ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

07F-G1206W-ROC-rhg · Registrar of Contractors · 2008-06-16

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: June 11, 2008 APPEARANCES: Complainant appeared on his own behalf. H M D Contracting Inc. (“H M D”) and Circle Double H Contracting LLC. (“Circle”), failed to appear.[1] ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Mark A. Silver _____________________________________________________________________

Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record in this matter, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Complainant purchased two new homes from Respondent. Complainant alleges certain deficiencies in the work performed and/or materials provided by Respondent and same are discussed in the findings below.

2. These matters were consolidated for hearing since they involved the same two parties and entailed the use of the same witnesses.

3. Uncontroverted evidence of record established the following substandard and unacceptable workmanship in regard to the home located on Montgomery Road, in Wittman Arizona:

a. The grading on the property was unacceptable, as manifested by areas wherein water ponds and the failure to drain water away from the home. This condition exists on the front and rear yards. b. Debris was not removed from the rear yard c. There is a hole on the front walk that was filled-in but not adequately compacted. d. There is no fan in the master bathroom. e. Several tiles are cracked in specified areas of the home. f. A specified electrical wall switch does not work. g. Garage lights do not work h. A specified living room switch causes the breaker to trip-off. i. An electrical panel cover in the laundry room is missing. j. Although there were specified problems with the drywall installation, including nail pops, wavy walls, dips and bows, Complainant hired an unlicensed contractor to correct these issues. k. Front door seals were not installed and the striker plate is missing. l. An upper cabinet shelf in the kitchen was never installed. m. The roof was not properly installed, as manifested by improper alignment of the shingles, along with inconsistent laps. The assigned inspector for the Registrar of Contractors performed a pre-hearing inspection on the issues set forth in this Complaint and testified, at the instant hearing, that the roof work evidenced extremely substandard workmanship and would need to be totally redone.

4. Uncontroverted evidence of record established the following substandard and unacceptable workmanship in regard to the home located on 225th Ave, in Wittman Arizona:

a. Respondent failed to meet its contractual obligation to pay for the permit for the fence. Complainant was forced to pay the fee of $310.00. b. Respondent failed to provide the termite pre-treatment on the home. Complainant had to hire a company, at a cost of $600.00, to install the necessary termite treatment. c. An electrical panel box in the laundry room does not have a panel cover.

5. The substandard workmanship described in the foregoing findings of fact is also found to constitute a wrongful act, within the meaning of the applicable charged sections of the State’s Contracting laws.

6. By its failure to appear for the scheduled hearing, Respondent failed to present any matters in defense or mitigation.

7. Notice is hereby taken of official Registrar of Contractors public records, which reveal that the contracting licenses of Circle and H M D have both been previously revoked. The prior license revocations do not preclude this tribunal from conducting these administrative proceedings nor does it preclude the Registrar of Contractors from issuing separate disciplinary orders. Moreover, the existing revoked license status must be considered when determining appropriate penalties in this case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154A (2), (22), (7), and (3); namely Rule R 4-9-108.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that both Respondent Class B licenses shall be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter.[2] 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 in this matter will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, June 13, 2008.

______________________________________ Mark A. Silver Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2008, to:

Registrar of Contractors Fidelis V. Garcia 3838 N. Central Ave., Ste. 400 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1906

By ___________________________

----------------------- [1] Michael Glenn Hicks is listed as the qualifying party on both licenses. Therefore, for the purpose of this Decision and Order both Respondent licenses shall be referred to as “Respondent.” [2] These license revocations should effectively allow Complainant access to make an administrative claim for a payout from the Residential Contractors’ Recovery Fund.

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

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