ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

09F-H0233-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2009-11-16

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: November 5, 2009 APPEARANCES: James and Brenda Alldredge, Complainants; William Redman, Registrar of Contractors Inspector ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang _____________________________________________________________________ After filing a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors, the Complainants established that the Respondent violated the applicable contracting statute. Therefore, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Registrar of Contractors license be revoked and that a civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 be assessed against the Respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On motion of the James Alldredge at hearing, Brenda Alldredge, James Alldredge’s wife, is added as a Complainant in the above matter. 2. Complainant James Alldredge filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors against the Respondent concerning the quality of work done pursuant to a contract between the Complainants and Respondent. On January 16, 2009, Registrar of Contractors Inspector William Redman issued a Corrective Work Order to the Respondent directing it to repair or replace various items of complaint. He issued a second Corrective Work Order on February 12, 2009 directing the Respondent to repair and correct a leaking shower. One item of complaint, the exterior stucco, was repaired by the Respondent and it was not on the Corrective Work Orders. 3. When the items on the Corrective Work Orders were not repaired, the Registrar of Contractors issued a Citation and Complaint against the Respondent alleging potential violations of A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(A)(3), (7), and 23 and A.A.C. R4-9-108. 4. At the appointed date and time of hearing, the Respondent did not appear. The Complainants and Registrar of Contractors Inspector appeared and testified that the work did not meet workmanship standards and it was not repaired by the Respondent. 5. A letter from the Respondent in the file indicates that it is out of business with no assets and no money to pay to file bankruptcy. He did not dispute that the items in the Corrective Work Orders did not meet minimum workmanship standards. 6. According to the records of the Registrar of Contractors, the license in this matter is currently suspended for non-renewal and it has 3 open and 1 closed complaints against it. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter is within the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Contractors pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-1104(A)(4), 32-1154(B) and 32-1156. 2. The Citation and Complaint issued by the Registrar of Contractors in this matter alleged potential violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), (7) and (23) and A.A.C. R4-9-108. 3. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for “[v]iolation of any rule adopted by the registrar”. The Arizona Administrative Code requires contractors to meet minimum workmanship standards in the projects they undertake. A.A.C. R4-9-108. The weight of the evidence offered at hearing established that the items in the Corrective Work Orders did not meet minimum workmanship standards because, after inspecting the items of complaint, the Registrar of Contractors Inspector found them not to meet those standards, and the Respondent did not dispute those findings. Therefore, it was established that the Respondent violated this portion of the above statute. 4. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(7) provides for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for the “doing of a fraudulent act by the licensee as a contractor resulting in another person being substantially injured”. The cost to the Complainants of paying to correct the items in the Corrective Work Orders themselves results in substantial injury to the them. Therefore, it was established that Respondent violated this portion of the statute. 5. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(23) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for failure to take appropriate corrective action on a Corrective Work Order without valid justification and within a reasonable period of time. The Respondent offered no legally recognized basis for failing to take corrective action on the Corrective Work Orders. Therefore, it was established that Respondent violated this portion of the above statute. 6. The Registrar of Contractors may consider the prior record of a contractor in any disciplinary proceeding. A.A.C. R4-9-117. On standing motion by the Registrar of Contractors, the computer records of the Registrar of Contractors may properly be considered to be evidence in the event the Administrative Law Judge finds a violation of any of the statutory provisions cited in the Citation and Complaint. 7. In this case, the Complainants have established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), (7), and (23) when its work did not meet minimum workmanship standards and when the Respondent failed to make the corrections ordered by the Corrective Work Orders issued by the Registrar of Contractors. RECOMMENDED DECISION In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent’s Class B license shall be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter.

It is further recommended that Respondent pay the sum of $250.00 to the Registrar of Contractors by way of 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 30 days following the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, 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 Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. §32-1101(A)(5), unless payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty is tendered.

If the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings certifies this Administrative Law Judge Decision, the effective date of the order will be forty (40) days from the date of certification. Done this day, November 16, 2009

/s/ Dorinda M. Lang 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