ALJDEC

01F-C012071-BFS · Department of Building and Fire Safety · 2001-11-01

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: October 25, 2001; at 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainants appeared through Patricia Riley. The Respondent appeared through its authorized representative, Mark Brill. 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 D-12 (No. 4423) License issued by the Department of Building and Fire Safety. 2. The Complainants purchased a manufactured residence and the home was installed on June 7, 2000. 3. Shortly after moving into the manufactured residence, the Complainants began noticing several areas of unsatisfactory workmanship. 4. The Complainants were dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to correct its work despite repeated requests that it do so. The Complainants then filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Arizona Department of Building and Fire Safety, Office of Manufactured Housing. 5. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned agency inspector conducted an on-site inspection and verified portions of the formal complaint. 6. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the parties have developed an adversarial relationship during the course of corrective work and that the parties could not agree on the corrective action that would be necessary to satisfy item one of the verified complaint. 7. There was no dispute that the rear door was listed on the customer signed dealer option sheet as a house-type door with a dead bolt. However, the parties were in sharp dispute as to whether the house-type door should be an inward opening door or an outward opening door. 8. The Complainants testified that the Respondent’s employee promised that the rear house-type door would be an outward opening door. The parties’ written contract does not specify whether the door should be inward or outward opening. 9. Credible testimony, produced at hearing, established that had the house- type door with a dead bolt been installed at the factory it would have been an inward opening door. 10. The parties’ written agreement requires the Respondent to install a house-type door with a dead bolt in the rear of the residence. The Respondent shall install an inward opening house-type door with a dead bolt of the same type and quality that would have been installed at the factory had the Respondent properly placed the order to do with the manufacturer. 11. There was no dispute that the electrical box under the sink requires replacement. The Respondent shall properly replace the electrical box. 12. There was no dispute that the hallway floor is uneven just below the carpet line. The Respondent shall properly correct the floor and properly re-install the carpet in the hallway. 13. The parties displayed a great deal of difficulty in scheduling corrective work. The Respondent shall give the Complainants at least 72 hours’ notice of any date selected to do the required corrective action on the residence. If the selected date is unacceptable the Complainants shall, within 24 hours, give the Respondent an alternative date where access to perform the corrective action will be granted. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A.R.S. § 41-2186(7) subjects a licensee’s License to sanction for a departure from or disregard of any code or any rule adopted by the board. 2. A.R.S. § 41-2186(12) subjects a licensee’s License to sanction for a failure to respond relative to a verified complaint after notice of such complaint. 3. A.R.S. § 41-2186(20) subjects a licensee’s License to sanction if the licensee fails to manufacture or install, in a workmanlike manner, all subassemblies, units and accessory structures which are suitable for their intended purpose. 4. The credible evidence of record established violations, by the Respondent, of the provisions of A.R.S. § 41-2186(7),(12) and (20). RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class D-12 License (No. 4423) be suspended for a period of 15 days commencing on January 5, 2002. It is further recommended that if the Respondent properly accomplishes the proper correction of the items set forth above in Finding of Fact Nos. 10, 11, and 12, inclusive, then the above provided License suspension shall not take place and that Citation No. 01-2/071 shall be closed. ‘ Done this day, November 8, 2001.

________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of November, 2001, 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