ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

06F-T0241-ROC-COM · Registrar of Contractors · 2007-02-27

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: February 22, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainants appeared through Paul Jenkens. The Respondent appeared through its authorized representative, Cliff Tarlton. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for a Compliance Hearing to determine whether the Respondent has substantially complied with the terms and conditions of the previously entered Decision and Order of the Registrar of Contractors. Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record; the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation on Compliance Hearing are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The prior Order of the Registrar of Contractors, which has become final in the absence of any timely appeal, provided that this matter be closed as settled. 2. On October 11, 2006, the Complainants filed a written communication stating that the Respondent had “failed to complete the work as required by the terms of the settlement.” 3. The Respondent then filed a response on November 3, 2006, stating that “all items of this Complaint have been completed except for: 1. Bath tub resurface… 2. Roof not repaired.” 4. On November 29, 2006, the Registrar of Contractors issued an Order reopening the Complaint and setting a Compliance Hearing. 5. The parties written agreement, attached to the prior Order and Recommended Order as Exhibit No. A, requires the Respondent to perform the following corrective actions: 1. Re-grout shower. 2. Trim Ceiling. 3. Re-surface tub. 4. Electrical panel correction. 5. Replace trim (door). 6. Fix leak roof entrance. 6. There was no dispute that the Respondent has re-grouted the shower. 7. There was no dispute that the Respondent has performed the trim work on the ceiling. 8. There was no dispute that the Respondent has re-surfaced the tub. 9. There was no dispute that the Respondent has caused the electrical panel to be properly corrected. 10. Credible testimony and evidence, presented at hearing, established the Respondent has replaced the door trim and installed a new pre-hung door furnished by the Complainants. 11. Credible testimony and evidence, presented at hearing, established the Respondent has fixed the roof so that it does not leak and extended the roof eave over the area which had previously allowed moisture into the interior of the Complainants’ residence. 12. There was no dispute that the buckled area of T-111 siding on the Complainants’ residence had been installed by an unlicensed person prior to the Respondent’s work. The Respondent is not responsible for the correction of unsatisfactory work performed by others. 13. The replacement of the buckled T-111 is not in the parties’ written Agreement nor was it stated on the record. 14. Credible testimony and evidence, presented at hearing, adequately established that the corrective actions set forth in the parties’ written Agreement have been completed to within applicable workmanship and industry standards and the prior Order of the Registrar of Contractors has been substantially complied with.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Credible testimony and evidence, presented at hearing, established the Respondent has substantially complied with the terms and conditions of the parties’ written Settlement Agreement and the prior Order of the Registrar of Contractors.

RECOMMENDED ORDER on compliance hearing In view of the foregoing, it is recommended this matter be closed.

Done this day, February 22, 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