their satisfaction, the Complainants filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors. 4. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection and issued a written corrective work order directing the Respondent to perform designated corrective work on the Complainants’ residence. 5. The Respondent then examined the putting green personally and decided that the putting green met industry standards and declined to perform any corrective action other than putting a long nail in the turf to anchor it. 6. The Complainants now assert that the artificial turf must be corrected to their satisfaction and that the only way that they will be satisfied is if the Respondent’s work is removed and that the artificial putting green is replaced by an alternative contractor of their choice. 7. Construction work, such as that at issue herein, is not a perfect science and it is not uncommon in the industry to have corrections, repairs, or replacements of resultant poor workmanship prior or subsequent to completion of a specified project, in order to bring the final work product up to appropriate industry standards. In this regard, a contractor should be given a reasonable opportunity to complete necessary remedial work. 8. The parties are admonished that the Registrar of Contractors does not apply perfection standards when judging workmanship. The industry standard that is applied is whether the workmanship involved is within minimum industry standards for good and proper workmanship. 9. Although Complainants’ concerns, frustrations, and aggravation regarding the problems they have experienced with the construction of their new artificial putting green are understandable, construction work, such as that at issue herein, is not a perfect science and it is not uncommon in the industry to have corrections, repairs, or replacements of resultant poor workmanship prior or subsequent to completion of a specified project, in order to bring the final work product up to appropriate industry standards. 10. In view of the obviously strained personal relationship between the parties both the Complainants and the Respondent are formally admonished that the workmanship standards to be utilized are applicable workmanship standards not the personal standards of the Complainants or the personal standards of the Respondent. 11. The Complainants are further admonished that any unreasonable denial of access to the Respondent may be treated as the substantial equivalence of compliance. 12. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the artificial turf putting green fails to comply with applicable workmanship standards and that the following items require proper correction by the Respondent: m) A seam in the artificial turf is unraveling. The Respondent shall properly correct the unacceptable seam. n) The artificial turf has either shrunk from the surrounding brick or it was cut too short and is pulling away from the surrounding brick. The Respondent shall properly repair or replace the artificial turf. o) The location of the “pins” (holes) in the artificial turf prevents putting from all directions. The Respondent shall properly relocate the pins as per the Complainants’ direction. 16. 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) (23) and (3); namely, Rule R4-9- 108. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class K-05 License shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives proof that the Respondent has properly caused the performance of the corrective action set forth above in Finding of Fact Nos. 12 (a) through 12(c), 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. T00-1024 shall be closed. . . . . . . . . . Done this day, April 23, 2001.

________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of April, 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