ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-02127-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-08-24

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Coleen Lacy ,

COMPLAINANT

J D's Home Repair LLC

License No. ROC 204048,

RESPONDENT

No. 2023A-02127-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 1, 2023

APPEARANCES: Colleen Lacy, Complainant, appeared on her own behalf. Investigator Lisa Melton appeared on behalf of the Registrar of Contractors. Respondent failed to appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Del Vecchio

FINDINGS OF FACT

J D's Home Repair LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 204048 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about April 9, 2022, Coleen Lacy (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, cut and installation of several interior doors.

On or about February 21, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Lisa Melton. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Melton issued a written directive to Respondent that provided as follows:

After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on May 15, 2023.

RESTRICTIONS

• You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.

• If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons1, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Investigator’s Observation: Frame should be plum and level. Doors are not required to be plum or level. This door did not rub and stood open. Reveal may need final adjustments which have not been made as hardware (not in Respondent’s scope) has not been installed. Door shut completely and did not spring open during the inspection, however, hardware is required for the door to operate correctly. Mortis is not required to be squared or of same depth. Hinge should operate as intended and be relatively flush with frame. Frames do show the existing mortis for prior hinges and strike plates, which is typical to new door install as an exact fit with prior hinge/screw patter cannot be expected. Scope of work does not include repair of existing mortis. The Registrar has no authority in regard to the type of door purchased by the Respondent. Respondent did cut the cross bore on this new door off center. Respondent should correct this error by appropriate methods. Respondent also acknowledged that they damaged a tile in the guest bathroom. Respondent should also correct the damaged tile by appropriate methods. (See JSI Photos #14 - #21)

Governing Rule:

ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Compliance Item 4: The contractor cut the master bedroom door too narrow as door could be pushed past the door stop on the jamb. Contractor was asked to replace the door and he refused; The contractor cut up paint sticks with a knife on the existing tile floor, which scratched and gauged the entry tile to master bedroom. ; Contractor took the paint sticks he cut up on the tile floor, used them as shims and placed them behind the hinges on the master bedroom door and the door is still too short. ; Daylight can be seen through the master bedroom door due to the contractor not cutting the door properly and he was advised the door was unacceptable.; The master bedroom door is not plum, centered or level and is cut too short; The mortise for the hinges on the master bedroom door were cut crooked and at different depths by the contractor.;

Investigator’s Observation: Frame should be plum and level. Doors are not required to be plum or level. This door did not rub and stood open. Mortis is not required to be squared or of same depth. Wood and/or cardboard are acceptable materials for shimming at hinge. The hinges on this door extend far past the frame. The reveal on the hinge side of the door is excessive with light showing at hinged frame/door connection when closed. This could not be corrected by adjustments. Respondent should correct these conditions by appropriate methods. (See JSI Photos #22 - #27)

Governing Rule:

Compliance Item 7: The contractor broke the drip system tubing in the front yard where he set up a table saw under the palm trees and walked through the bushes, plants and all over the drip system.;

Investigator’s Observation: Respondent acknowledged that he damaged the drip system. Respondent should repair the damage they caused by appropriate methods.

Governing Rule:

All errors in original.

Investigator Melton issued an amended written directive to Respondent that provided as follows:

Compliance Item 3: The mortise for the hinges on the guest bathroom door were cut crooked and at different depths by the contractor. The guest bathroom door does not shut completely and springs back open. The guest bathroom door installed by the contractor is not level.; Contractor had to replace the guest bathroom door as he cut it too short. ; Contractor did not replace the guest bathroom door with equal value door, and cut the cross bore off center. Contractor did not mortise for the door latch on the guest bathroom door. Contractor cracked a ceramic bathroom tile in guest bathroom.; The contractor cut up the guest bathroom pre-existing jamb which was already mortised for hinges. ; Respondent did cut the cross bore on this new door off center. Respondent should correct this error by appropriate methods. Respondent also acknowledged that they damaged a tile in the guest bathroom. Respondent should also correct the damaged tile by appropriate methods. Respondent should ensure that ALL interior doors they have installed do not rub.

Compliance Item 4: The contractor cut the master bedroom door too narrow as door could be pushed past the door stop on the jamb. Contractor was asked to replace the door and he refused. The contractor cut up paint sticks with a knife on the existing tile floor, which scratched and gauged the entry tile to master bedroom. ; Contractor took the paint sticks he cut up on the tile floor, used them as shims and placed them behind the hinges on the master bedroom door and the door is still too short. ; Daylight can be seen through the master bedroom door due to the contractor not cutting the door properly and he was advised the door was unacceptable.; The master bedroom door is not plum, centered or level and is cut too short; The mortise for the hinges on the master bedroom door were cut crooked and at different depths by the contractor.;

All errors in original.

Following the issuance of the amended written directive, on May 12, 2023, Respondent arrived on site to make corrective work, however, they were unable to complete the corrective work that day. On May 15, 2023, the final day of the deadline, Complainant emailed Investigator Melton letting her know Respondent requested access to the jobsite, however, due to her work schedule she was unable to accommodate the last minute request. After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Melton scheduled a compliance jobsite inspection for May 26, 2023. On May 26, 2023, Investigator Melton conducted the compliance jobsite inspection and the 3 compliance issues were not complete.

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(B); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Investigator Melton testified consistently with her jobsite inspection notes, written directive, amended written directive, and compliance jobsite inspection notes.

Complainant testified she hired Respondent to install doors. When Respondent began work in the process of installing the doors several tiles were destroyed in Complainant’s house due to Respondent’s carelessness. Complainant testified the doors were cut improperly, off center, and the doors when they were hung left gaps and/or rubbed against the door jams. Complainant testified Respondent’s team improperly cut a door and required a full replacement; after initially refusing, Respondent eventually complied and purchased a new door. However, when Respondent’s team cut the new door they again cut it off center making it impossible for the handle to be installed. Furthermore, Respondent’s team installed the hinges without cutting into the door preventing the hinge from sitting flush. Complainant further testified Respondent used an area of her yard to do the cutting the of doors and as Respondent’s team traveled between the cutting area and the installation area they damaged several tiles in Complainant’s bathroom, trampled her landscaping, and damaged her sprinkler system. On May 8, 2023, Respondent’s employee called Complainant to schedule a time for May 10, 2023, to execute the repairs as directed by Investigator Melton’s written directive. Complainant was unavailable on the day and time requested and it was changed to May 12, 2023. On May 12, 2023, Respondent’s employees attempted to install the hinges of the door but were unable to do so. In nearly 9 hours of work, Respondent’s employees were unable to install and hang 3 doors. Respondent’s employees attempted to return over the weekend, however, it was Mother’s Day weekend and Complainant was therefore unavailable. After the deadline expired, Investigator Melton reached out to Complainant and Complainant informed her the corrective work was not complete.

Respondent failed to appear and therefore was able to provide any testimony.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s License record on August 20, 2023. Such License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 204048 was first issued on February 15, 2005, and is Active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no other open complaints or prior complaints against Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.

Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(B).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Respondent failed to hang Complainant’s doors in accordance with professional industry standards when they failed to inlay the door hinges, improperly cut the holes for the handles off center, and damaged the work site without repairing it. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 204048 for a period of seven days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(E).

It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1101(A)(5), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, August 24, 2023.

/s/ Brian Del Vecchio

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Martín Quezada, Director

Registrar of Contractors

c/o Legal Department

1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105

Phoenix, AZ 85007

[email redacted]

Coleen Lacy

[email redacted]

J D's Home Repair LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff