ALJDEC

01F-L0217-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-10-26

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: October 18, 2001; at 8:30 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on his own behalf. 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 KB-02 License issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. This is a residential matter where the Respondent installed marble type tile in the Complainant’s entryway and hallway. 3. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the appearance of the marble type tile and with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to correct its work to the Complainant’s satisfaction despite repeated requests that it do so. The Complainant then 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 Complainant’s residence. 5. The written corrective work order provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “1. Respondent should properly remove and repair any grout damage to front door and hardware. 2. Polished marble flooring is a natural stone product with inherent visual features such as unusual grain, fissures, cracks and discolorations, etc. These features should not be considered as defects. Structural surface cracks that can be seen from a standing position without the use of extra or unusual artificial light and or can be felt by the fingernail are to be considered defective and should be properly replaced. 3. Marble floor tile alignment and lippage appeared to be within industry standards. No contractor action required.” 6. The assigned agency inspector testified that he conducted a pre-hearing inspection and that he found that there were over twenty (20) tiles which were broken and required proper removal and replacement. The inspector also found that there was an alignment problem with one row of tile and that there were grout joints that varied in width beyond applicable industry tolerances and that require proper correction. The inspector testified that he found more problems at the pre-hearing inspection because he was able to conduct the inspection under natural light and the Complainant was present to point out his complaints regarding the tile flooring. 7. Credible evidence established that the cleaning company that was retained by the Respondent inadvertently stripped the factory polish from the floor tiles while it was removing the Teflon grout that Respondent had inadvertently smeared on the floor tile during its installation. 8. Credible testimony established that there is still grout damage on the front door and front door hardware. 9. Credible testimony and evidence established that the tile floor does not comply with applicable industry standards and requires proper repair or replacement. The Respondent shall remove and replace all cracked floor tile and all misaligned floor tile. The Respondent shall correct all grout joints and cause the original polish of the floor to be restored. If the Respondent cannot obtain an acceptable color and texture match in the replacement floor tile, as determined by applicable industry standards, or if the Respondent cannot restore the original polish to the floor tile, then the Respondent shall cause the entire tile floor in the entryway and hallway be removed and replaced. 10. The Respondent shall cause the grout to be properly removed from the front door and front door hardware. 11. 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. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class KB-02 License shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives proof that the Respondent has properly repaired or replaced the Complainant’s marble type tile floor and properly removed the tile grout from the front door and front door hardware as set forth above in Finding of Fact Nos. 9 and 10. 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. L01-0217 shall be closed. Done this day, November 1, 2001.

________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of November, 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