ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

07F-M1319-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2007-12-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: December 12, 2007 APPEARANCES: Complainant appeared on her own behalf and Respondent failed to appear. 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. Pursuant to contract, Complainant retained Respondent to accomplish specified remodel work on her home. Complainant alleges certain deficiencies in the work performed by Respondent and same are discussed in the findings below.

2. Uncontroverted evidence of record established that the following constitute substandard and unacceptable workmanship attributable to Respondent:

a. Respondent failed to complete the work on the project. b. A door has not been installed on the hallway bathroom. c. The tile installed by Respondent in the bathroom reveals significant lippage and uneven (not straight) cuts. d. The dual pane windows installed by Respondent are not properly sealed. In addition, the trim work for said windows is loose. e. There are voids in the caulking and/or grout installed in the bathtub. f. Voids are present in the mortar for the new brickwork installed in the area of the car port.

3. The items set forth in Finding of Fact 2 (a) through 2 (f), above are not only shown to constitute poor workmanship but are also deemed to be wrongful acts, within the meaning of the applicable charged section of the State’s Contracting laws.

4. The contract price for this project was shown to be $4,520.80 and Complainant testified that the contract was paid in full.

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

6. Notice is hereby taken of official Registrar of Contractors public records, which reveal that Respondent’s contracting license has been revoked since June 6, 2005. Such revocation does not preclude this tribunal from conducting these administrative proceedings nor does it preclude the Registrar of Contractors from issuing separate disciplinary orders. Moreover, Respondent’s existing revoked license status must be considered when determining appropriate penalties in this case.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Undisputed evidence of record established that Respondent violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154A (7) and (3); namely Rule R 4-9-108.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent’s Class C- license shall be revoked 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 in this matter will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, December 12, 2007.

______________________________________ Mark A. Silver 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 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826