ALJDEC

97F-T1125-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1998-01-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS | |(| | |ROGER PRILLIP, |(|Case No.: T97-1125 | | |(| | |Complainant, |(|Docket No.: 97F-T1125-ROC | | |(| | |vs. |(| | | |(|Recommended | |License No. 115520, Class C-39 of|(|Decision and Order | |John Edward Copeland, d.b.a., |(| | |AMPLE AIR (IND.), |(| | | |(| | |Respondent. |(| | | |(| | | |(| | | |(| |

HEARING: January 5th, 1998, 1:30 p.m. Appearances: The Complainant, Roger Prillip, appeared in his own behalf. The Respondent was represented by the owner, John Edward Copeland. Administrative Law Judge: Grant Winston

This matter was brought on for administrative hearing on Monday, January 5th, 1998. The Complainant, Roger Prillip, appeared in his own behalf. The Respondent appeared through the owner, John Edward Copeland. Testimony was given and other evidence admitted, and based on the record taken as a whole, the following recommended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACTS

1. The Respondent herein, John Edward Copeland, doing business as Ample Air, is and at all times material hereto was, a contractor licensed in the State of Arizona, holding Class C-39 (Air Conditioning & Refrigeration, Including Solar) License Number 115520.

2. The Complainant herein, Roger Prillip, is the Property Manager and owner’s representative of the property which is the subject of this complaint. The property is owned by one Shawn Barber. The property is rental property which was leased and occupied by tenants in the Spring of 1997, when the Complainant was informed that the existing air conditioning unit was not functioning at an acceptable level.

3. Complainant and Respondent entered into a verbal agreement whereby the Respondent was to replace the air conditioning system with a either a new heat pump or a new system. As there is no written contract between the parties, and as the parties disagree as to almost everything that was said, few facts are supported by evidence sufficient enough to find them. Practically all that can be found as facts are that Complainant informed Respondent that there was not an acceptable level of air conditioning in the dwelling; that he wanted a new air conditioner installed; that Respondent agreed to replace the existing air conditioner with some new fixture that would perform adequately, and that the agreed upon price was $2,750.00. Beyond those sketchy facts neither party has much evidence to prove what was said other than their own testimony which is contradicted by the opposing party at every turn.

4. Respondent removed the two-ton air conditioner which was aside the house on the concrete slab on the ground, and installed a three-ton heat pump on or about May 9th, 1997, on the roof of the dwelling. Respondent had failed to obtain a proper permit from the local authorities for the job. The $2,750.00 contract price was paid in full.

5. Soon after the heat pump was installed--within a couple of days--the Complainant was contacted by a representative of the Reddington Hills Homeowners’ Association. He was informed that the heat pump on the roof of the house would have to be removed as its presence there violated the Association’s Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions. Complainant testified that he told Respondent’s worker before installation that the new unit had to be where the old unit was. Respondent’s worker testified that he told Complainant before installation that the new heat pump would be installed on the roof. This is another example of the swearing contest that was in this hearing. In any event, the new unit on the roof had to come down.

6. Respondent’s crew removed the new unit from the roof. It is found that when they did this they caused some damage to the roof, particularly the plywood and shingles. There is insufficient evidence to find that Complainant’s claim that the Respondent’s workers caused a leak in the pipes of the house is fact.

7. Respondent then installed a unit where the old unit had been. However, it is found that the new unit was not a new unit as had been part of the basis of the parties’ bargain. This factual finding is amply supported by the testimonies of the Registrar of Contractors’ Inspector assigned to this Complaint, Mr. James R. Morris, and the testimony of Mr. Diego Sosa, Service Manager of Southwest Comfort Air, who had inspected the unit.

8. Complainant filed this complaint with the Registrar of Contractors on June 27th, 1997. Mr. Morris conducted his job-site inspection on July 16th, 1997, and issued his written Corrective Work Order on July 18th, 1997. Mr. Morris ordered that the Respondent within fifteen days was to: 1. Obtain permits and have the work inspected; 2. Remove the heat pump from the roof, and install an appropriate unit on the ground where the former unit had been; 3. Hire appropriately licensed contractors to repair the roof where the unit had been installed, including electrical, carpentry and others in order to restore roof to its original condition, and 4. Complete the project according to all contract agreements, prints, plans, specifications, and recommendations, and in conformity to good workmanship practices, industry standards, and applicable codes.

9. Respondent subsequently obtained a building permit, but the work had not passed final inspection by the time of this hearing.

10. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior license record with the Registrar of Contractors.

Conclusions of Law

1. This hearing was held under authority of and pursuant to A.R.S. §32- 1156, and A.R.S. §41-1092.

2. The Respondent herein is charged with possible violations of A.R.S. §32-1154.A.1.,. 7., 23., and 3., namely A.A.C. R4-9-108 (poor workmanship).

3. The preponderance of evidence of record supports the conclusion that the Respondent violated A.R.S. §32-1154.A.7. (wrongful only), 23., and 3., namely R4-9-108 (poor workmanship), but did not violate subsection 1. thereof.

Recommended Order

In view of the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that Respondent’s Class C-39 license be suspended until such time as Respondent has replaced the existing air conditioning unit on the ground with a same or comparable unit acceptable to the Complainant that is a new unit, and provides proof to the satisfaction of the agency inspector that the unit is a new unit; contracts with appropriately licensed contractors to repair the roof as ordered by the Inspector, and causes said repairs to be made to the satisfaction of the agency inspector, and obtains a final inspection approval on the work from the local authorities, and performs all work (or has the work performed) in accordance with good workmanship practices, acceptable industry standards, and per all applicable codes, as set forth by the agency Inspector in his Corrective Work Order. In the alternative it is ordered that if, on or before the effective date of this order, the Respondent has performed or caused to be performed the above-described corrective work, then no license suspension take place, and in lieu of suspension Respondent’s Class C-39 license merely be placed on disciplinary probation for a period of 90 days. Dated this 12th day of January, 1998.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ Grant Winston Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of January, 1998, to:

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

Transmitted by:

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