ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

06F-P0198-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2007-03-22

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: March 8, 2007, at 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on his own behalf. The Respondent appeared through its authorized representative, Roger Stace Cottrell. 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 performed remodeling work on the Complainant’s residence. . 3. The Complainant was extremely dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and 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 on January 30, 2006 and issued a written Corrective Work Order on February 2, 2006, directing the Respondent to perform designated corrective work on the Complainant’s residence. 5. The February 2, 2006, Corrective Work Order provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “ITEMS OF COMPLAINT: 1. No building permit. Contractor to get necessary permits and inspections for this job. 2. Electrical not done correctly. Contractor to hire a properly licensed contractor to check the system and correct if necessary. 3. There were gaps in the rubber seal for the door at the top left, bottom right and the bottom left of the front door. Contractor to correct by appropriate means. 7. Baseboard behind toilet needs caulking. Contractor to correct by appropriate means. 8. Sliding pocket doors do not go all the way in. Contractor to correct by appropriate means and per jobsite agreement. 10. Smoke alarm removed and not reinstalled. Contractor to correct by appropriate means and per jobsite agreement. 11. Wire for sprinkler was not reattached. Contractor to correct by appropriate means and per jobsite agreement. 12. Back sidewalks have scratches and chips. There were seven scratches and two chips in the concrete from a backhoe. Contractor to correct by appropriate means. 13. Fence was taken down and not reinstalled correctly. Contractor to correct by appropriate means and per jobsite agreement. 14. No baseboard at sides of fireplace. Contractor to correct by appropriate means and per jobsite agreement. 15. Post needs stain and sanding. Contractor to correct by appropriate means.” 6. The Complainant filed an addendum to the Complaint at issue and the assigned Agency Inspector conducted a second onsite inspection and on March 22, 2006, issued a second Corrective Work Order which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “5. Caulk and paint touchup through-out. Contractor to correct by appropriate means. 7. The parties were in sharp dispute as to whether the Respondent had complied with the terms and conditions of the two Corrective Work Orders. The Respondent filed a Notice of Compliance, the Complainant filed a response indicating that he sharply denied compliance, and the matter was set for an administrative hearing. 8. There was no dispute that the assigned Agency Inspector attempted to perform a pre-hearing inspection and the Complainant denied the assigned Inspector access to his residence. 9. The Complainant testified that he would continue to deny access to the assigned Agency Inspector. 10. Credible testimony and evidence, presented at hearing, established the Respondent performed corrective work on the items set forth in the first Corrective Work Order. However, credible testimony and evidence, presented at hearing, established the Respondent’s corrective work on the back sidewalk (item no. 12 of the first Corrective Work Order) did not fully correct the problems with the back sidewalk and that further corrective action should be performed. 11. Credible testimony and evidence, presented at hearing, established that while the Respondent has performed caulk and paint touch-up in the Complainant’s residence further corrective action is required in order to fully comply with the terms and conditions of the second Corrective Work Order. 12. The Complainant testified that he would not allow the Respondent access to his property and that he would not allow further corrective action to take place. 13. Construction work, such as that at issue herein, is not a perfect science and it is not uncommon in the industry to have corrections, repairs, or replacements of resultant poor workmanship prior or subsequent to completion of a specified project, in order to bring the final work product up to appropriate industry standards. In this regard, a contractor must be given a reasonable opportunity to complete necessary remedial work. 14. In view of the Complainant’s testimony, the Complainant will not allow the Respondent further access to his residence to complete the touch up work on his residence required in the second Corrective Work Order and to perform further corrective action on the back sidewalk as required in the first Corrective Work Order. It is found that the Respondent has substantially complied with both Corrective Work Orders and that no further corrective action should be required by the Respondent. 15. 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 that the Respondent has substantially complied with the terms and conditions of the two Corrective Work Orders issued in this matter.

RECOMMENDED Order In view of the foregoing, it is recommended this matter be dismissed. 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, March 20, 2007.

______________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

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

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

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 100 North Stone Avenue, Suite 704 Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 628-5488