ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

06F-2066-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2007-04-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: March 27, 2007. APPEARANCES: Heidi Denton appeared personally. Robert Lee Jones did not appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________ Based upon the evidence of record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Robert Lee Jones, doing business as Canyon Roofing and Repair (“Respondent”), is the holder of License No. 180382, a Class K-42 contracting license issued by the Registrar of Contactors. 2. Heidi and Brad Denton (“Complainants”) hired Respondent to perform roof contracting at their residence to repair a roof leak. 3. After Respondent performed the repairs to Complainants’ roof, the roof leaked again in the same location after the first rain storm. 4. Complainants filed a written complaint with the Registrar of Contractors alleging statutory and regulatory violations by Respondent. 5. In response to the filed complaint, the Registrar of Contractors issued a Citation and Complaint is Case No. 06-2066 alleging possible violations by Respondent of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(1),(7) and (3), specifically A.A.C. R4-9-108. 6. Respondent failed to timely file his Answer to the Citation and Complaint. As a result, the Registrar of Contractors filed a default Decision and Order provisionally suspending Respondent’s contracting license until he performed appropriate remedial repairs to Complainants’ roof. 7. Respondent later filed a notice with the Registrar of Contractors claiming that Complainants denied him reasonable access to perform the required repairs in order to avoid the indefinite license suspension. 8. As a result of Respondent’s claim that he was denied access to perform the required repairs, the Registrar of Contractors referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent agency, for a compliance hearing. A Notice of Compliance Hearing was issued by the Registrar of Contractors and sent to the parties at their respective addresses of record with it. 9. The commencement of the compliance hearing was delayed approximately minutes to allow for the late arrival of Respondent or an attorney authorized to represent him. The Administrative Law Judge then conducted the compliance hearing in Respondent’s absence. 10. By his default in appearance at the compliance hearing, Respondent failed to present any evidence to support his contention that Complainants denied him access to comply with the Registrar of Contractors’ Decision and Order. 11. Complainant Heidi Denton testified at the compliance hearing that she and her husband could not get Respondent to return their telephone calls for a long period of time. They were trying to get Respondent to perform remedial repairs to the roof work he had performed. 12. Ms. Denton testified that she and her husband had paid Respondent $375.00 to perform the original repairs to their roof. 13. As a result of Respondent’s failure to respond to their telephone calls, Complainants hired another roofing contractor on March 29, 2006 to perform repairs to Respondent’s workmanship for a contract price of $215.87. Since those repairs were made, Complainants’ roof has not leaked again. 14. Complainants also had interior drywall and painting repairs performed to remediate damage caused by the roof leak following Respondent’s repairs. 15. Because Respondent failed to file an Answer to the Citation and Complaint, resulting in the default Decision and Order being issued by the Registrar of Contractors, Complainants were not able until the compliance hearing to present evidence that they had Respondent’s deficient workmanship repaired. 16. A review of the official records of the Registrar of Contractors reveals that the instant complaint is the only one appearing on Respondent’s contracting license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Registrar of Contractors has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter in this case. 2. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1156.01, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Respondent should be required to pay restitution in the amount of $375.00 to Complainants.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Respondent’s License No. 180382 shall be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter. If Respondent pays Complainants restitution in the amount of $375.00 on or before the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, then the above license revocation shall not take place, but instead that Respondent’s Class K-42 contracting license shall be placed on probation for a period of 90 days, commencing on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter. In the event of certification of the 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 that certification. Done this day, April 9, 2007

______________________________________ Brian Brendan Tully Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2007, to:

Fidelis V. Garcia, Director Registrar of Contractors Legal Department 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

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

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