ALJDEC

02F-H0209-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2002-11-20

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: Tuesday, November 12th, 2002, 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: Complainants, Ms. Jennifer Stanfill and Mr. Jason Stanfill, appeared pro per. Respondent, Tile Importers, was represented by Mr. Robert Mannschreck, president. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Grant Winston. _____________________________________________________________________ The administrative hearing of this matter was held in the Office of Administrative Hearings, in Kingman, Arizona. Testimony was heard and other evidence admitted to the record, and, based on the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent herein, Tile Importers, is, and during all time material hereto was, a contractor, licensed by and doing business in the State of Arizona, holding Class B- License number 126186. 2. Complainants purchased their new home in Kingman, Arizona, in late 1999, or early 2000, and took possession of it March 27th, 2000. Respondent was the subcontractor who installed the carpet in complainants’ home. 3. In this complaint filed March 8th, 2002, complainants stated that the carpet was “unsatisfactory.” Specifically, complainants mentioned in the complaint that the carpet was progressively “unraveling,” and “mashings [sic] badly,” and has “areas all over that look flatened [sic].” “The carpet looks like it is years old.” 4. Respondent had an inspection of the carpet performed by a consultant. The inspection report is in evidence. It states that the unraveled or damaged carpet at the transitions is a problem related to the installation process. The consultant’s report also concluded that the carpet had been inadequately stretched. The report refrained from drawing any conclusions as to what was causing the tufts of carpet to come out, and stated it occurred post-installation, and was therefore a consumer-related issue, and not a manufacturing defect. 5. The complaint was assigned to Registrar of Contractors Inspector William Redman who conducted a job-site inspection on March 25th, 2002. He filed his Corrective Work Order which he issued to respondent on March 26th, 2002. In it he directed the respondent to replace the entire carpet as “Carpet pile crushing is severe.” The CWO allowed respondent 15 calendar days to perform the corrective work, which was a reasonable amount of time. 6. Respondent has failed to replace the carpet, believing that the problem is not with the manufacture or installation of the carpet. 7. The evidence shows that complainants had treated the carpet in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations, and had been properly and regularly cleaning the carpet. 8. It appears from the greater weight of evidence that the carpet had failed through no fault of complainants, and ought to be replaced as ordered by the inspector. 9. Notice is taken of the respondent’s prior license record with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This administrative hearing was held under authority of and in accordance with A.R.S. §32-1156, and A.R.S. §41-1092. 2. Respondent is charged in the instant citation and complaint with possible violations of A.R.S. §32-1154.A.7., 23., and 3. 3. A.R.S. §32-1154.A.3. prohibits a licensed contractor from violating any rule adopted by the registrar. The rule cited in this citation and complaint is A.A.C. R4-9-108, Workmanship Standards. The workmanship standard for carpet requires replacement of new carpet if severe pile crushing persists after 90 days, as was the case here. Additionally, this carpet was coming unraveled through no fault of complainants. Respondent clearly violated A.A.C. R4-9-108, and therefore violated A.R.S. §32-1154.A.3. 4. A.R.S. §32-1154.A.23. prohibits a licensed contractor from failing to take appropriate corrective action to comply with the contractor laws of the State of Arizona, without valid justification, within a reasonable amount of time, after receiving a written directive from the registrar to do so. The written directive in this case was the inspector’s CWO, and it allowed a reasonable amount of time for respondent to replace the carpet. Respondent had no valid justification for refusing to perform under the CWO. Therefore, respondent violated A.R.S. §32-1154.A.23. 5. A.R.S. §32-1154.A.7. prohibits a licensed contractor from engaging in any wrongful or fraudulent act as a contractor which results in another person being substantially injured. There is no evidence of any violation of this statute by the respondent independent of the violations already concluded to have occurred. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that respondent’s Class B License Number 126186 be suspended until such time as the registrar receives written proof that respondent has properly accomplished the work set forth in the inspector’s Corrective Work Order. It is further recommended that if the respondent properly accomplishes the above-described corrective work, on or before the effective date of this order (40 days after the date of service shown by the registrar’s certification on the order) then the above-provided license suspension shall not take place, and Citation and Complaint number H02-0209 shall be closed. . . . . . . Done this day, November 22nd, 2002.

________________________________ GRANT WINSTON Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of November, 2002, to:

Michael P. Goldwater, Director Registrar of Contractors ATTN: Joyce Armijo 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By ____________________________

-----------------------