ALJDEC

97F-H0186-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1998-05-05

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

| |§| | |OLIVIA H. HERNANDEZ, |§|CASE NO.: H97-0186 | | |§| | |Complainant, |§|DOCKET NO.: 97F-H0186-ROC | | |§| | |-v- |§| | | |§|RECOMMENDED | |License No. 088018, Class B- of |§|DECISION AND ORDER | |RAMSEY HOME DEVELOPMENT, INC., |§| | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| | | |§| | | |§| | | |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: May 1, 1998. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared on her own behalf. The Respondent appeared through its president, Steve Ramsey. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

This matter came on for hearing on May, 1998. The Complainant appeared on her own behalf and the Respondent appeared through its president, Steve Ramsey. Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is the holder of a Class B- License issued by the Registrar of Contractors.

2. This is a residential matter where the Respondent constructed a new residence for the Complainant.

3. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to correct its work despite repeated requests that it do so. The Complainant then filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors.

4. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection and issued a written corrective work order directing the Respondent to perform designated corrective work on the Complainant’s residence.

5. The parties were in sharp disagreement as to whether the Respondent had properly complied with the terms and conditions of the corrective work order.

6. The assigned agency inspector conducted a second on-site inspection and found that the Respondent had complied with the terms of the corrective work order and moved to close the matter. The Complainant disagreed with the Inspector’s findings and requested a formal hearing.

7. The only item of dispute presented at hearing related to the issue of landscaping of the Complainant’s front yard.

8. There was no dispute that the Respondent did not perform any landscaping on the Complainant’s front yard. However, the parties were in sharp dispute as to whether the Respondent had any obligation to landscape the front yard.

9. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the Respondent does advertise front landscaping as an available option but there was no credible evidence that the Complainant had selected, and paid for, the front landscaping option nor was there any credible evidence that the Respondent had agreed, in any manner, to install front landscaping at the Complainant’s residence.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The credible evidence of record supports a finding that the Respondent has complied with the terms and conditions of the corrective work order issued by the Registrar of Contractors.

2. The credible evidence of record does not support any findings that the Respondent has any obligation to install, or reimburse for the installation of, front landscaping at the Complainant’s residence.

3. The credible evidence of record does not support any findings that the Respondent has violated any of the charged code provisions.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that Citation Number H97- 0186, together with the complaint upon which it is based, be closed.

Dated this 8th day of May, 1998.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of May, 1998 to:

Michael P. Goldwater, Director Attn: Joyce Armijo Registrar of Contractors 800 W. Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

Transmitted by:

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