ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

07F-M0918-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2007-07-18

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: July 17, 2007 APPEARANCES: James Fauber, Complainant; no one appeared on behalf of Respondent. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Michael K. Carroll _____________________________________________________________________

On October 11, 2006, a Complaint was filed with the Registrar of Contractors (ROC), in which Complainant alleged that Respondent had failed to properly repair the roof of his home, which caused water damage to the ceiling, walls and storage cabinets in Complainant’s garage. On March 13, 2007, a Citation was filed by the ROC alleging that Respondent violated A.R.S. §32-1154A (7), (23) and (3), namely R4-9-108. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Findings of Fact: (1) In October, 2005, Complainant entered into a contract with Respondent to replace all the flat portions of the roof on his home. (2) Respondent replaced the roof in late October, 2005. (3) Sometime after the roof was replaced, Complainant noticed water damage in his garage and patio caused by leaks in the roof. (4) Complainant contacted Respondent. Eventually, two of Respondent’s employees patched the roof and made repairs to damaged drywall on the ceiling and walls of the garage. (5) In May, 2006, Complainant went up on the roof where he found half a bucket of roof cement, rags, two pairs of gloves and a row of roof tile that had not be reinstalled after the roof was replaced by Respondent. Complainant attempted to contact Respondent but was unable to reach him. (6) Between May and September, 2006, Complainant was away from his home. When he returned in September, he discovered water damage in his garage caused by roof leaks. He called Respondent who sent an employee to repair the roof leaks. The employee refused, however, to repair water damage to the ceiling, walls and cabinets in Complainant’s garage. (7) After repairs were made to the garage roof, it continued to leak. When Complainant attempted to contact Respondent, he was informed that Respondent had suffered a stroke and that Respondent was no longer able to continue as a contractor. (8) On November 30, 2006, a job site inspection was conducted by ROC Inspector Ted Gerold. Respondent did not appear for the inspection. Following the inspection, the Inspector issued a Corrective Work Order (CWO) which required Respondent to determine the cause of the roof leaks to the garage and patio eave and correct the problem by appropriate means. The CWO also noted that the previous repairs to the garage ceiling did not meet industry standards and required Respondent to correct damages caused by roof leaks including damage to ceilings, walls, cabinets and the eave soffit. (9) In January, 2007, when Respondent failed to respond to the CWO issued by the ROC, Complainant had another contractor replace the flat portions of his roof. (10) On March 16, 2007, Complainant received a telephone call from Respondent who told Complainant that he wanted to send someone to look at Complainant’s roof. Complainant advised Respondent that he had already replaced the roof. The telephone call from Respondent in March, 2007 was Complainant’s first contact with Respondent since September, 2006.

Conclusions of Law: Alleged violation of A.R.S. §32-1154A (7): A violation of this statute is classified as a criminal offense under A.R.S. §32-1164A (1). There was no evidence of criminal conduct by Respondent in connection with this matter. Alleged violations A.R.S. §§32-1154A (23) and (3), namely R4-9-108: Respondent failed to originally perform Complainant’s roof replacement in a professional and workmanlike manner. After the CWO was issued, Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action to repair the roof leaks and the damage caused by those leaks. No evidence was offered as justification for Respondent’s failure to take corrective action within a reasonable period of time. The evidence established violations of A.R.S. §§32-1154A (23) and (3), namely R4-9-108. RECOMMENDED ORDER Based upon the foregoing, coupled with the facts that Complainant’s roof has been repaired by another contractor and Respondent’s license is currently revoked, it is recommended that Respondent’s Class B license be revoked.[1] Done this day, July 18, 2007.

______________________________________ Michael K. Carroll 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 ___________________________

----------------------- [1] Pursuant to A.R.S. §41-1092.08D, failure by the Registrar of Contractors to accept, reject or modify this Decision within 30 days of receipt by the agency will result in this Decision being certified by the Office of Administrative Hearings as the final administrative decision. In the event of certification of this Decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order in this matter will be 40 days from the date of that certification.

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

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