ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

08F-S0126-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2009-03-13

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: March 5th, 2009; 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: Complainants, Mr. Daniel Q. and Ms. Marisa B. Bradford, represented themselves. Respondent, Hometown Electric, LLC, was represented by Mr. Richard Hebl, owner. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Grant Winston _____________________________________________________________________ The administrative hearing of this matter was held in the Office of Administrative Hearings, Tucson. Testimony was heard and other evidence admitted to the record, and, based on the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent herein, Hometown Electric, LLC, is, and during all time material hereto was, a contractor licensed by and doing business in the State of Arizona, holding Class C-11 License number 129107.

2. Complainants, Mr. Daniel Q. and Ms. Marisa B. Bradford, filed the instant Complaint in the Arizona Registrar of Contractors office on January 9th, 2008, alleging 19 defects in the Respondent’s work on the electrical installation at their Sonoita, Arizona residence. 3. The parties entered into a contractual agreement for the work to be performed, but Respondent never produced, and there is no evidence to prove, that there was a written Contract between the parties containing the estimated date the work would be completed, or the date the parties entered into the Contract (not just the date of the proposal). 4. The Complaint was assigned to Registrar of Contractors Inspector Mike Nieves who conducted a job site inspection on February 7th, 2008. As a result of his inspection, Inspector Nieves issued a written Corrective Work Order (CWO) to Respondent dated February 8th, 2008. The CWO directed Respondent to make several corrections to the electrical work in Complainants’ home and to do so within 15 calendar days, which was a reasonable amount of time.

5. Respondent failed to make the necessary corrections which were ordered by the Inspector and Complainants requested an administrative hearing. A Citation and Complaint was issued from the Registrar of Contractors, and Respondent filed a Written Answer. 6. Inspector Nieves testified credibly at the administrative hearing that he conducted a pre-hearing inspection on March 4th, 2009, and found that many of the items he had ordered Respondent to correct had not been properly corrected; specifically: Items 1, installation of electrical panel; 4, installation of electrical outlets; 7, provide a finished detail drawing of the wiring installed; 8, correct the five-position light switch; 16, correct basement electrical panel recess, and 17, correct installation of ROMEX running to main panel without adequate breaker space. 7. Complainant Mr. Bradford testified that he corrected some defects himself, and paid others to correct some of Respondent’s defects. He wishes restitution and another properly licensed contractor to make further corrections. Although there is evidence that Complainants’ paid others to work on the electric, there is insufficient evidence to find how much, if any, restitution should be paid. 8. Respondent’s owner, Mr. Hebl, and his employees testified that Mr. Bradford was overly fussy or picky about the work, but there is insufficient evidence to find that such was the case in regard to the items on the CWO or the items that were not corrected. 9. Notice is taken of Respondent’s prior license record with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This administrative hearing was held under authority of and pursuant to A.R.S. §32-1156, and A.R.S. §41-1092. 2. Respondent is charged in the instant Citation and Complaint with possible violations of A.R.S. §32-1154.A.2, 7, 23 and 3, namely, A.A.C. R4-9-108, Workmanship Standards, and 13, namely, A.R.S. §32- 1158. 3. Respondent violated A.R.S. §32-1154.A.2 by deviating from the plans and specifications and applicable NEC. 4. Respondent violated A.R.S. §32-1154.A.3 by the poor workmanship in violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108. 5. Respondent violated A.R.S. §32-1154.A.13 by failing to provide a written Contract containing the necessary elements set forth at A.R.S. §32-1158. 6. Respondent violated A.R.S. §32-1154.A.23 by failing to correct the items listed in the Inspector’s Corrective Work Order within a reasonable amount of time without any valid justification. 7. There is no evidence of any wrongful or fraudulent action by the Respondent in the facts of this case in violation of A.R.S. §32- 1154.A.7 independent of the violations already concluded to have occurred. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that Respondent’s Class C-11 License number 129107 be suspended until such time as the Registrar receives written proof that Respondent has caused another properly licensed contractor to complete all remaining items in the Inspector’s written Corrective Work Order still in need of correction. It is further recommended that in the event the Registrar receives written proof that the above-mentioned items have been corrected by another properly licensed contractor, on or before the effective date of this Order (40 days after the date of service appearing on the Registrar’s certification on the Order), then the above-provided license suspension shall not occur, and Citation and Complaint S08-0126 shall be closed, provided that the Respondent has paid the civil penalty recommended to be ordered. It is further recommended in addition to the above-provided penalties that Respondent shall pay the sum of $250.00 to the Registrar of Contractors by way of Complainant a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. §32- 1154.D. The failure by Respondent to pay the entire amount of the aforesaid civil penalty on or before the effective date of the Order shall result in the automatic revocation of Respondent’s contractor’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with the Respondent as defined at A.R.S. §32-1101.A.5. In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge’s Decision and Order by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, then the effective date of the Order shall be 40 days after the date of that certification. Done this day, March 12th, 2009.

______________________________________ Grant Winston Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 2009, to:

Registrar of Contractors William A. Mundell Legal Department 3838 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85012

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 100 N. Stone Avenue, Suite 704 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 628-5488 Fax: (520) 628-5575 www.azoah.com