ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2010A-308473443-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2011-01-20

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 20, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainants appeared through Starley A. Hunter. 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 B-3 (No.234328) License issued by the Registrar of Contractors. 2. This is a residential matter where the Respondent installed a new roof on the Complainants’ residence. 3. The Complainants were extremely dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and demanded that the Respondent properly correct the numerous problems with their new roof. 4. When the Respondent failed to comply with their repeated demands, the Complainants hired an independent roofing inspection company for inspect their new roof. 5. The independent roofing inspection company then performed an inspection of the Complainants’ new roof and issued a written report indicating that the new roof failed to comply with plans and specifications and that the new roof had not been installed in a professional and workmanlike manner. 6. The Complainants furnished the Respondent with a copy of the roofing report and again demanded that the Respondent properly correct their new roof. 7. When the Respondent failed to comply with their demand that the Respondent properly correct the new roof, the Complainants filed a formal Complaint against the Respondent with the Registrar of Contractors. 8. Pursuant to the filing of the formal Complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection and issued a written Corrective Work Order directing the Respondent to perform designated corrective work on the Complainants’ residence. 9. There was no dispute that the Respondent failed to comply with the terms of the written Corrective Work Order. 10. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the new roof was constructed by the Respondent without a required Coconino County permit. 11. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent knowingly departed from plans and specifications and installed three (3) tap asphalt shingles rather that thirty (30) year laminate shingles as required by the parties’ written construction agreement. 12. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent failed to install insulation over the living area of the Complainants’ residence as required by the parties’ written construction agreement. 13. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent contracted to install R-19 insulation over the living area of the Complainants’ residence when the Respondent knew, or should have known, that local building code requirements require that at least R-30 insulation be utilized over the living areas of residences. 14. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent failed to replace decking as agreed upon. 15. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent damaged the gutter on the back of the Complainants’ garage and failed to properly correct this damage. 16. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent failed to properly flash all roof penetrations and roofing edges on the Complainants’ roof. 17. Undisputed credible testimony and evidence established that the Respondent failed to clean up and haul away construction debris from the Complainants’ property. 18. 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 charged provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) (2) (Departure from or disregard of plans or specifications or any building codes) and A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A) (23) (Failure to take appropriate corrective action) and A.R.S. § 32-1154 (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 License be revoked on the effective date of this Order of Revocation. It is further recommended, in addition to the above-provided penalty, if any, that the Respondent pay the sum of $500.00 to the Registrar of Contractors by way of a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. §32-1154D. The failure by the 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 the 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 in A.R.S. §32-1101A (5), unless payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty is tendered. 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, January 20, 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