ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

09F-5424-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2010-03-24

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: March 24, 2010 at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainants appeared through Richard Fields. The Respondent failed to appear. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

Evidence and testimony were presented and the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Respondent is the holder of a Class K-08 License issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. This is a residential matter where the Respondent installed a new engineered wood floor in the Complainants’ residence for the sum of $17, 503.30. 3. The Complainants were dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and with the general appearance of the new engineered wood floor and demanded that the Respondent make proper corrections. 4. When the Respondent failed to respond to the Complainants’ demands the Complainants filed a formal Complaint against the Respondent with the Registrar of Contractors. 5. Pursuant to the filing of the formal Complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection. No Corrective Work Order was issued and the assigned Agency Inspector moved to close the complaint. 6. The Complainants then requested an administrative hearing. 7. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent failed to install the Complainant’s wood floor in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and that as a direct result of this failure the Respondent damaged the Complainants’ flooring by cracking several boards during the installation process. 8. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent failed to perform crack preparation on the concrete subfloor as required by the manufacturer’s recommendations and that as a result of this failure the Complainants’ engineered wood floor has suffered cracking. 9. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent failed to utilize the floor adhesive specified by the manufacturer in the installation of the Complainants’ engineered wood floor and that as a result thereof the manufacturer will not warranty the Complainants’ engineered wood floor. 10. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent failed to install the engineered wood flooring in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions and that as a result thereof the engineered wood flooring displays unacceptable color variance. 11. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent utilized short boards in the center of one of the rooms in the Complainants’ residence in violation of the manufacturer’s recommendations and that as a result thereof the flooring in that room must be removed and replaced. 12. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent utilized several boards that were rough and blemished in violation of applicable industry and workmanship standards for the installation of engineered wood flooring. 13. The Respondent’s actions, in failing to perform its work in a professional and workmanlike manner and in failing to comply with the wood floor manufacturer’s recommendations and in failing to respond to the Complainants’ initial complaint, are found to constitute a wrongful act. 14. The credible evidence of record is insufficient and fails to support a finding that the Respondent abandoned the construction project. 15. The credible evidence of record is insufficient and fails to support a finding that the Respondent acted in the capacity of a contractor in a name other than as set forth on its license. 16. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior License record with the Registrar of Contractors. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The credible evidence of record established violations by the Respondent of the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154A(2) (Departure from plans and specifications), A(7) (Wrongful Act) and A(3); namely, Rule R4-9-108 (Failure to perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner).

RECOMMENDed order In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class K-08 License be revoked. In the event of certification of this Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be 40 days from the date of the certification.

Done this day, March 24, 2010.

/s/ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

William A. Mundell, Director Registrar of Contractors -----------------------

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