ALJDEC

01F-T0268-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2001-05-22

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: May 3, 2001; at 8:30 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainants appeared through Kenneth Starr. The Respondent appeared through its attorney, Neal Eckel. 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 B- License issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. This is a residential matter where the Respondent constructed a new residence for the Complainants. The Complainants have paid approximately $1,300,000.00 for the residence. 3. The Complainants were dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to correct its work to their satisfaction despite repeated requests that it do so. The Complainants 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 lengthy written corrective work order directing the Respondent to perform designated corrective work on the Complainants’ residence. 5. Apparently, in light of the fact that Complainants purchased an expensive home, and in view of their written agreement with the Respondent, the complainants expect perfection in the construction of their home. Contrary to Complainants’ position, the Registrar of Contractors does not apply perfection standards when judging workmanship. The same industry standards are to be applied whether the home is an expensive home or a “lower-end” home and that standard, as applied by the Registrar, is whether the workmanship involved is within applicable industry standards for good and proper workmanship. 6. Credible evidence, produced at hearing, established that the Respondent had made extensive efforts to comply with the terms and conditions of the corrective work order and that a great deal of the items set forth in the corrective work order had been corrected to within applicable workmanship standards. However, credible evidence established that the corrective work order has not been substantially complied with. The following items were shown to still require proper corrective action by the Respondent: g) The Respondent shall cause the proper completion of the re-vegetation and restoration of the Complainants’ yard which was damaged during the installation of the leach field. h) Much of the sleeving that was installed in the Complainants’ yard has been lost and cannot be located. The Respondent shall, as restitution, reimburse the Complainants for the reasonable cost of the lost sleeving in the sum of $1,000.00. i) The Respondent shall cause a properly licensed contractor to inspect the termite barrier around the Complainants’ residence and obtain a verification of the integrity of the termite barrier. The Respondent shall cause whatever corrective action is deemed necessary to obtain the verification. j) Credible evidence established that there are assorted construction related stains on the gym floor. The Respondent shall cause the gym floor to be properly repaired or replaced. k) Credible evidence established that the Respondent has agreed to properly correct the driveway cracks, oil stains, and assorted deterioration. The Respondent shall comply with its agreement and shall cause the driveway to be properly corrected. l) Credible evidence established that the Respondent has agreed to properly replace the patched granite slab alongside the cook top. The Respondent shall comply with its agreement and shall cause the patched granite slab to be properly corrected. m) The pulse function on the J-shower does not function. The Respondent shall cause the J-shower to be properly repaired or replaced. n) Credible evidence established that the east driveway fails to comply with applicable plans and specifications. The Respondent shall cause the east driveway to be properly corrected or replaced to comply with applicable plans and specifications. o) Credible evidence established that the noise from the pool self- leveling mechanism exceeds applicable industry tolerances. The Respondent shall retain a properly licensed contractor and cause the noise problem to be properly corrected. p) There are still paint drops and splatters on the metal gates. The Respondent shall cause the drops and splatters to be properly removed or the gates to be properly repainted or replaced. q) The corrected areas around the window weep holes require proper touch- up. The Respondent shall cause the areas around the window weep holes to be properly corrected. 18. The remaining items of dispute presented at hearing were shown to have been corrected to within applicable industry and workmanship standards. 19. The Respondent’s failure to follow plans and specifications in the construction of the east driveway and in its failure to install the first leach field in accordance with applicable code provisions, are found to constitute a wrongful act. 20. 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 B- License shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives proof that the Respondent has properly caused the accomplishment of the corrective action set forth above in Finding of Fact Nos. 6(a) through 6(k), inclusive. 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. T01-0268 shall be closed. Done this day, May 24, 2001.

________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of May, 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