ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2015A-1972-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2016-01-26

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 13, 2016 APPEARANCES: Kent Millward, Complainant’s Attorney; Ronald Hodge, Complainant; Albert Lee (Bud) Rice and Bill Rash, Respondent’s representatives; Steve Dunn, witness; Stephen Lawton, Registrar of Contractors Inspector; Sharon Hodge and John Hein, observers ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Complainant hired Respondent to install solar panels on his roof. When Respondent broke some tiles, Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors. Stephen Lawton, Registrar of Contractors Inspector, issued a Directive from the Registrar ordering Respondent to correct by appropriate means with closely matching roof tiles. 2. When Respondent proposed to replace the tile with the closest match roof tiles available, Complainant did not accept the proffered correction. Complainant argued that Respondent should have to replace the entire roof because the existing tiles are no longer made and his homeowners association has not accepted the replacement tiles. 3. Complainant argued that the tiles do not match closely enough. However, the existing tiles are a variety of colors and the replacement tiles are as close a match as currently is available. 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 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. In this case, Complainant has not established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) because, even though tiles were broken during installation, Respondent was willing and able to make an appropriate correction and Complainant did not accept it. RECOMMENDED DECISION Based on the foregoing considerations, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge hereby recommends that Complainant’s complaint be denied and dismissed in its entirety. 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, January 26, 2016.

/s/ Dorinda M. Lang Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director Registrar of Contractors -----------------------

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