ALJDEC

01F-L0240-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-10-26

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: October 19, 2001; at 8:30 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on her 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 C-41 License issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. This is a residential matter where the Complainant was having problems with her septic system and contacted the Respondent and requested that the Respondent pump her septic system and resolve her plumbing problems. 3. The Respondent testified that he located, and uncovered, the inlet end of the septic tank exposing a “home made” access cover which broke when disturbed. 4. The Respondent testified that he then pumped liquid matter out of the septic tank and cleaned the flow line. The Respondent then stopped work on the project with the intent to return the next day. 5. The Complainant testified that the Complainant broke the cover of her septic and did nothing to resolve the problems she was experiencing with her septic system. 6. Both parties agreed that they had a disagreement at the job-site and that neither party wanted to continue a working relationship with the other. 7. The Respondent then returned to the Complainant’s residence and gave the Complainant an invoice for $100.00 for the work that he had performed and the Complainant paid him. 8. The Complainant then retained an alternative entity to pump her septic system and clean her plumbing lines. 9. The Complainant felt that the Respondent performed no real work at her residence and left her with a broken septic tank lid. When the Respondent refused to return her money the Complainant filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors. 10. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection. The assigned agency inspector could find no evidence of workmanship violations and moved to close the complaint. 11. The Complainant disagreed with the assigned agency inspector’s actions and requested a formal hearing. 12. Although the parties displayed a very antagonistic relationship at the hearing, the credible evidence or record failed to establish any workmanship violations by the Respondent. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The credible evidence of record failed to establish any violations, by the Respondent, of the charged provisions of A.R.S. §32-1154(A).

. . .

. . . RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Citation No. L01- 0240, together with the Complaint upon which it is based, be dismissed. Done this day, November 6, 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