ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

03F-2038-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2004-04-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: March 25, 2004. APPEARANCES: The Complainant, Carlos Alba, appeared personally. The Respondent, Raul Ortiz Salgado doing business as Star Cooling and Heating, appeared through its owner and qualifying party. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ 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 License No. 155908, a Class C-39R contracting license, issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. Respondent was hired by Complainant to install a new air conditioning unit on the roof of Complainant’s residence. 3. As a result of Respondent’s workmanship, Complainant’s roof developed water leaks. 4. Complainant filed a written complaint against Respondent with the Registrar of Contractors. 5. In response to the filed complaint, John Clark, the original Registrar of Contractors’ inspector, performed a jobsite inspection to view the complaint items. 6. Following that inspection, Inspector Clark issued a Corrective Work Order directing Respondent to properly repair ceiling patches. He did not require Respondent to take any action on any of the other complaint items. 7. In September 2003, another jobsite inspection was performed, that time by Inspector Mel Purchase. 8. As a result of the September 2003 inspection, Inspector Purchase issued another Corrective Work Order directing Respondent to correct all roof leaks using a properly licensed contractor and to cause a properly licensed contractor to remove all damaged drywall and replace, tape, texture and paint the affected areas in Complainant’s family room and dining room. 9. Inspector Purchase testified that Complainant’s kitchen floor is damaged, however he could not determine who or what caused the damage to the aged floor. Complainant failed to credibly establish that the damage was caused by Respondent’s workmanship. 10. Complainant testified that Respondent has repaired the roof at least three times. He expressed frustration at Respondent’s workmanship. 11. Although Respondent is and has been willing to hire appropriately licensed contractors to make the required repairs, he has been denied access by Complainant. 12. It is determined that Complainant should be afforded one last opportunity to grant access to his residence so that properly licensed contractors hired by Respondent can perform the remedial repairs required. Complainant shall not be required to cause properly licensed contractors to perform the ordered repairs as a condition imposed on his license if Complainant unreasonably denies the properly licensed contractors and Respondent access to his residence. 13. Respondent’s deficient workmanship is found to have substantially injured Complainant, as established by the two Corrective Work Orders. However, Complainant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the damage to his floor and personal items was caused by Respondent’s deficient workmanship.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Registrar of Contractors has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the Respondent in this case. 2. Pursuant to A. A.C. R2-19-119, the Complainant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the allegations that Respondent committed the statutory violations as cited in the Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 3. The evidence of record is adequate to establish that Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(7) and (3); namely A.A.C. R4-9-108. 4. The evidence of record does not establish that Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2). There is no credible evidence that Respondent departed from or disregarded any plans, specifications or building codes. 5. The evidence of record does not establish that Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended commencing on the effective date of the entered Order in this matter that Respondent’s License No. 155908 be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives written proof that Respondent has complied with the remedial repairs required by the Registrar’s two Corrective Work Orders. It is further recommended in addition to the foregoing indefinite license suspension, if any, that Respondent’s License No. 155908 be placed on probation for a period of 90 days commencing on the effective date of the entered Order in this matter or the date on which notice of Respondent’s proper compliance with the terms of the effective Ordered entered in this matter is filed with the Registrar of Contractors, whichever is later.

Done this day, April 13, 2004

______________________________________ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2004, to:

Israel G. Torres, Director Registrar of Contractors ATTN: Jennifer Brown 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By ___________________________ -----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826