ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2009A-4338492-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-10-27

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: October 18, 2011, at 8:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on her own behalf. The Respondent appeared through its authorized representative, Jacob A. Vasquez. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for a Compliance Hearing to determine whether the Respondent has fully complied with the terms of the November 16, 2009 Order of the Registrar. Evidence and testimony were presented, and the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order on Compliance Hearing are made: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Order Setting Aside Revocation and Setting Compliance Hearing provides, in pertinent part, as follows: On November 16, 2009, the Registrar issued a Default Decision and Order in this matter providing that Respondent’s K-56.231517- D License would be suspended on the effective date of the Order and remain suspended until Respondent provided the Registrar with written proof that it had fully rectified the items involved and detailed in the Citation and Complaint and the Corrective Work Order issued in this matter. The Order further provided that Respondent pay the Registrar a civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 on or before the expiration of thirty (30) days after the effective date of the Order or risk the automatic revocation of its license. If Respondent provided such written proof on or before the effective date of the Order, then its K- 56.231517-D License would not be suspended and the matter would be closed. The effective date of the Order was December 26, 2009.

On or about December 22, 2009, Respondent submitted written correspondence with the Registrar maintaining, among other things, that “All items have been corrected to homeowner satisfaction.” The document was signed off on by both parties.

On or about December 24, 2009, Complainant submitted written correspondence with the Registrar maintaining, among other things, that the required corrective work had not been fully completed to her satisfaction.

On March 1, 2010, the Registrar revoked Respondent’s K-56.231517- D License for its failure to pay the $250.00 civil penalty.

On or about March 3, 2010, Respondent submitted written correspondence with the Registrar evidencing payment of the civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 to the Registrar. Respondent further requested that the Registrar set aside the revocation.

On or about July 3, 2010, Respondent submitted written correspondence with the Registrar in this matter providing, among other things, that it completed all of the necessary Corrective Work and that Complainant’s demands that the entire fence be replaced is outside the scope of the Corrective Work Order.

Upon review and consideration of Respondent’s Notice of Compliance, Complainant’s Response, as well as the entire file in this matter, and with good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that a Compliance Hearing be scheduled in the expedited course of docketing in the Phoenix area. At the Compliance Hearing, the parties’ may offer evidence and testimony as to whether or not Respondent has complied with the terms and conditions of the Registrar’s November 16, 2009 Order issued in this matter. If it is determined that Respondent has failed to fully comply with the Registrar’s written directives, absent unreasonable interference or denial of access by Complainant, then Respondent’s K-56.231517-D License shall be subject to the immediate imposition of discipline. If it is determined that Complainant has unreasonably interfered or denied access to Respondent or its representatives in their attempt to comply with the Registrar’s November 16th Order, then Respondent’s license shall not be disciplined and the matter shall be closed as Respondent having fully complied with the terms of the Registrar’s Order.

A Notice of Compliance Hearing shall be issued in due course.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that prior to the date and time set for the Compliance Hearing, an assigned Registrar Inspector shall perform a pre-hearing Compliance Inspection and be prepared to testify as to his findings and observations at the Compliance Hearing.

Note: Normal “wear and tear” will not be considered deficient workmanship on the part of Respondent. The repairs were allegedly performed in December 2009, and any inspection shall take into account normal “wear and tear.” Further, Complainant is precluded from raising [sic] at the Compliance Hearing any issues unrelated to the repair work Respondent was required to perform.

2. Credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent removed the Complainant’s wrought iron fence, caused the Complainant’s wrought iron fence to be sandblasted, reinstalled the wrought iron fence, and then caused the wrought iron fence to be painted. 3. Credible testimony and evidence established that the Complainant’s husband inspected the Respondent’s corrective work on the Complainant’s wrought iron fence and signed a homeowner satisfaction document prepared by the Respondent. The homeowner satisfaction document (exhibit no. R -4) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Iron Works LLC is correcting the complaint # T-09-0433 on Parker residence at 6035 E Jakemp Trail. Iron Works is having NAPC sandblast the existing paint off the wrought iron on 12/18/09 and 12/19/09. Then Iron Works is installing the sandblasted fence and correcting welding issues on 12/21/09. C & L Electrostatic painting is going to prime and paint fence on site after fence is installed on 12/21/09.

All the above items have been corrected to homeowner satisfaction.

4. Credible testimony and evidence presented at the Compliance Hearing established that the corrective actions required by the November 16, 2009 Order of the Registrar have been fully completed to within applicable workmanship and industry standards. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Credible testimony and evidence supported findings which establish that the Respondent has fully complied with the terms and conditions of the November 16, 2009 Order of the Registrar. RECOMMENDed order on compliance hearing In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that this matter be closed.

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, October 27, 2011.

/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