ALJDEC

97F-M1933-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1998-04-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: April 2, 1998 APPEARANCES: Complainant appeared personally. Respondent appeared through its partner and qualifying party, Michael Myers. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________

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

Complainant hired Respondent to perform various items of landscaping at her Mesa residence. On June 26, 1997, Complainant filed a complaint against Respondent with the Registrar of Contractors alleging deficient workmanship by Respondent. Complainant filed her complaint to express her displeasure with Respondent’s workmanship. As a result of Complainant filing her complaint, the Registrar of Contractors’ assigned inspector performed a jobsite inspection at Complainant’s residence on August 14, 1997 to observe and evaluate the specified allegations of deficient workmanship. The inspector’s jobsite inspection resulted in the issuance of a Corrective Work Order dated August 19, 1997, which directed the Respondent to repair the water feed to Complainant’s front yard sprinklers within fifteen days of the issuance of the written directive. The weight of credible and reliable evidence of record supports a finding that Respondent properly complied with the Registrar’s written directive to minimum workmanship standards. It is determined that the remaining allegations contained in Complainant’s complaint either have been repaired to minimum workmanship standards, meet minimum workmanship standards or lack sufficient evidence of record to support a finding that Respondent has violated the State’s contracting laws.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Although Respondent’s performance of landscaping work at Complainant’s residence displeases her, there is insufficient evidence of record to establish that Respondent has violated the provisions of the State’s contracting laws as cited in the citation and complaint. The evidence of record is insufficient to establish that Respondent has violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(7)(23) and (3); namely Rule R4-9-108.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the citation and complaint in this matter be dismissed.

Done this day, April 9, 1998.

_________________________________ BRIAN BRENDAN TULLY Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of April, 1998, to:

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

By _______________________________

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

Office of Administrative Hearings 1700 West Washington, Suite 602 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826