ALJDEC

01F-C001241-BFS · Department of Building and Fire Safety · 2001-05-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: May 23, 2001 APPEARANCES: Tom and Elizabeth Winkler, Complainants in their own behalf Barbara Halloway, District Service Manager, on behalf of the Respondent ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Allen Reed _____________________________________________________________________ Findings of Fact 1. In approximately December, 1999, the Complainants purchased their double wide home, manufactured by the Respondent, through a dealership in Buckeye, Arizona. The cost of the home was approximately $70,000.00. 2. The Respondent manufactured the home in Glendale, Arizona and transported it to the Complainant’s property in Showlow, Arizona, in early January 2000. 3. After delivery and set up of the home, the Complainants noted several problems with the home and contacted the dealer as well as the Respondent . 4. All the problems cited by the Complainant were not satisfactorily resolved and the Complainants filed their complaint with the Department of Building and Fire Safety-Office of Manufactured Housing (Department), toward the end of the year 2000. 5. On December 18, 2000, and January 29, 2001, Department Inspector Dennis Butzen (Butzen), performed inspections at the home and issued Verified Complaints and Sign Off Forms. Most of the items which required correction were directed to the Respondent with two directed to the dealer. 6. The majority of the items which were assigned to the Respondent were corrected. However, four items were not timely completed. The items were an incorrect utility room faucet, an uneven countertop in the kitchen, cracks above the laundry room door and an uneven front door jamb causing the front door to rub. 7. The Department issued a Citation and Complaint on March 12, 2001. 8. The Complainant and Respondent settled the faucet and laundry room door issues financially and the front door was corrected. 9. The only remaining issue is the countertop. The Respondent tried to replace the countertop three times. One time it was too small another time it had defects, and the third time it broke. The fourth time the Respondent sent two of its cabinet makers to the Complainant’s home and they built the new countertop on site. Although there are no longer any undulations, the countertop is not exactly the same as what the Complainant took photographs of in a model home. A corner of the countertop does not overlap the cabinet corner quite as much as the model. The overhang of the edge of the countertop on the sink side is not as great as on the non sink side or as wide as shown in the photograph of the countertop in the model. The Complainant is apprehensive that water may go over the edge and be absorbed by the particleboard or other wise warp the countertop or cabinets. Conclusions of Law The Citation and Complaint alleges violations of A.R.S. §41-2186(1), failure to comply with the applicable law; (12), failure to respond to a verified complaint after notice; (19), failure to provide all agreed upon goods and services; and (20), failure to install in a workmanlike manner. 1. Although three of the items which were identified in the Citation and Complaint have been settled or corrected, it was done after the Citation and Complaint issued and therefore untimely. Based on this, technical violations of the cited statutory provisions have been proven but no sanction is recommended. 2. The only remaining issue is the kitchen countertop. The Respondent made a number of good faith attempts to correct it and the Complainant still believes it is not satisfactory. The hump and looseness cited by Butzen in the Verified Complaint, were corrected but the Complainant is concerned because the extension of the countertop over the edge of the cabinets is not the same for both sides of the kitchen counter. Based on the evidence, it is apparent that the countertop is not perfect or as exact as desired by the Complainant. However, there was no competent evidence that the replacement countertop is below any recognized workmanship or other applicable standard. The Complainant’s concern with possible water dripping over the edge of the countertop also applies to the edge which is extended a little further over the cabinets. The fact is that it is incumbent on the Complainant to keep water from running over the side of the countertop. In view of this, no further work is required on the kitchen countertop. 3. The small nail holes which are observable on the countertop brackets need to be filled in with the appropriate putty or similar cosmetic covering. The Respondent stated during the hearing that it will provide the appropriate covering and it is expected to do so. However the issue is not such that a conditional order is required. Recommended Order In view of the foregoing it is recommended that the Citation and Complaint upon which it is based, be closed.

Done this day, June 4, 2001

______________________________________ Allen Reed Administrative Law Judge

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

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

By ___________________________

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

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