ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2015A-2848-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2016-02-04

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: January 22, 2016 APPEARANCES: Lisa Mina, Complainant; Sean Ferguson, Respondent’s representative; Jim Dimond, Registrar of Contractors Inspector; Walter Chapko, witness ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang _____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Complainant contracted with Respondent to install a chip seal driveway at her home. When Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors, Registrar of Contractors Inspector Jim Dimond conducted a job site inspection on July 30, 2015. Based on the observations he made there, Inspector Dimond issue a Directive from the Registrar ordering Respondent to correct two items. 2. The Directive provides that Respondent shall correct the following items: 1. The chip sealed driveway has thin spots in which dirt is coming through and areas of inadequate rock coverage. The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner. 2. The respondent’s contract does not meet the statutory requirements listed in ARS 32-1158.B. The respondent it to submit a compliant contract with the time frame listed. 3. Inspector Dimond testified at the hearing that Respondent has taken no action to make the required corrections. 4. Respondent’s representative testified that he was not paid for the job and Complainant gave him a fake phone number so he couldn’t call her. He said he went to the home to fix the driveway and Complainant would not let him do it. This was because the time had passed for repairing the job. He said he was late to make the corrections because he had been out of town at his son’s wedding. However, he disagreed that the driveway needed correcting. 5. Complainant testified that she didn’t let Respondent correct the driveway because the time allotted by the Directive had passed and she didn’t have time to let him work. She said she had changed phones and had not given Respondent a fake phone number. Her father testified that he saw the driveway and dirt shows through the chip seal. 6. Regarding the issue of whether Respondent’s contract meets statutory requirements, Respondent’s representative stated that he is having his contracts rewritten. He did not dispute that he has not submitted a compliant contract. 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 (22) 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. See A.A.C. R4-9-108. 4. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) 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. 5. The Registrar of Contractors may consider the prior record of a contractor in any disciplinary proceeding. A.A.C. R4-9-117. At the time of this writing, Respondent’s license status is suspended for lack of bond. 6. In this case, Complainant has established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) and (22) when Respondent paved Complainant’s driveway in such a way that dirt showed through and when Respondent failed to correct the issue. Respondent also violated A.R.S. § 32- 1154(A)(22) by failing to submit a compliant contract to the Registrar of Contractors. RECOMMENDED DECISION Based on the foregoing considerations, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge hereby recommends that Respondent’s license (No. 282385) be suspended for one day.

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, February 4, 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