ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

05F-S0220-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2005-11-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: October 14, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on her own behalf. The Respondent appeared through its authorized representative, Gregory Tarrant. 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 Recommendation 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 Complainant entered into an Agreement for the construction of an addition to the Complainant’s residence and the remodeling of the Complainant’s existing residence for under $20,000.00. 3. There was no dispute as of the date of the hearing the Complainant had paid over $22,000.00 for the unfinished construction project. 4. The person who performed most the work on the partially completed construction project was Sanford Ratliff. There was no dispute that Mr. Ratliff is not a licensed contractor in the State of Arizona nor was there any dispute that Mr. Ratliff is not an employee of the Respondent. 5. Credible testimony and evidence, presented at hearing, established Mr. Ratliff represented himself as being the Respondent’s construction foreman and utilized the Respondent’s License number to obtain a permit for the construction project. 6. The Respondent’s qualifying party admitted he knew about the construction project and allowed Mr. Ratliff to utilize his contractor’s license to obtain a building permit for the construction project. 7. The Respondent’s qualifying party admitted to performing “corrective” framing work on the residence. 8. Credible testimony and evidence, presented at hearing, established the Respondent knowingly allowed its license number to be utilized by an unlicensed person to perform construction work on the Complainant’s residence. 9. Credible testimony and evidence established the Respondent and the unlicensed person entered into an agreement wherein the unlicensed person was allowed to utilize the Respondent’s contractor’s license to complete the construction project in exchange for a percentage of the money earned from the construction project. 10. The Respondent became increasingly concerned about the poor work that was being performed at the Complainant’s residence and finally caused the unlicensed person to pull the construction permit obtained with its contractor’s license. 11. The Complainant then contacted the Respondent directly and demanded the Respondent correct and complete the construction work on her residence. 12. When the Respondent refused to comply with the Complainant’s repeated demands to complete and correct the construction project, the Complainant filed a formal Complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors. 13. 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 Complainant’s residence. 14. The written Corrective Work Order provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “Contractor to correct, repair or replace the following by appropriate means: “2. Complete contract. 3. Any and all roofing. 4. Any and all electrical. 5. Any and all doors and windows. 6. Any and all trim. 7. Any and all soffits. 8. Any and all flashing. 9. Complete back room. 10. Any and all out of plumb walls. 11. Any and all overhang. 12. Any and all crickets. 13. Any and all roof supports. 14. Any and all moisture barrier. 15. Any and all missing siding. 16. Any and all damaged siding. 17. Nail any and all siding. 18. Any and all workmanship that does not meet standards. 19. Any and all plywood. 20. Roof needs to be nailed. 21. Any and all out of square roof decking. 22. Any and all flashing. 23. Roof needs to be secured. 24. Any and all roofing. 25. Support any and all roofing. 26. Any and all roof drainage. 27. Any and all doors. 28. Garage door. 29. Any and all damage to door. 30. Any and all missing doors. 31. Any and all headers. 32. Any and all improperly cut siding. 33. Any and all windows. 34. Any and all flashing. 35. Any and all flashing. 36. Crack in toilet. 37. Any and all cracked grout. 38. Outlet above washbasin. 39. Backfill septic. 40. Cut phone line. 41. Cut water line. 42. Any and all bricks and footings. 43. Hole in siding. 44. Any and all damaged roof. 45. Complete contract.” 15. There was no dispute that the terms and conditions have not been complied with that were listed in the written Corrective Work Order. 16. Credible testimony and evidence, presented at hearing, established the construction work performed on the Complainant’s residence is simply abysmal, fails to comply with applicable plans and specifications, and workmanship and industry standards. 17. The Respondent’s actions, in knowingly allowing its license number to be utilized by an unlicensed person, aiding and abetting an unlicensed person to evade the State’s contracting laws, and in allowing work to be performed under its license which failed to comply with applicable industry and workmanship standards, are found to constitute a wrongful act. 18. 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) (1) (Abandonment of a contract or refusal to perform) (2) (Departure from or disregard of plans or specifications) (7) (Wrongful Act), (10) (Aiding or abetting an unlicensed person to evade the provisions of this chapter) (23) (Failure to take appropriate corrective action) and (3); namely, Rule R4-9-108 (Failure to perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner).

RECOMMENDation In view of the foregoing, it is recommended commencing on the effective date of the Registrar’s Order the Respondent’s Class B- License be revoked unless the Registrar of Contractors receives proof the Respondent has properly complied with the terms and conditions of the written Corrective Work Order issued in this matter. 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 revocation not take place. Instead, the Respondent’s Class B- License be actively suspended for a period of fifteen (15) days and, after the 15 days, be placed on disciplinary probation for a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days. It is further recommended, in addition to the above-provided penalties, if any, the Respondent pay the sum of $500.00 to the Registrar of Contractors by way of a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. §32-1154D. The failure by Respondent to pay the entire amount of the aforesaid civil penalty, on or before 30 days following the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, shall result in the automatic revocation of Respondent’s contractor’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. §32-1101A (5), unless payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty is tendered. In the event of certification of this Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be 40 days from the date of the certification. Done this day, October 26, 2005.

______________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ Day of ____________, 2005, to:

Registrar of Contractors Israel G. Torres ATTN: Alicia Guerra 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

By ___________________________

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 100 North Stone Avenue, Suite 704 Tucson, Arizona 85704 (520) 628-5488