ALJDEC

01F-T0195-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-02-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: February 9, 2001; at 8:30 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on her own behalf. The Respondent appeared through its attorney James West. 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-05 License issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. This is a residential matter where the Respondent installed new granite countertops in the Complainant’s kitchen. 3. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to correct its work to her satisfaction despite repeated requests that it do so. During the course of construction, and after, the parties developed a very strained relationship. 4. When the Complainant was unable to get the Respondent to perform the desired corrective action. The Complainant filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors. 5. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection. The assigned agency inspector found the Respondent’s workmanship to be within minimum industry standards and moved to close the case. 6. The Complainant strongly disagreed with the said inspector’s findings and asked for a formal hearing. 7. The Complainant testified at the hearing and is obviously very unhappy with the Respondent’s workmanship and the Complainant produced a letter from an alternative contractor, a competitor of the Respondent’s, wherein the alternative contractor indicated that the countertop installation failed to met the alternative contractor’s standards. 8. The assigned agency inspector also testified at the hearing and, again, stated that the Respondent’s workmanship was within applicable minimum industry standards for such work. 9. The Complainant asserted that “minimum” industry standards should not apply to the project as she should be able to expect her new granite tops to meet her level of satisfaction rather than a lesser one applied by the assigned agency inspector. 10. Construction work, such as that at issue herein, is not a perfect science the standard to the Registrar of Contractors utilizes to determine the acceptability of construction work is the objective standard of minimum workmanship standards and applicable industry standards rather than the individual standards of the licensed Contractor/Respondent or a Homeowner/Complainant. 11. There was no credible evidence presented to establish that the Respondent’s construction work in the Complainant’s residence failed to comply with applicable minimum workmanship standards and/or applicable industry standards. On the contrary, credible evidence established that the Respondent’s workmanship on the granite countertops is within all applicable minimum workmanship standards and that it complies with all applicable industry standards. There is no credible evidence of record that the parties entered into any type of agreement for the Respondent’s workmanship to exceed minimum workmanship standards and/or applicable industry standards. 12. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior License record with the Registrar of Contractors. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Complainant has brought this complaint and accordingly bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegations contained therein are true. Culpepper v. State, 187 Ariz. 431, 930 P.2d 508 (Ct. App. 1996), Smith v. Arizona Department of Transportation, 146 Ariz. 430, 706 P.2d 756 (App. 1985) (the standard of proof is that of the “preponderance of evidence”). 2. The Complainant failed to sustain the required burden of proving the charges set forth in the complaint by a preponderance of relevant, substantial and probative evidence and, consequently, the credible evidence of record does not support any findings that the Respondent has violated the charged provisions of A.R.S. §32-1154(A). RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing, and in light of the lack of prosecution by the Complainant, it is recommended that Citation No. T01-0195, together with the complaint upon which it is based, be dismissed. Done this day, February 14, 2001.

________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of February, 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