ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

2016A-1893-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2016-10-24

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Ronald William Ensley,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Bill's Awnings and Construction Co.

DBA: Bill's Awning and Construction Co. ,

License No: 266610, 090162

RESPONDENT.

No. 2016A-1893-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 5, 2016

APPEARANCES: Ronald Ensley, Complainant; Dan Tharp, Respondent’s representative; Beau Cruz, Registrar of Contractors Investigator

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Dorinda M. Lang

_____________________________________________________________________

After filing a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors, Complainant established violations of Arizona law governing building contractors. Based on the evidence at hearing, it is recommended that Respondent’s licensed be suspended for one day.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Complainant filed a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors concerning numerous problems with Respondent’s performance of a contract to re-roof Complainant’s home. A Registrar of Contractors Investigator confirmed several workmanship issues on the home and some areas where the manufacturer’s recommendations had not been followed. He issued a Directive from the Registrar directing Respondent to correct the issues. Respondent did not correct the work.

The Registrar of Contractors also issued a warning letter to Respondent regarding the sufficiency of his contract forms. The Registrar of Contractors Investigator testified that the contract between the parties failed to set forth a payment plan and failed to inform Complainant in bold lettering his right to file a grievance with the Registrar of Contractors.

Respondent does not dispute that the workmanship issues are valid but he did not correct the work. He stated at hearing that he cannot afford to correct the work. He argued that the roof does not leak. He did not dispute that his contracts do not contain all the elements required by law.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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.

The Citation issued by the Registrar of Contractors in this matter alleged potential violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2), (3) (specifically A.A.C. R4-9-108), (12)(specifically A.R.S. § 32-1124(B)), and (22).

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for departure from or disregard of plans or specifications or building codes without consent of the owner or his or her representative.

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”. One such rule in the Arizona Administrative Code requires contractors to meet minimum workmanship standards in the projects they undertake. A.A.C. R4-9-108.

A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) provides grounds for suspension or revocation of a contractor’s license for failure to comply with provisions of that chapter. A.R.S. § 32-1124(B) requires contractors to display their license number and the acronym “ROC” on the premises of their projects and on all documents they employ.

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 Directive from the Registrar without valid justification and within a reasonable period of time.

In this case, the evidence has established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2), (3),(12) and (22) when its representative admitted that the work did not meet workmanship standards and that Respondent did not correct it and when he offered no evidence to dispute that manufacturer’s instructions had not been followed and his contract did not contain the minimum elements required by law. Unfortunately, not having enough money to make corrections is not a legally recognized excuse for poor workmanship or any of the other alleged violations. Therefore, Complainant having established these violations, it is appropriate to discipline Respondent’s license.

Respondent’s license history is not significant for violations or complaints. Therefore, a brief suspension is recommended.

RECOMMENDED DECISION

Based on the foregoing considerations, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge hereby recommends that Respondent’s license (License No: 266610, 090162)

be suspended for a period of 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, October 24, 2016.

/s/ Dorinda M. Lang

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Jeffrey Fleetham, Director

Registrar of Contractors