ALJDEC

01F-L0225-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-10-25

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: October 16, 2001; at 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainants appeared through John Sylvester. The Respondent appeared through its attorney, Christopher Hossack. 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-37 License issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. This is a residential matter where the Respondent performed rough plumbing work on the Complainants’ new residence. 3. During the course of the construction of the residence, the Complainants developed a very invidious relationship with the general contractor. The relationship deteriorated to the point that the Complainants terminated the general contractor and the general contractor’s subcontractors from the job site and finished the project utilizing alternative contractors. 4. Credible evidence established that the Complainants’ very poor relationship with the general contractor carried over to the Complainants’ relationship with the Respondent. 5. After the residence was completed, the Complainants experienced numerous problems with the plumbing work in their residence and filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors. 6. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection. The assigned agency inspector visually inspected the listed items of the Complainants’ formal complaint and issued a written corrective work order directing the Respondent to perform corrective work on three items of the Complaint. 7. The Complainants disagreed with the assigned agency inspector’s actions and requested a formal hearing. 8. The Respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the written corrective work order. 9. The following items of the complaint and the written corrective work order were shown to have been performed by the Respondent during its rough plumbing work and to require proper corrective action by the Respondent: j) The overflow drain for the fire system on the north side of the residence is not properly secured within the exterior wall cavity. The Respondent shall properly secure the fire system and, utilizing a properly licensed contractor, cause any damage to the surrounding wall and/or interior drywall to be properly corrected. k) The east side and patio area exterior water bibs are not properly secured within the exterior walls. The Respondent shall properly secure the water bibs and, utilizing a properly licensed contractor, shall cause any damage to the surrounding wall area to be properly corrected. l) The shower heads are loose in the walls. The Respondent shall properly secure the loose shower heads and, utilizing a properly licensed contractor, shall cause any damage caused by the loose shower heads or work on the shower heads to be properly corrected. m) Credible evidence established that the Respondent did, as part of the rough plumbing work completed by the Respondent, install a rough drain near the kitchen-garage area of the residence and that the roof drain failed causing extensive water damage to the surrounding area. The Respondent shall properly replace the roof drain and, utilizing a properly licensed contractor, cause the interior water damage caused by the failed roof drain to be properly corrected. 14. The remaining items of the complaint were either shown to address areas that were beyond the scope of the Respondent’s rough plumbing and, consequently, were the responsibility of contractors other than the Respondent or were insufficiently proven to be workmanship deficiencies at the time of the hearing. 15. The Respondent’s actions, in installing a roof drain that failed and in failing to comply with the terms and conditions of a written corrective work order, are found to constitute a wrongful act. 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-37 License shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives proof that the Respondent has properly accomplished the proper correction of the items set forth above in Finding of Fact Nos. 10(a) through 10(d), inclusive. The Respondent is admonished that all corrective action beyond the scope of Respondent’s Class K-37 License including interior drywall, ceiling, floor and exterior wall repairs must be performed by a properly licensed contractor. It is further recommended that if the Respondent causes the proper accomplishment of 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. L01-0225 shall be closed. Done this day, October 30, 2001.

________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of October, 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