ALJDEC

01F-A012021-BFS · Department of Building and Fire Safety · 2002-03-28

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: March 22, 2002; at 8:30 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Appellant appeared on her own behalf. The Respondent appeared through its authorized representative, John Bryan. 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 I-10C License (No. 6937) issued by the Department of Building and Fire Safety. 2. There was no dispute that the Respondent moved and installed the Appellant’s manufactured residence on or about June 25, 2001. 3. Shortly after re-occupying the newly installed manufactured residence, the Appellants found several areas of unsatisfactory workmanship and filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Arizona Department of Building and Fire Safety, Office of Manufactured Housing. 4. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned agency inspector conducted an on-site inspection and verified portions of the formal complaint. 5. The Appellant disagreed with the assigned inspector’s failure to verify item Nos. 2, 8, and 10a of the complaint and requested a formal hearing regarding these items. 6. Item No. 2 of the Verified Complaint provides as follows: “Awning cut with no authorization: NOT VERIFIED. Statement.” 7. There was no dispute that the awning was cut. The Appellant asserts that it was without her authorization. The Respondent produced credible testimony that established that the Appellant’s on-site representative, the Appellant’s son, gave authorization to cut the awning. There was insufficient credible evidence presented to support a finding that the assigned agency inspector’s action in not verifying this item was in error. 8. Item No. 8 of the Verified Complaint provides as follows: “Shed- complete loss (not replaced). NOT VERIFIED. NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY. “ 9. There was no dispute that the Respondent did move the Appellant’s shed nor was there any dispute that the Appellant’s shed was damaged during its move. However, there was no credible testimony presented to establish that the Department would have any statutory authority regarding the moving of the Appellant’s shed. Additionally, credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the Appellant has already received an agreed upon credit for $150.00 for the damaged shed and damaged porch. 10. There was no credible evidence presented to support a finding that the assigned agency inspector’s action in not verifying item No. 8 was in error. 11. Item No. 10a of the Verified Complaint provides as follows: “Front porch-complete loss: NOT VERIFIED.” 12. Credible testimony and evidence, presented at hearing established that the Respondent did move the porch and that it was disassembled for the move and damaged during the move and that the damage was included in the $150.00 offset given to the Appellant. 13. There was no dispute that the Appellant has now utilized the porch as the floor for her new shed. 14. There was no credible evidence presented to support a finding that the assigned inspector’s action in not verifying item No. 10a was in error. 15. There was no dispute that the items of the complaint at issue which were verified by the assigned agency inspector have been corrected to within minimum applicable tolerances. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The credible evidence of record failed to establish that the assigned agency inspector’s actions in failing to verify items 2, 8, and 10a of the verified complaint were in error and failed to establish any violations, by the Respondent, of the charged code provisions. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Appellant’s appeal be denied and that Case No. AAA 01-2/021, together with the Complaint upon which it is based, be closed. Done this day, April 4, 2002.

________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of April, 2002, to:

N. Eric Borg, Director Department of Building and Fire Safety ATTN: Shawna Blank East Virginia, Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85004

By _______________________________ -----------------------

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