ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2014A-4791-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2015-12-15

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|Michelle E Garbett | |No. 2014A-4791-ROC | | | | | |COMPLAINANT, | |ADMINISTRATIVE | |v. | |LAW JUDGE DECISION | | | | | |Valley Residential Services LLC , | | | |License No: 282600 | | | | | | | |RESPONDENT. | | | | | | |

HEARING: November 30, 2015 APPEARANCES: Michelle Garbett, Complainant; Brandon Jeffries, Respondent’s representative; Stephen N. Lawton, Registrar of Contractors Inspector ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent was hired to install security doors and screens on Complainant’s home. When the work was not satisfactory, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors. The Registrar’s Inspector conducted a job site inspection on January 7, 2015. However, because he had information that Complainant had filed a protective order against Respondent, he did not issue a written directive. However, he did find that the job did not meet workmanship standards, so he cited Respondent for workmanship issues. He noted other issues that were not in the citation. He also noted that Respondent’s license was suspended at the time. 2. Complainant testified that she filled out the paperwork for a protective order but she did not have Respondent served. 3. The Registrar’s website notes that Respondent’s license was suspended for nonrenewal from January 1, 2015 to May 2, 2015. It was also suspended for lack of bond from October 15, 2014 to December 10, 2014. It appears Respondent’s license is now current and in good standing. 4. Inspector Lawton’s job site inspection notes[1] state as follows:

Jobsite General Notes: On 11/24/2014 complaint 2014-4791 was received by the ROC from the Complainant, Michelle Garbelt alleging poor work by the Respondent, Brandon Jeffries of Valley Residentail Services LLC. Complainant alleges that the security bars and screens that she and the Respondent agreed to have installed was overall sloppy and poor workmanship. Contract date was 09/27/2014 and work commenced on 10/31/2014 and completed on 11/03/2014. The complainant had found out that the Respondent's license had been suspended through the ROC. The license had indeed been suspended for lack of bond on 10/16/2014. I was aware of this prior to getting this complaint due to the fact that I was working another complaint (2014-2023) against the Respondent. After further research of the complaint it was discovered that the Complainant had acquired a judgement for harassment against the Respondent on 11/24/2014. It was discovered during the inspection (01/07/2015) that the security bars and screens were beginning to rust and that they may not meet industry standards. On 12/29/2014 Respondent informed me that he would not be at the inspection. Research throught the ASTM Division 5 Metals that the wrought iron did not meet industry standards. All fabrication of the security bars were constructed onsite per the Complainant, which does not meet Industry Standards. Directive could could not be sent to Respondent correct complaint issues due to the judgemenf for harassment against the Respondent.

Complaint Item 1: Door handle on back security door needs to be re- keyed.

Investigator’s Observation: It was observed that the door has not been re-keyed, which was part of the agreement.

Governing Rule: 32-1154 (A) (3); Namely R4-9-108.

Complaint Item 2: Front security door hardware is installed upside down.

Investigator’s Observation: It was observed that the hardware was not installed correctly. See picture 4.

Governing Rule: 32-1154 (A) (3); Namely R4-9-108.

Complaint Item 3: Bars on the security bars do not have caps on the ends to protect from rusting.

Investigator’s Observation: It was observed that all security bars in the back of the house were not caped as to protect the bars from rusting. See pictures 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22.

Governing Rule: ASTM Section 5.3 Wrought Iron

Complaint Item 4: Backyard security gate is not secured to the structure at the hinge therefore causing the gate to come away from the house.

Investigator’s Observation: It was observed that the bottom of the security gate was not supported to the structure at the hinge of the gate causing stress on the gate. See picture 11.

Governing Rule: ASTM Section 5.3 Wrought Iron

Complaint Item 5: Security gate in backyard is poorly painted.

Investigator’s Observation: It was observed that the gate is showing rusting at the bottom of the gate. See picture 11.

Governing Rule: ASTM Section 5.3 Wrought Iron

Complaint Item 6: Front security door is poorly painted.

Investigator’s Observation: It was observed that the security door was not painted per wrought iron standards. See pictures 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Governing Rule: ASTM Section 5.3 Wrought Iron

Complaint Item 7: Mesh covering the window in the front yard is poorly cut.

Investigator’s Observation: It was observed that the security mesh covering the front window is poorly cut and is showing signs of rust. See pictures 5 and 6.

Governing Rule: ASTM Section 5.3 Wrought Iron

Complaint Item 8: Security mesh covering the bathroom window is not painted on both sides.

Investigator’s Observation: It was observed that the security mesh at the bathroom window was not painted on both side and is showing signs of rust. See picture 7.

Governing Rule:

Complaint Item 9: Investigator’s Observation: Governing Rule:

Complaint Item 10: Investigator’s Observation: Governing Rule:

5. No evidence was produced at hearing to dispute the Inspector’s findings. Rather, Respondent stated that he is willing to fix the issues. However, copies of correspondence between the parties were included with the Complainant’s complaint[2] that indicate that Respondent was hostile and uncooperative with Complainant. Therefore, the parties should not be required to be together. 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) 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. 4. 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. In addition to the above-noted suspensions, Respondent’s record shows that he has 5 open complaints against him. 5. In this case, the Complainants have established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(7) because the work he performed was objectively found not to meet workmanship standards by the Registrar’s Inspector and the Inspector’s undisputed findings were consistent with the other information adduced at hearing. RECOMMENDED DECISION In view of the foregoing, it is recommended, commencing on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, that Respondent’s license (License No: 282600) shall be suspended for 3 days.

If the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings certifies this Administrative Law Judge Decision, the effective date of the order will be five days from the date of certification. Done this day, December 15, 2015.

/s/ Dorinda M. Lang Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors ----------------------- [1] See case file under Rcc100 Jobsite Inspection Notes1.rtf. [2] See case file under Intake Complaint Submittal1.pdf.

-----------------------

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